Does God Transcend Human Language? Sunday, Mar 17 2013 

John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

 When confronted with Nicene Monarchism, which some see to be an overly rational view of God, people will often complain that I am erroneously  putting God into human categories of language. This I will term Clarkian Univocalism.  I do not apologize for this. However, there does need to be some clarification and then defense of this practice.

First, by way of clarification, I hold to the Analogy of Proportion (Which allows univocal revelation) not the traditional Analogy of Proportionality (Which does not allow univocal revelation). The categories of divine and human are not mutually exclusive: Apophaticism. The categories of divine and human are also not Jointly exhaustive: An absolute Cataphaticism. The categories of divine and human proportionally overlap at the level of intellect and even at this level we do not have a full exhaustion. The exact area where divine and human ontology overlap is the objects of God’s knowledge. I have explained this in detail here.

Now by way of defense I would like to present to the reader why I do believe there needs to be an overlap, not necessarily a joint exhaustion, of the categories of predication-divine and human.

1. The rejection of my Clarkian Univocalism operates off of a materialist view of language. In my 68 Theses Against Jnorm’s Eastern Orthodox Theology Proper: Case Studies in Ad Hoc Reasoning I said,

“30. You quoted Athanasius, “For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux, and composed of parts; and men lose their substance in begetting”

>>> I replied to this here: https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/2321/

If the Son emanates out of the Father, did the Father lose a part of himself that subsequently (whether pertaining to logical or temporal sequence is irrelevant here) constituted the Son?

As a Scripturalist, I follow Dr. Clark’s system of Philosophy and Theology Proper which adhered to a form of Christian Platonism, where the Divine Ideas of Plato become the Ideas and Attributes of God and subsist within him. These Ideas then constitute his being at a fundamental level. They are not created representations of God or his individual attributes. They are God at some fundamental level.   Dr. Clark said in expositing Plato:  “A single body cannot be in several places at once, but any number of men throughout the world can have the same thought at the same time; and if, as is surely the case, the Ideas are more of the nature of thought than of body, the objection is convicted of a false analogy.” Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957,  Fourth edition 2000), 78.

Here then is my Clarkian solution to the Eternal Generation: When I communicate an idea that I affirm myself as constitutive of my own personhood, to another person, and the other person believes it and therefore becomes personally constituted by this thought as well, I lose nothing of myself or my thought in doing so. This is the nature of thought (two people can have the same thought at the same time without losing anything of themselves, per Clark) as opposed to the nature of physical composition and the transference of physical substance from one subject to another. This is analogous (And the analogy that I am appealing to is the analogy of proportion, not the analogy of proportionality) to the eternal generation of the Son. Thus eternal generation is defended and yet again the materialism of Jnorm is exposed.”

See also here and here.

2. The denial of my Clarkian Univocalism is a denial of Plenary Verbal Inspiration. Plenary verbal inspiration posits a form of revelation, where the Holy Ghost guides the writers but at the same time gives them the freedom to express the core meaning of the Spirit in their own words and express their own personalities.  There is an important assumption at the base of this position. Namely, it assumes that men can understand what God is saying.  The dictation theory asserts that God gave men word for word what they were to write with no freedom at all. The assumption here is man’s inability to understand what God is saying but God feels an obligation to dictate the scriptures to men so men do not mess it up. And since men cannot understand the real truth, the scriptures are mere signposts pointing to the true revelation.

3. The denial of my Clarkian Univocalism operates off of a Neo-Platonic system of Ontology where the One is outside of human predication precisely because it does not submit to the distinctions required for propositions. See here.

4. The denial of my Clarkian Univocalism is ipso facto Nestorianism or Adoptionism. It denies the Hypostatic Union. Jules Grisham states in his Felled By “Good Pleasure”. An Examination Of The Condemnation Of The Grammatico Historical Method Of Interpreting Scripture, As It Was Developed In The Exegetical School Of Antioch

“Theodore, then, to his own thinking, was only being consistent when he taught  that the human nature of Jesus was essentially distinct from the divine nature of  the Son-Logos.  Because he understood hypostasis as referring to the concrete instance of a nature (in the sense that a person is a concrete instance, a particular expression, of human nature), and because, according to his fundamental understanding concerning ********the radical “other-ness” of God***********, he insisted that the divine and human natures could not be hypostatically joined without corruption of the divine, Theodore held that there is an inhering dualism in Christ’s person.  Accordingly, he taught that we must think of Christ’s union not as a hypostatic one (that is, of substance) but as a prosopic one (that is, of manifestation and benevolence).  Prosopon means “face,” “role” (referring to drama as well as to social status), or “person,” in the societal-functional sense –i.e., what one does.  And the concept he used to explain how this prosopic union came to be and remains intact is “assumption.” (pg. 27)

5. If God is outside of the categories of human language have we not now made a mockery of the word Truth? If the truth is something outside of our cognitive abilities, we then have no access to truth. We have denied revelation.

6. If God is outside of the categories of human language, and our knowledge is then full of mysteries and paradoxes, this leaves the door open for every religion and cult in the world to do the same thing. It is a rejection of Apologetics.  Every time we bring up a problem with another religion they can now cop-out and say that the before mentioned problem is a mystery outside of human language.

7. If God is outside of the categories of human language, then we have no basis to formulate a creed in order to define Orthodoxy and Heresy.

8. As Rutherford points out in Free Disputation and many others pointed out in describing the Roman Doctrine of Implicit Faith, the Roman System thrives off of the idea that the Common Man cannot understand God. If we make this admission we have set ourselves up to have our consciences submitted to a Pagan Hierarchy. This is fatal because it denies the fundamental principle of the Protestant Reformation: Private Judgment.  If we cannot understand the Trinity then we cannot make a Private Judgment on that Doctrine. We must then submit to the Church, admitting its supremacy to the Conscience.  

9. The Scriptures plainly teach that we can understand God and his revelation. A denial of this is nothing new. Both the Papists and the Anabaptists denied it so that the former could saddle their hierarchy onto the Church and the latter could do away with the first table of the law and bring pietism into the supreme position in Christianity. From my summary of Rutherford’s Free Disputation, One Holy Catholic Church

[Footnoted Quotations are from Rutherford]

Acts 24:16. And herein do I exercise myself to have always a Conscience void of offense toward God, and toward man.

Eph 4:14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Col 2:6  As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

Col 2:7  Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

Heb 6:18  That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Heb 6:19  Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

Luk 1:3  It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Col 2:1  For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;

Col 2:2  That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

Col 2:3  In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Heb 6:1  Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Heb 6:2  Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Heb 5:12  For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Heb 5:13  For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

Heb 5:14  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

1Pe 3:15  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you areason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Eph 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:13  until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. Eph 4:14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; Eph 4:15  but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,

Eph 5:26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Eph 5:27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. [11]

Assertion 1.) “A good conscience is a complete entire thing, as our text saith, both toward God and man; its not to be a moral man in the duties of the second table, and a skeptic in the duties of the first table, not in some few fundamentals, as patrons for liberty of conscience do plead, but in the whole revealed will of God; and therefore the good conscience consisteth in an indivisible point, as they say, the number of four doth, if you add one, or take one from it, you vary the essence, and make it three or five, not four; so Paul taketh in completeness in it, I have all good conscience, either all or none; and a good conscience toward God and man; not a conscience for the streets and the Church, and not for the house, and not for the days Hosanna, and not for eternity; therefore they require an habit to a good conscience, I have exercised myself to have always a good conscience, there is a difference between one song, and the habit of music, and a step and a way, Psal. 119. 133. order, (not my one single step,) but my steps, ym;[‘P in the plural number; to fall on a good word by hazard, and to salute Christ in the by, doth not quit from having an evil conscience; as one wrong step, or extemporary slip, doth not render a believer a man of an ill conscience; the wicked world quarrel with the saints before men, because they cannot live as Angels, but the true and latent cause is because they will not live as Devils, and go with them to the same excess of riot.”[12]

Assertion 2.) “It argues the word of God, of obscurity and darkness, as not being able to instruct us in all truths, and renders it as a nose of wax in all non-fundamentals, histories, narrations, etc… in which notwithstanding the Scripture is as evident, plain, simple, obvious to the lowest capacities in most points, except some few Prophecies, as it is in fundamentals, and lays a blasphemies charge on the Holy Ghost, as if he had written the Scriptures, upon an intention that we should have no assured and fixed knowledge[13]

Obj.) Fallible men cannot be the stewards of infallible knowledge[14]

Ans. 1) “But the wisdom of God (we believe) in the Scripture, is plain, to those that open their eyes, otherwise heresy should not only be no sin, contrary to the word of God, Tit. 3. 10. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2. 1 Tim. 6. 4, 5. 2 Tim. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19. but an innocent apprehension of apparent truth, as there is no guiltiness in an eye vitiated with humors misapprehending colors that are white; and seeing them to be red when they are not so”[15]

Ans. 2) “Papists shall be in better case than we, for though they say that the Scriptures are dark and obscure, and admit of themselves divers and contrary senses, so that we cannot bottom our faith on them, yet the juridicial interpretation of the Church is to men a ground of faith, and that is the ground of faith which the Church giveth, as the only true sense of Scripture.”[16]

Ans. 3) “If any man say to you, lo here is Christ or lo there, believe it not: why if he teach me where Christ is, if I hear not him, I refuse to hear Christ, Matth. 10. 40, 41. Ergo the false Christ is knowable, Tit. 2. 10. An heretic avoid, & c. when Solomon saith, Make not friendship with an angry man, is not the formality of anger in the heart? if any should reply to Solomon, God only knows who is the angry man, who is the patient and meek man, therefore we will make friendship with all men, or with no man. Should any say, there is no such man knowable, should he not contradict the Holy Ghost? So must we say, there is not such a man knowable to a mortal man as a false Prophet, or an heretic; and therefore Paul doth but mock the Philippians, who were not infallible, when he writes to them thus, Beware of dogs; and John when he saith, If any man bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house. Might not Libertines say, God commands us to run the hazard of encroaching upon God’s chair, for who but he who knows the heart can tell who is the heretic, who not: when the Lord rebukes association with Thieves, Robbers, Slanderers, Prov. 1. 11, 12. Ps. 15. 18. holdeth he not forth that the Thief, the Robber, and the Slanderer are knowable?”[17]

Ans 4.) “and because there is no man infallible in taking up the right sense of the Scripture, if ye control the Jew, or put him off his sense of the Old Testament, which yields him this faith, Mary’s son is a false lying Prophet, the Apostles and all the martyrs are but cousening Impostors, yea domineer over the Conscience and force his faith, because ye are not infallible, ye may not condemn the way of any, for ye know not but they be the wheat, and you the tares, for ought that Scripture saith on either side: Never man in this life is sure of his faith and salvation from Scripture, and since the Jew may be wheat, if ye would go to”[18]

Obj.) “But now since the Prophets and Apostles fell asleep, no Magistrate, no Synod is infallible, all men are apt to deceive, and be deceived, for whether in fundamentals or non-fundamentals: none now can challenge Prophetical or Apostolic infallibility”[19]

Ans.) “yea but it holdeth in believing fundamentals, as well as non-fundamentals, for in neither have we Prophetical infallibility and immediate Oracles, and Scripture shows we have as great darkness, blindness of mind, natural fluctuation to believe nothing in supernatural fundamentals in the Gospel, as in non-fundamentals, but with trepidation and doubting of mind, we no more having monopolized the Spirit to us than Sectaries”[20]

e. A tender conscience smacks of popery.

“The causes of a scrupulous conscience are 1. God’s wise and just permission. 2. Satan’s working and acting on a cold, distracted, sad bodily complexion. 3. Ignorance. Weakness of judgment. 4. Immoderate fear troubling reason. 5. Inconstancy of the mind. 6. And withal some tenderness. Gregorius said, bonarum conscientiarum est ibi culpam agnoscere, ubi culpa non est. It is one of the most godly errors, and a sin that smelleth of grace. Papists, miserable comforters, say, a special way to be delivered, is to submit yourself to a superior’s blind command. They say, a Priest was freed of his scruple, when he obeyed Bernard’s bare word, and trusted in it; hearing that, Vade et meâ fide confisus sacrifica, go and upon my faith sacrifice confidently.”[21]

f.  Summary statement

The conscience is to be a complete moral man in both the first and second tables of the law, finding its good intentions from the word of God alone. From this word we know the sins to be repented of and confessed, never to dwell on them again in guilt having been cleansed by Christ’s blood (Heb 10:22).  To those pure in heart having their hearts cleansed by the washing of the Spirit in the new covenant all things are pure, that is, all things are clean regarding abrogated ceremonial dietary laws etc. (Tit 1:15, Rom 14:20). To these laws our conscience is to be strong in its understanding of what God’s moral law requires of us and what it has made free. To the meat sacrificed to idols the moral law remains the same (Ex 34:15).  That is eating meat sacrificed to an idol is a sin if it is done with the knowledge that it was sacrificed to an idol (1 Cor 10: 19-21, 25-28, Rev 2:14, 20). Therefore, the conscience is vital in respect of moral law regarding what it knows and what it does not.  If the conscience does not know the reason for its liberty concerning meats once forbidden in the ceremonial law, the ignorant conscience causes the man to sin if he partakes.  This principle is binding in all areas of life that we are ignorant of.  This however, does not mean that the conscience determines what is right and wrong.  In respect to the ignorant conscience, there are differing degrees of sin on both sides: A grievous sin for partaking of the meat with ignorance and a lesser sin for being ignorant. The foundation of a good conscience is the Bible alone.  A good conscience offers to God only that which he has commanded and never thinks good works can be established by the religious zeal and pretended piety of men.  However, when the conscience acts upon the word of God we should, as it were, reverence the Ambassador as the King.

Decisions of Synods, though they should be examined thoroughly as the noble Bereans examined Paul’s teaching, should be received as binding on the conscience if they be found to be agreeable to scripture.  The conscience is to be fully studied and persuaded of all things taught in the scripture, whether directly or by good and necessary consequence, to be equipped for every good work, not just fundamentals. No matter what experience a tender conscience may have, these experiences have no right to bind the conscience to any man made rule as if the violating of it be sin.  A drunken relative gives no reason to profess alcohol a sin.  A gluttonous friend makes not meat a thing carnal.  A cruel cattle farmer does not make cheeseburgers iniquitous.  Pornography and adultery do not make sex shameful.  Lung cancer does not make moderate tobacco smoking unclean.  Such a conscience reeks of false piety and man made religion.”

10. The rejection of my Clarkian Univocalism relies on Pantheistic and Pagan assumptions of God’s Infinity.  People will say that I cannot put the Infinite into finite categories, not knowing that they are submitting to Pantheism. I have shown this here and here and here.

Ryan Hedrich, do you have anything to add?

The Roman Catholic African-Slave-Trade in England, Under the Disguise of a Protestant Nation and the Protestant Abolishment of the African-Slave-Trade in the 17th Century Saturday, Jun 2 2012 

The Roman Catholic African-Slave-Trade in England, Under the Disguise of a Protestant Nation and the Protestant Abolishment of the African-Slave-Trade in the 17th Century  

As I showed in my previous blog on English Slavery , the legal English involvement in the African slave-trade ceased under Protestant Queen Elizabeth. William O. Blake in his The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern continues with the History,

“The first attempt by the British to establish a regular trade on the African coast, was made in the year 1618, when James L granted an exclusive charter to Sir Robert Rich, and some other merchants ofLondon, for raising a joint stock company to trade to Guinea. The profits not being found to answer their expectations, the charter was suffered to expire.

In 1631, Charles I. granted a second charter to Richard Young, Sir Ken elm Digby, and sundry merchants, to enjoy the exclusive trade to the coast of Guinea, between Cape Blanco and the Cape of Good Hope, for a period of thirty-one years. As the English had by this time began the settlement of plantations in theWest Indies, Negroes were in general demand; and the company erected on the African coast, forts and warehouses, to protect their commerce. Private adventurers and interlopers of all nations broke in upon them, and forced the trade open, and so it continued until after the restoration of Charles II.

In 1662, a third exclusive company was incorporated, consisting of many persons of high rank and distinction, at the head of whom was the king’s brother, the Duke of York. This company undertook to supply the English plantations with 3000 negroes, annually. In 1664, all the Dutch forts on the African coast but two were captured by the English; but in the following year they were retaken by the Dutch Admiral, De Ruyter, who also seized one of the forts belonging to the English company. In 1672, the company surrendered their charter.[FOR A BETTER ONE!-DS]

The same year, 1672, the fourth and last exclusive company was established. It was dignified by the title of the Royal African Company, and had among the stockholders, the king, the duke ofYork, and many other persons of high rank. The capital was £111,000, and was raised in nine months. They paid £35,000 for the forts of the old company.[SEE!-DS] Besides the traffic in slaves, they imported into England great quantities of gold. In 1673, 50,000 guineas, (named from the country), were coined. They also imported redwood, ivory, wax, &cut ., and- exported to the value of £70,000, annually, in English goods.

The revolution of 1688 upset the exclusive privileges of this company. By the 1st William and Mary, the African, and all other exclusive companies not authorized by parliament were abolished. The company, however, continued its operations.”

[Pg. 107]

It is interesting that the year that Englandconsidered the African slave trade (1618) was the beginning of the 30 Years War. As we see from Blake, slavery does not flourish under James I but it was considered. Elizabeth did no such thing. This is indicative of James’ personality. He did in fact reject papal authority and the Jesuits did try to assassinate him with the Gunpowder plot. However, it was only because of his personal prerogative to sustain his powers as an absolute Monarch and head of the Church. He persecuted Protestant Puritans in England and he created havoc amongst the Protestants in Scotland. In 1567-1617- King James VI plotted against the Reformation.  James VI passed the Black Acts (1584) to impose royal authority over the Kirk between 1584 and 1603. This Act prohibited ecclesiastical assemblies without the King’s consent; thus attacking previous Protestant legislation. Between 1618-1621 James VI increased his pressures against the Reformation. The Reformed Presbytery says,

“Thus, after several former attempts to this effect, was episcopacy again established, and prelates lording over GOD’S heritage advanced, imposing their Popish ceremonies, which in that pretended assembly convened at Perth, anno 1618, were enacted, and afterwards ratified in a subsequent parliament, in the year 1621.”

I understand that the Protestant Elizabethan “Golden Age” flourished under his reign but James was no Protestant Christian. He was a Crypto-Catholic at heart. He openly rejected the Protestant upbringing he received from George Buchanan with his wicked Black Acts.

Charles I was also no Protestant. He was a crypto-catholic. He continued his Father’s attack on the Scottish Reformation through his Crypto-Catholic tyrant Bishop William Laud. In 1637-1638  the Covenanter Protestants  inScotlandrose up against the efforts of their King and renewed the Reformed National Covenant in March of 1638. Charles I refused to allow Protestants to officially assemble inEnglandfor the purpose of creating Religious Reform and Uniformity through extensive dialogue and debate. The Protestants were forced to pass a bill through the House of Commons with the agreement of the House of Lords without the King’s consent in June of 1643.  In 1643 the Westminster Assembly began. The Scottish Covenanters continued to resist the impositions of popish ceremonies upon their nation and in 1646 Charles I surrendered to the Covenanter army after his General Montrose was defeated atNewark.

Later, Charles I would be beheaded by Cromwell (The filthy atheistic bastard; a curse upon his soul: https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/oliver-cromwell/) who was rebuked by his enemies the Scottish Covenanters, whom he murdered in no small number, for doing so. And guess what, he didn’t abolish African slavery.

Charles II was also no Protestant; that wretch, that covenant breaking, treasonous, backstabbing bastard comes to the throne at his Father’s execution in 1649. Charles II was appointed King upon condition of him taking the Covenants. The Reformed Presbytery states,

“Upon which the parliament of Scotland, on the 5th of February, 1649, caused proclaim his son Charles II, king of Great Britain, France, Ireland (which title he had assumed himself at the Hague, as soon as the report of his father’s death came to his ears), promising their fidelity and defence of his person and authority, according to the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant. And in the same time declaring, that before he be admitted to the exercise of the royal power, he shall give security for the preservation and maintenance of the true reformed religion, and unity of the kingdoms, now established, by laws both civil and ecclesiastical, according to the covenants: which security for religion and liberty, at the first proposed treaty at the Hague, he deferred to grant, and afterward postponed the signing of the treaty at Breda, when everything was agreed upon, from the great hopes he entertained of accomplishing his design, without acquiescing with their demand from Montrose’s expedition, whom he had sent into Scotland with an army, in order to prepare his way into that kingdom, by devastation with fire and sword. But this intrigue not succeeding, he found himself obliged to comply with all their proposals, and signed the treaty. This treaty the king did in effect break, before he left Breda, by communicating after the Episcopal manner, contrary to the express warning and remonstrance of the commissioners from the church of Scotland, who went to him, and showed him his sin in so doing, and how inconsistent it was with his own concessions in the sent treaty; and an evidence that he had no intention to perform what he had agreed to, but dissembled with GOD and man; and he, on the other hand, put them off with sham excuses and professions; and so, from their too much credulity to his fraudulent professions and promises all along, they brought him over to Scotland, and before his landing in this kingdom, he takes the covenant at Spey, on the 23rd of June, 1649, by his oath subjoined in allowance and approbation of the Covenants National, and Solemn League, obliging himself faithfully to prosecute the ends thereof in his station and calling; and for himself and successors, he shall agree to all acts of parliament enjoining the same, and establishing presbyterial church government, the directory for worship, confession of faith and catechisms, in the kingdom of Scotland, as approven by the General Assemblies of this kirk, and parliament of this kingdom. And for their further satisfaction, according to the act of the West Kirk, Edinburgh, August 13th, 1650, approven the same day by the committee of estates, he emitted a declaration at Dunfermline, by profession, fully and heartily acquiescing with all their demands; all which afterward served for nothing but as a lasting monument of his horrid perjury, wicked dissimulation, and mockery of God and man. And even then, when this declaration was published, he had formed a design for bringing in the enemies of the covenant, and work of reformation, both into the army and judicatories, and for dividing the Presbyterians among themselves. And this he effectually managed for both foresaid ends, by the public resolutions, on the 14th of December, that same year, 1650. This woful and prime step of defection, so contrary to the word, and injurious to the work of God, was faithfully testified against by many, both ministers, and whole presbyteries, who were sensible of the present sinfulness and evil of it, and foresaw the bitter and dismal consequences that followed upon it.”

As Blake mentioned, Charles II had a brother, the Duke of York (Later King James II), who was a flaming Roman Catholic and a persecutor of Protestants. He enjoyed killing Scottish Covenanters and set up the infamous Royal African Company devoted to the African Slave Trade. Later, when James the Duke of York becomes King, he pursues anti-Protestant Legislation in proportions in much greater degree than even his wicked predecessors.  James II allowed Romanists into the highest offices in government, welcomed the Papacy’s envoys, and even had a Jesuit confessor named Edward Petre! Even his crypto-catholic Anglican brothers objected to this. Now the Jesuits were in control of the English slave trade of the Africans that could now be blamed on the Protestants while all the time an open Romanist and Jesuit conspirator pulled all the strings. (They didn’t have the Internet)

Yet what happened when the Protestant King and Queen William and Mary came to power in England? The African slave trade is abolished and made illegal.

Why was I not taught this in Public School as I was being made ashamed to be a member of White Anglo Protestant Culture? I’ll tell you why. The Roman Catholic Hierarchy controls the American Educational system for the purpose of destroying the White Anglo Culture that overturned and stripped the Papacy of its Power and Influence in the world 5 centuries ago. They have designed a straw man group of evil white men that they have successfully convinced the world were White Anglo Protestants. THEY WERE NOT!

Oliver Cromwell Friday, Apr 27 2012 

I constantly run into Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people who like to throw Oliver Cromwell into the face of Calvinist Protestants. This stems from an utter ignorance of the Calvinist Reformation. Oliver Cromwell was an enemy of the Calvinist Reformation. He was the man that fought against the Scottish Presbyterians and fought to keep the Westminster Standards from becoming established in England. When the Scottish Resolutioners compromised the Covenants with Charles I, God delivered these apostates into Cromwell’s hands.   Over all, the Resolutioner apostasy angered God enough to deliver the entire Covenanter movement into enemy hands in general. Oliver Cromwell is not in the Calvinist Reformation. He repealed Calvinist reforms and introduced atheistic principles of pluralism and utter toleration that came to be very popular in secular society.  This was the exact opposite of what the Calvinist Reformation believed.  Here is a good BBC Documentary on the history of Scotland. On this issue watch from 21:00 to about 27:00:

The Scriptural and Scottish View of the Judicial Law Explained by Sherman Isbell; Polygamy Case Example Saturday, Nov 12 2011 

I would like to offer my readers this treatise by Sherman Isbell (Of the Free Church of Scotland [cont.]) titled The Divine Law of Political Israel Expired: General Equity from the FCOSC website The Westminster Presbyterian. This is a masterful exposition of the Westminster view of the Old Testament Judicial Law in opposition to modern Theonomy. As a reference, if anyone is wondering what alternative manual on Biblical Law they should turn to instead of Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law I would suggest Anthony Burgess’ Vindiciae Legis : or, A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, from the Errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians (1647) which is a series of thirty lectures preached in London during the Westminster Assembly. You can download the book here from SWRB for 5 bucks!

Isbell makes a very important  point in correction of the Anchoretic and Eastern Orthodox view of the Law.  An Eastern orthodox friend of mine who is always trying to convert me to Eastern Orthodoxy  argues against the Puritan doctrine of the Christian Sabbath in defense of his man made holy days (The Liturgical Year):

“Drake, here are a few ancient canons showing the Sabbath was not Sunday, the Lord’s Day.

“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s Day; and if they can, resting then as Christians.” Synod of Laodicea, Canon XXIX

“During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lords Day only” Synod of Laodicea, Canon XLIX.

“On all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord’s Day and the holy day of Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be said.” Qinisext, Canon LII…

The adultery commandment is different in the OT which did not forbid polygamy and concubinage, whereas the NT forbids them. The essence of the command is inseparable to it’s form in the covenant it is given. How to keep the Sabbath is spelled out in the OT, you do not do this. The church canons reveal that Sunday as Sabbath is not known to them…

[Drake] Polygamy was forbidden in the OT.
Malachi 2:14-15. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

[Eastern Orthodox Friend] Polygamy was provided for under Mosaic Law (Exod. 21:10; Lev. 18:18; Deut. 21:15) The OT commands are moral because obedience is required under that covenant. Moral/ceremonial is a false dichotomy.”

With reference to Exo 21:10 my Eastern orthodox friend forgets Jesus’ words, Matthew 19:8… Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. These Mosaic clauses do not represent moral law. Isbell says,

“The theonomists’ denial of the more substantial distinction made by the Confession is evident in that they do not appeal to the moral law as the standard by which to separate what remains obligatory in the judicial law from what does not. In the Confession’s hermeneutic, the moral law is the measure for identifying the moral element in the ceremonial and judicial laws. Accordingly, whatever in the Mosaic judicial laws was a sufferance of the hardness of men’s hearts, and thus came short of the righteousness in the moral law, has no enduring relevance. Moreover, in the large extent to whichIsrael was placed under added restriction with a view to preserving them until the coming of Christ, civil requirements which go beyond the general ethical teaching found elsewhere in Scripture have no enduring obligation.

Theonomists deny this discriminating function to the moral law. They will not accept that the judicial laws should be subjected to a superior standard as to what constitutes righteousness, because theonomists seek the standard of righteousness in the judicial laws themselves. [Just like the Orthodox] ”

My friend has shown once again that theological error is usually shared by extremely adverse systems of theology. One would think that Theonomic Presbyterians and the Eastern Orthodox have nothing in common. Think again. Assuming that righteousness was to be found in the judicial law itself is the common mistake of both Theonomists and Eastern Christians. Polygamy was immoral but was allowed under that typical,  ceremonial and CARNAL administration Heb 9:10 (Which the Easterners operate off of copiously in the public worship services) precisely because it was carnal.

With reference to Lev 18:18 Jamieson Fausset Brown says,

“18. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her–The original is rendered in the Margin,”neither shalt thou take one wife to another to vex her,” and two different and opposite interpretations have been put upon this passage. The marginal construction involves an express prohibition of polygamy; and, indeed, there can be no doubt that the practice of having more wives than one is directly contrary to the divine will. It was prohibited by the original law of marriage, and no evidence of its lawfulness under the Levitical code can be discovered, although Moses–from “the hardness of their hearts” [ Matthew 19:8 , 10:5 ]–tolerated it in the people of a rude and early age. The second interpretation forms the ground upon which the “vexed question” has been raised in our times respecting the lawfulness of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. Whatever arguments may be used to prove the unlawfulness or inexpediency of such a matrimonial relation, the passage under consideration cannot, on a sound basis of criticism, be enlisted in the service; for the crimes with which it is here associated warrant the conclusion that it points not to marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, but with a sister in the wife’s lifetime, a practice common among the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, and others.”

With reference to Deut 21:15 Jamieson Fausset Brown says,

“15-17. If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated–In the original and all other translations, the words are rendered “have had,” referring to events that have already taken place; and that the “had” has, by some mistake, been omitted in our version, seems highly probable from the other verbs being in the past tense–“hers that was hated,” not “hers that is hated”; evidently intimating that she (the first wife) was dead at the time referred to. Moses, therefore, does not here legislate upon the case of a man who has two wives at the same time, but on that of a man who has married twice in succession, the second wife after the decease of the first; and there was an obvious necessity for legislation in these circumstances; for the first wife, who was hated, was dead, and the second wife, the favorite, was alive; and with the feelings of a stepmother, she would urge her husband to make her own son the heir. This case has no bearing upon polygamy, which there is no evidence that the Mosaic code legalized.”

Separation of Church and State in George Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, ed. Drake Tuesday, Jul 26 2011 

Separation of Church and State in George Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, ed. Drake

A Timeline of the Scottish Reformation By Drake Shelton Sunday, Jul 24 2011 

This work is primarily based on Act, Declaration and Testimony by the Reformed Presbytery 1876 Part 1.

1536-John Knox is ordained a Roman Catholic Priest

Under the influence of George Wishart joins the Reformation Cause.

1547- Knox was taken prisoner by the French

1549- Knox was exiled to England on his release

Licensed in the Church of England

1556- Knox published his Book of Church order in 1556 in Geneva. Calvin approved of it in Geneva. This book becomes the Genevan Book of Church Order.

1557-1560- The Reformed Presbytery says,

“Their number, as well as their zealous spirit, still increasing, they, for the more effectual management of this noble enterprise, entered into covenants to advance that begun work of reformation, and to defend the same and one another in the maintenance thereof, against all opposition whatsoever. Several such covenants our early reformers solemnly entered into at Edinburgh, Perth and Leith, in the years 1557, ‘59, ‘60 and ‘62. In 1560, the Confession of the Faith, and doctrine believed and professed by the Protestants within the realm of Scotland, was compiled and civilly ratified, or allowed of, in free and open parliament, afterward sworn to the National Covenant anno 1580, 1581 and 1590.”

1567-1617- King James VI reigns and plots against the Reformation.  James VI passed the Black Acts (1584) to impose royal authority over the Kirk between 1584 and 1603. This Act prohibited ecclesiastical assemblies without the King’s consent.

1618-1621 James VI increased his pressures against the Reformation. The Reformed Presbytery says,

“Thus, after several former attempts to this effect, was episcopacy again established, and prelates lording over GOD’S heritage advanced, imposing their Popish ceremonies, which in that pretended assembly convened at Perth, anno 1618, were enacted, and afterwards ratified in a subsequent parliament, in the year 1621.”

1637-1638 – The Covenanters  in Scotland rose up against the efforts of their King and renewed the Reformed National Covenant in March of 1638.

1643- Westminster Assembly begins

1645- Directory for Public Worship published and approved; The Form of Presbyterial Church Government published and approved.

1646- Charles I surrendered to the Covenanter army after his General Montrose was defeated at Newark.

The Westminster Confession completed.

1647- The Larger and Shorter Catechisms are completed

1649- King Charles II appointed King upon condition of him taking the Covenants. The Reformed Presbytery states,

“Upon which the parliament of Scotland, on the 5th of February, 1649, caused proclaim his son Charles II, king of Great Britain, France, Ireland (which title he had assumed himself at the Hague, as soon as the report of his father’s death came to his ears), promising their fidelity and defence of his person and authority, according to the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant. And in the same time declaring, that before he be admitted to the exercise of the royal power, he shall give security for the preservation and maintenance of the true reformed religion, and unity of the kingdoms, now established, by laws both civil and ecclesiastical, according to the covenants: which security for religion and liberty, at the first proposed treaty at the Hague, he deferred to grant, and afterward postponed the signing of the treaty at Breda, when everything was agreed upon, from the great hopes he entertained of accomplishing his design, without acquiescing with their demand from Montrose’s expedition, whom he had sent into Scotland with an army, in order to prepare his way into that kingdom, by devastation with fire and sword. But this intrigue not succeeding, he found himself obliged to comply with all their proposals, and signed the treaty. This treaty the king did in effect break, before he left Breda, by communicating after the episcopal manner, contrary to the express warning and remonstrance of the commissioners from the church of Scotland, who went to him, and showed him his sin in so doing, and how inconsistant it was with his own concessions in the sent treaty; and an evidence that he had no intention to perform what he had agreed to, but dissembled with GOD and man; and he, on the other hand, put them off with sham excuses and professions; and so, from their too much credulity to his fraudulent professions and promises all along, they brought him over to Scotland, and before his landing in this kingdom, he takes the covenant at Spey, on the 23rd of June, 1649, by his oath subjoined in allowance and approbation of the Covenants National, and Solemn League, obliging himself faithfully to prosecute the ends thereof in his station and calling; and for himself and successors, he shall agree to all acts of parliament enjoining the same, and establishing presbyterial church government, the directory for worship, confession of faith and catechisms, in the kingdom of Scotland, as approven by the General Assemblies of this kirk, and parliament of this kingdom. And for their further satisfaction, according to the act of the West Kirk, Edinburgh, August 13th, 1650, approven the same day by the committee of estates, he emitted a declaration at Dunfermline, by profession, fully and heartily acquiescing with all their demands; all which afterward served for nothing but as a lasting monument of his horrid perjury, wicked dissimulation, and mockery of God and man. And even then, when this declaration was published, he had formed a design for bringing in the enemies of the covenant, and work of reformation, both into the army and judicatories, and for dividing the Presbyterians among themselves. And this he effectually managed for both foresaid ends, by the public resolutions, on the 14th of December, that same year, 1650. This woful and prime step of defection, so contrary to the word, and injurious to the work of God, was faithfully testified against by many, both ministers, and whole presbyteries, who were sensible of the present sinfulness and evil of it, and foresaw the bitter and dismal consequences that followed upon it.”

1650- 1651- Protestor-Resolutioner Controversy. The Resolutioners compromised the Covenants. This is followed by Cromwell’s persecution. The Reformed Presbytery says,

“The daughter of Zion, thus going forth in the perfection of her beauty, when all ranks and degrees voluntarily subjected themselves unto the Royal Scepter of the SON of GOD, was most comely in the eyes of her Beloved: but oh! how is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed; the stones of the sanctuary are poured out on the top of every street, so that the house that was called of all people the house of prayer, is now become a den of thieves, being no less infamously despicable for deformation, than formerly for purity of reformation highly admired. This, at first, began with the public resolutions of the commission of the General Assembly, 1650, above noticed, for taking into places of power and trust, in judicatories and armies, such persons as were known malignants, and in heart disaffected to the work, and people of GOD, putting it in their power to destroy and full down the LORD’S work at their pleasure; a practice manifestly inconsistent with their covenant engagements, and the word of GOD, Deut. 13:9, 2 Chron 19:2. Those that were then called protesters (from their opposing and protesting against these resolutions), continued steadfastly to witness against the same, as the first remarkable step, to make way for that bloody catastrophe, that afterwards befel the church. The Lord, then, in his righteous displeasure and controversy with the nation, for betraying of his cause and interest into the hands of his enemies, sold them into the hand of that conquering usurper, Oliver Cromwell, who, having stripped them of their civil liberties, as the most effectual method to rob the church of her spiritual privileges, and nullify, the forcible obligation of the sacred covenants (which, when preserved, serve as a strong barrier against all such usurpations), framed a hellish and almost unbounded toleration in Scotland, of heretical and sectarian errors, for gratification of the abettors thereof, which was followed with a deluge of irreligion and impiety, drowning the nation in a still deeper apostacy.”

1660- Beginning of 28 Years Persecution- Charles II was restored to his throne after Cromwell’s death.  He breaks his allegiance to the Presbyterian Covenants which gained him his throne to begin with.  

1661-1662- Erastianism was established and all the efforts to Reform Scotland are repealed. The Reformed Presbytery says,

“In the second session of the pretended parliament, anno 1662, diocesan Erastian prelacy is established, and the king solemnly invested with the church’s headship, by act of parliament; wherein it is blasphemously declared, “That “the ordering and disposal of the external government and “policy of the church, doth properly belong unto his majesty “as an inherent right of the crown, by virtue of his royal “prerogative and supremacy in all causes ecclesiastical.” ”

400 Scottish Presbyterian Ministers ejected from their offices (1662).  2000 Puritan ministers are ejected in England.

1662-1675 The Covenanters were persecuted, and met for true worship in fields. As God’s persecuted people they grew in number and godliness.

1678- An army was convened to suppress Puritan worship.

1679-  The Lord delivers the Covenanters from an attack by Claverhouse. The Reformed Presbytery states,

“This christian valor was followed with the LORD’Sappearance for them, in a re,markable manner, on the following Sabbath at Drumclog, near Lowdonhill, where being attacked by Claverhouse, when attending on public worship, they completely routed him and his troops, rescued Mr. John King, and a number of other prisoners, whom Claverhouse had seized that morning from their hands. ”

1680- Richard Cameron preaches the Sanquhar Declaration which called for war against Charles II and a restoration of the ecclesiastical order which had existed between 1638 and 1649. He was killed later that same year defending his cause.

1684-1685- The most intense period of persecution. Charles II died.
1685- The Covenanters

“published another declaration at Sanquhar, May 28, 1685; wherein, approving of, and adhering to all their former, and considering that James, duke of York, a professed and excommunicated papist” [The Reformed Presbytery]

1685-James VII becomes King

1686- Romanists were give free practice-

“For, before this, by the king’s letter to his privy council, of August 21st, 1686, papists were allowed the free exercise of their religion, the council required to support and maintain them therein, and the royal chapel at Holyrood House ordered to be repaired for popish service.” [The Reformed Presbytery]

1687-James VII passes the Declaration of Indulgence- to promote a more tolerant view of the Sate,

“granting a royal toleration to moderate Presbyterians, dogged with a number of grievous Erastian conditions and restrictions, as usual. Secondly, to Quakers and other enthusiasts. Thirdly, to Papists, abrogating all penal statutes made against them, and making therein all respects free.”  [The Reformed Presbytery]

Yet the Covenanters were still sought after and persecuted.

1688-1689 William of Orange and the Glorious Revolution (Orange is Southern France; He was French with a Dutch army). William was a Protestant and invaded England at the request of English Protestants.

1689-1690- General Assembly – The Covenanters presented to the assembly by Mr. Thomas Linning, with desire to come into union with them

“a paper to that assembly, bearing on what terms they and their people would join in communion with them; only craving, that they might all join in humbling themselves before the LORD, and acknowledge and bewail their fathers’, their own, and the land’s many and heinous iniquities, and breaches of covenant before they proceeded to any other business, and so have their public sins, and scandalous compliances washed away by repentance, and calling upon the name of the LORD JESUS.” [The Reformed Presbytery]

They refused. The Covenanters who followed Richard Cameron called for separation from the then Church of Scotland and began a new Church after 1690.

Was Oliver Cromwell a Judgment on the Scottish Reformation? Friday, Jul 22 2011 

I recently had an Orthodox friend object to the Scottish Reformation:
“That is why God sent Cromwell and James II and Claverhouse, to discipline you.”

No, no, no. You do not know your Scottish Church History. These came after the Protester-Resolutioner Controversies where the Resolutioners were apostatizing from the Reformation attained between 1638 and 1650. The Reformed Presbytery in their Act, Declaration and Testimony Part 1 speak to this in detail.

“The daughter of Zion, thus going forth in the perfection of her beauty, when all ranks and degrees voluntarily subjected themselves unto the Royal Scepter of the SON of GOD, was most comely in the eyes of her Beloved: but oh! how is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed; the stones of the sanctuary are poured out on the top of every street, so that the house that was called of all people the house of prayer, is now become a den of thieves, being no less infamously despicable for deformation, than formerly for purity of reformation highly admired. This, at first, began with the public resolutions of the commission of the General Assembly, 1650, above noticed, for taking into places of power and trust, in judicatories and armies, such persons as were known malignants, and in heart disaffected to the work, and people of GOD, putting it in their power to destroy and full down the LORD’S work at their pleasure; a practice manifestly inconsistent with their covenant engagements, and the word of GOD, Deut. 13:9, 2 Chron 19:2. Those that were then called protesters (from their opposing and protesting against these resolutions), continued steadfastly to witness against the same, as the first remarkable step, to make way for that bloody catastrophe, that afterwards befel the church. The Lord, then, in his righteous displeasure and controversy with the nation, for betraying of his cause and interest into the hands of his enemies, sold them into the hand of that conquering usurper, Oliver Cromwell, who, having stripped them of their civil liberties, as the most effectual method to rob the church of her spiritual privileges, and nullify, the forcible obligation of the sacred covenants (which, when preserved, serve as a strong barrier against all such usurpations), framed a hellish and almost unbounded toleration in Scotland, of heretical and sectarian errors, for gratification of the abettors thereof, which was followed with a deluge of irreligion and impiety, drowning the nation in a still deeper apostacy.”

Also in 1679, a meeting of the Puritanic remnant met to publish testimonies against the apostates:

“This christian valor was followed with the LORD’Sappearance for them, in a remarkable manner, on the following Sabbath at Drumclog, near Lowdonhill, where being attacked by Claverhouse, when attending on public worship, they completely routed him and his troops, rescued Mr. John King, and a number of other prisoners, whom Claverhouse had seized that morning from their hands. ”

 

 

http://www.covenanter.org/RefPres/actdeclarationandtestimony/actpart1.htm#nationalcovratified

Puritan Christian History in Scotland by the Reformed Presbytery Tuesday, Jul 19 2011 

Act Declaration and Testimony by The Reformed Presbytery 1876

This is the best summary of the history of the Reformation in Scotland I have ever read. From the Culdees to Knox to the tyranny of James to the National Covenant to the defeat of the Prelatical cause’s army headed by Montrose,  to the perjury of Charles II, the persecutions and the apostasy.  It’s all in one place for you. And that is just Part 1 ! This book is rocking my world!

%d bloggers like this: