The Covenented Reformation

[lionovjudah]

Is anyone here familiar with this topic? I skimmed the whole article and am intrigued this existed.

http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/covrefdf/frames/appendd.html

[katoikei]

THE COVENANTED REFORMATION DEFENDED AGAINST CONTEMPORARY SCHISMATICS (http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/covrefdf/frames/front.html)

A Response and Antidote Primarily to the Neopresbyterian Malignancy and Misrepresentations, and the Manufactured "Steelite" Controversy, Found in Richard Bacon's A Defense Departed; With a Refutation of Bacon's Independency, Popery, Arminianism, Anabaptism and Various Other Heresies (Including an Exhibition of His Opposition to Scripture and the Covenanted Reformation, in General; and His Opposition to John Calvin, John Knox, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland [Especially 1638-1649], Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, the Testimony of the Covenanter Martyrs, the Reformed Presbytery, the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton and a Host of Other Prominent Reformers from Past Generations, in Particular) * With Copious Notes on Mr. Bacon's Backsliding and His Blackening of the Blue Banner; as Well as Various Replies to Other Modern Malignants
by Greg Barrow

Excellent find. Reminds me a little of another rasher of bacon that was frying around here yesterday.
:D
"I believe I can fry..."

[katoikei]

Mr. Bacon says,

Independents invariably elevate the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer to a sort of papacy of the believer (The Visible Church and the Outer Darkness, p. 15).

As seems to be his usual practice, Mr. Bacon accuses people of "papacy and independency" right before he presents his most serious errors. As we have seen, Turretin proves that examination of churches and synods by private individuals is an indispensable right afforded to Christians by God. This right is designed to protect a believer from blindly and implicitly following the dictates of a corrupt majority. Mr. Bacon, in denying this fundamental right to Mr. Reed, is directly promoting the doctrine of implicit faith (which ironically he alleges against the PRCE).

This in particular I found interesting...and you ?

LINK (http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/covrefdf/frames/appendg.html)

[katoikei]

Is this the same bacon (http://www.fpcr.org/bacon.htm)?

Ofcourse it is. They are discussing this same book that he wrote: "The Visible Church & the Outer Darkness" (http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/visible1.htm)

After all the bad stuff I have read about this guy, I am not sure I should be reading such dark stuff. Fools rush in ...

[wildboar]

Pastor Richard Bacon is certainly not the same as the Bacon that has posted on this board. Richard Bacon is a strong Trinitarian and would never spout off much of the nonsense that Bacon did. I suggest you spend some time on his website before you judge him: http://www.fpcr.org/

Reg Barrow is a member of the Reformed Presbytery (a group known as the Steelites). Richard Bacon's responses to this organization can be found here: http://www.fpcr.org/fpcrprc/Steelite.htm

I don't agree with Richard Bacon on everything but he is a solid confessional Presbyterian.

The Reformed Presbytery (Steelites) on the other hand are a shismatic group. They teach that a church cannot be truly Biblically constituted without swearing allegiance to the solemn league and covenant. Right now there is only one church in the Reformed Presbytery (there used to be two but there was a split of some kind) and only one elder. They believe it is sinful (what they call occasional hearing) to sit under the preaching of a pastor who has not sworn allegiance to the solemn league and covenant.

I have alot of respect for the Scottish covenanters of the 17th century, but this Reformed Presbytery group has taken the whole movement in a very strange direction. The Solemn league and covenant was an agreement between the Scottish covenanters and the English Parliament in which Parliament promised to uphold Presbyterianism in return for Scottish military support. Eventually parliament declared the Solemn League to be unlawful but some continued to fight for it.

The RPCNA, though it has its heritage in the covenanters of the 17th Century has moved away from its support of the Solemn League and Covenant (and I think for its betterment) but the RPNA (Reformed Presbytery, Steelites) continues to cling to it and emphasize it as the basis for fellowship. I've known a couple who have been convinced by this thinking and unable to find a RPNA church in their area have stopped going to church altogether.

[katoikei]

Dear Chuck,


Pastor Richard Bacon is certainly not the same as the Bacon that has posted on this board - Chuck

I know that. I was not referring to the heretical teacher who muscled into the fellowship here at Predestinarian, but instead Dr Richard Bacon. Reg Barrow's expose of Dr Richard Bacon, had me thinking he was some ancient heretic from the times of John Calvin and John Knox. Following the name lead on the internet, I discovered yet another Richard Bacon. At first I did not connect the dots and then as I examined this quote (below), it became clear to me they were both the same Bacon. My earlier reference to the Bacon that was 'frying' around the forum/fellowship and spouting his own brand of heresy, was merely introduced as a bit of comedy, playing on the name Bacon. However, I can perfectly understand how the view of Dr. Bacon which echoes some of the things you might, or might not have said, in your repetitive points about 'the church' and negative comments about looney toons, could spark such a reaction.


Mr. Bacon says,

Independents invariably elevate the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer to a sort of papacy of the believer (The Visible Church and the Outer Darkness, p. 15).

As seems to be his usual practice, Mr. Bacon accuses people of "papacy and independency" right before he presents his most serious errors. As we have seen, Turretin proves that examination of churches and synods by private individuals is an indispensable right afforded to Christians by God. This right is designed to protect a believer from blindly and implicitly following the dictates of a corrupt majority. Mr. Bacon, in denying this fundamental right to Mr. Reed, is directly promoting the doctrine of implicit faith (which ironically he alleges against the PRCE).

Seems to me that this 'Bacon Conspiracy' has more to do with you than it does with the various brands of bacon in view.

[CarolK]

I just have to say that I think it is somewhat rude to ban someone and then continue to discuss them and their beliefs. I don't have a problem with banning them, if need be, but why continue to discuss them publicly when they cant defend themselves? That just doesnt seem right to me. --And this is not to say that I agree with Bacon's apparent beliefs at all. I don't.

Just my 2 cents!
Have a great day,
carol

[katoikei]

Actually Carol, this thread has nothing to do with the bacon that left us, but rather with another bacon altogether. Dr Richard Bacon. The similarities in Chuck's 'church ideas' seems to be mirrorred in his writings. I agree though it is time to quit discussing the old bacon, which has been banned, and instead consider the teachings of this bacon that was labelled a heretic for good reason. (read back, please)

[wildboar]

katoikei:

So, why is it you believe that Richard Bacon is a heretic? Do you believe that we should all be subscribing to the solemn league and covenant as his chief opponents believe we should be?

[katoikei]

Actually, Chuck I would not feed on the teachings of Dr. Richard Bacon or those of Reg Barrow. With your ability to find good seed in the writings of G.K. Chesterton, I guess you will find some here too. I personally do not have time to look in the garbage can for truth. 'Thy word is truth'

Ditch the garbage!

[wildboar]

Given the fact that we are all sinners, anything that we write is bound to contain some garbage. If you will only read the garbage-free you will not read anyone. I still don't know what it is you have against Richard Bacon. Could you please state it in your own words with some quotations of things he actually said?

[katoikei]

Dear Chuck,
I did not find anything in either the writing of Reg Barrow or Dr. Richard Bacon that held my interest for very long, much in the same way that I found GK Chesterton bored me after the first few stanzas of Orthodoxy. After I read the book of Isaiah, I found very little that could hold my attention. In my thirties I read a lot of stuff, but in my forties I found that I acquired a taste for the Word of Life. In time, in God's time, you will find your rest in His word.

[wildboar]

Well, boredom is in many ways a very recent idea. However, we all have different personalities and what is interesting to one person may be dull to another. I have found that I find certain things interesting as of late which did not hold my attention before and vice versa. Of course, if we all reallly believed that all we needed were the Scriptures we wouldn't post or read on this forum at all. It is one thing to say that you don't find something interesting and another to condemn it as being heretical. I think part of the reason for the modern tendency to condemn everything as heresy is due to the modern culture which breeds ADHD and which condemns anything which provokes deep thought as heresy. I believe that boredom is the real heresy plaguing our modern times.

[katoikei]

Dear Chuck,

Indeed this is that spirit of boredom, which is the spirit of this world which cannot appreciate the difference between the writings of men, and good word of God.



Hebrews 6:4-7

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

But that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned

[katoikei]

Wildboar:-'Of course, if we all reallly believed that all we needed were the Scriptures we wouldn't post or read on this forum at all.'

Dear Chuck,
This is a bad thing ?

[wildboar]

We have to believe what Scripture says about God appointing some teachers and have to realize that the apostolic message preceded the writing of the New Testament. So, if we just sat in our closets reading Scripture we would be being disobedient to Scripture. I tend to read more Scripture than anything else but have found many authors very helpful in giving me a better understanding of Scripture. I can tell the difference between the writings of men and the Word of God. I think it is actually more likely that a person would not be able to tell the difference if say they only read books published by the RFPA or only read articles posted on this website. A broader reading of people from different backgrounds with discernment is much less likely to result in inability to tell the difference. The worse possible way would be to lock yourself in the closet with the Bible where the ability to discern between the Bible and your own interpretation of the Bible becomes most difficult. We all have to recognize that we all come to Scripture with assumptions and beliefs based upon our own background and experience (it's not just the other guy writing the book) and so reading others can help us in weeding out those interpretations of our own which are inaccurate.

There are some who seem to smell something wherever they go. Everywhere they walk they smell someone who stinks like Gehenna. So they thrust out everyone they see and ditch them all. What they don't realize is if we really want to ditch the garbage it is we we must ditch.

[katoikei]

Dear Chuck,
You seem so needy, so dependant. Have you not heard of the Spirit of Truth ?

[lionovjudah]

Dear Chuck,
You seem so needy, so dependant. Have you not heard of the Spirit of Truth ?

Kat:

I have watched patiently as you continue to deride Chuck. I ask you cease from this unfounded mischaracterization and unfruitful words. Instead of sitting back like some mystical dalia lama giving advice, why not interact where the rubber meets the road. May I remind you that you gave me "advice" to read commentaires(plural) in my question about John 8. There is no command in the scriptures that say "Me my bible and the Holy Spirit" This is not sola scriptura.

I suggest you read the following

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html


Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation. If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men.

Adherents of solo scriptura have not understood that “Scripture alone” doesn’t mean “me alone.” The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture. The classical Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura meant that Scripture is the sole final and infallible authority. It does not mean that the lone individual is the one to determine what that Scripture means. Scripture was given to the Church within a certain pre-existing doctrinal context that had been preached by the Apostles for decades. Solo scriptura denies the necessity of that context, and it denies the necessity of that Church. In doing so it denies Christ who established that Church and who taught that doctrine to His disciples. It is rebellion in the name of God against the authority of God for the sake of preserving the authority of man


The adherents of solo scriptura dismiss all of this claiming that the reason and conscience of the individual believer is the supreme interpreter. Yet this results in nothing more than hermeneutical solipsism. It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes. The unbelieving world is left hearing a cacophony of conflicting voices rather than the Word of the living God.