As noted, this author is writing from the prominent, but historically and biblically incorrect, strict cessationist position.

This prophecy is first found in Isaiah 28:11,12 which speaks of the judgment that God was about to bring upon Israel from the Assyrians who would speak to them with strange or foreign languages since they would not believe and practice the Gospel of God in their own language.

Although the miraculous sign of tongues was primarily a sign to unbelieving Israel, it was also used to further the Gospel in other nations (1 Corinthians 14:18,19) and to edify the whole Church of Christ assembled when it was interpreted for all to understand (1 Corinthians 14:12,13).

Contrary to many Pentecostals or Charismatics, speaking in tongues was not the premiere gift given by Christ to His Church as far as profit and benefit (1 Corinthians 12:28)."

For when this miraculous sign was first manifested to the Church (in Acts 2), it was manifested in the known languages of various nations of the earth (as we see in Acts 2:4-11).

The very correction and admonition of Paul to the Church of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 14 makes it so very clear that this miraculous gift of speaking in a language one had never learned was a language of the world (1 Corinthians 14:9-11).

Paul does not say he “could” speak in the tongues of angels, but says “though” (literally “if”). It is a purely hypothetical argument (as we see in the other hypotheticals found in 1 Corinthians 13:2,3 which he assuredly could not lay claim to)...."

"Faith without the object of its expression is not said to be righteousness. The ***object is the word of God.***"

Scripture proclaims Christ is the Word of God:

"And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." Rev.19:13

JD, give Christ His honor...it is His gift of saving faith that is imputed by judicial decree to all those He has chosen since the foundation of the world, including Abraham.

Get off your Arminian high horse and foolishness, and plead with the Lord for Him alone to give you true faith and understanding of the true Gospel of Christ.

"III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

However, the SLC was pretty simple. One, its plan was to reform England and Irelands church to become more like the Church of Scotland. However, before this was just jammed down people's face at the barrel of a gun (which seems to be implied with this army language, or force imposed language), they held an Assembly to debate, discuss and consider using Scripture a Form of Church Government that was most biblical, and founded upon Scripture. This was decided after years of discussion, and months of debate, that Presbyterianism was the Christian form of government for the church. Where you get this idea of army's, force imposed, etc. is beyond me, but it is non of the documents I've read published by the assembly.

"God will not bless a man-made reformation made with force imposed upon the people, nor can any amount of covenants change the will of God."

It is interesting that continue to imply that the Covenanters (or anyone who covenants with man) somehow has a hidden agenda, or desires to use force. This is implied in your comments about the SLC and "force imposed".

You obviously know little about the Covenanters in history, or what they have taught till today. In fact, to the contrary, the Erastians and Independents conspired to use force against them to get them to submit after they broke covenant. If you know something about the testimony of Cameron or Renwick, you know the military orders were to find them, get them to renounce the covenant, or be put to death. It was death they chose.

Sometimes I wonder just when people like you are going to stir up the audience, or media, by turning the truth around, and begin to force your anti-covenanting views on those of us desiring to covenant, and seek covenant renewal.

You are amil and I'm historical post-mil so we differ eschatologically. We also differ in covenantal obligations and the duty of social covenanting to bring about reformation.

All I can say is how grateful I am for what the Covenanters did to bring about the brief reformation they did, and to lay out the excellent subordinate standards approved by the Church of Scotland. At no time have we seen a greater push for unity and uniformity in the Christian Church. Even the Apostolic churches did not lay down such an amazing "human" testimony, as we know their testimony was "inspired" by God in the Scriptures.

Mere man's testimony since the closing of the canon has never seen a higher mark than what the Covenanters and Puritans did during the second reformation, and I believe it was because they faithfully covenanted with the Lord toward unity and reformation.

Wow, I just got through reading Abigail and Spiritual's comments. I frankly do not know how you guys have lasted this long. It is like standing on a spinning wheel trying to get your balance.

I'm sure these people are dear Christians trying their best to understand the Word of God, but without any guidance (outside their own mind), I can see it really is a struggle to carry out a discussion.

One takes time to explain a verse, and asks some other questions to show how one needs to be consistent with taking verses using the intended meaning, and everything is just answered with a verse that has nothing to do with the point.

Then to top it off, I read this:

"Spiritual is a man of God—I know him by the Spirit—I have never met him. He learned nothing from me, He is taught by the Holy Spirit. We agree because we have the same teacher--the Holy Ghost!"

"The SLC was unrealistic and depended heavily upon the actions of men, nations and their posterity to keep.

When God makes a covenant we can be sure He will keep it, but when sinful men make a covenant it will most assuredly be broken."

This is an error. Covenants are made all the time between men and nations, church and members, etc. In fact, we see many covenants made in Scripture between God and men, and men and men.

In the millennium, nations will covenant together similar to the SLC to worship the true God, and to completely reject covenanting among men because they are sinful is wrong. With covenant breaking comes covenant renewal and repentence, as with any covenant or contract.

Because some choose to ignore or reject covenanting, like yourself, because some have been sinful in breaking them does not give warrant to reject all covenanting. The best examples are to look at are those who kept the covenants, not those covenant breakers.

That is what I was thinking after reading some of her posts. These types of people are the most difficult to teach any Scripture texts as they reject interpreting Scripture with Scripture, and focus on how they feel with each passage.

From my own experience, the Pentecostal movement is perhaps the most heretical, yet because they believe they are the most anointed, they are near impossible to teach anything. As our Pastor says:

"And immediately following, the Holy Spirit states the goal or end of giving such faithful Church Officers to the Church. Listen to what is stated in Ephesians 4:13: “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” Unity among all Christians in doctrine, worship, and government is why it is important to consult with trained and faithful Teachers of God’s Word.

I'm getting the clear impression from your writings that you are pentecostal or wesylan in your main doctrinal teachings.

Do you see yourself as a priestess or prophetess?

Your idea on the other thread that one needs to be holy and sinless before they receive the Holy Spirit is an error.

You have won over the poster Spiritual on many posts I've seen on yours. Do you know who this person is on the sitee?

He quotes you and write:

"Abigail wrote:
Absolute holiness is a requirement to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. When we repent of our sins and are cleansed in the blood of Jesus Christ—at that moment we are absolutely holy—sinless. We then ask to be filled with the Holy Ghost and He comes into the cleansed temple. We are to keep our vessel cleansed.

Amen, amen! Herein lies the whole of salvation in a nutshell. All else derives from the wicked one."

Going through each verse to explain to you its interpretation is going to be a waste of time for both of us. Your mind is firmly set that Elders are not a necessary requirement of Scripture, and choosing the verses that support your presupposition is not really quite foolish. Therefore everyone becomes a minister in their own eyes. I can see from some of your recent writings that your willingness to submit to any Elders or church court would be difficult in your own eyes.

A recent sermon from a minister wrote:

"There is a sense in which it is good to consult with trained and faithful Teachers of God’s Word about doctrine, and there is a sense in which it is wrong to do so.

First, the sense in which it is good to do so. Christ has given to the Church qualified and faithful men to serve as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers (according to Ephesians 4:11). Why has Christ given to the Church such gifted men?

The Holy Spirit tells us in Ephesians 4:12: “For the perfecting [or maturing] of the saints, for the work of ministry [or service], for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

Actually, there is some new research coming out that shows just how political the Independents were by continuing the debates in the Assembly in the hopes that Cromwell would win the war. If you read the Parliament(s) records, you will see how the war was funded and how the Independents kept coming back with more controversies against Presbyerianism.

I'm in the process of republishing this book which gives primary source material on this debate:

"The Reason Presented by the Dissenting Brethren Against Certain Propositions Concerning Presbyterial Government, Together with the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to Those Reasons of Dissent", 1648.

However, it infuriated the Independents to no end, and with the Erastians/Catholics help they were able to watch death warrants issued for all Covenanters who supported the Presbyterian form of government and the SLC.

It was all "masked" in the name of "toleration" for all the religious sects throughout England.

No, I don't hold to the same interpretation that you do on 1Jn.2:27. If one were to hold to your literal meaning, it would overturn God's entire church government where Teaching Elders, Ruling Elders and Deacons have been given the authority to bind and loose. Your view would eliminate all teachers of Scripture and replace it with generations who follow their own eyes.

"There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness." (Prov.30:12)

"Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" (Isa.5:21).

"All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits." (Prov.16:2)

John is addressing those who are false teachers creating division, disputes, disunity and schism. The Antichrists of 1 John are those deceivers (2:22-23; 4:2). He is speaking to the little children (2:28) to not be drawn away by these false teachers. He is NOT TELLING them to reject or refuse God's ordained ministers, teachers and ruling Elders. That would be pitting Scripture against Scripture. We are to test the "spirits" so that we may know which is "from God" (4:2).

Interesting response. My only reply would be that we both have a substantially different view on the nature of covenants, the purposes outlined in the SLC, and the support the civil government received during the second reformation as a result of the SLC.

We must disagree on how your views indeed did filter throughout the Erastians and Independents, and in many respects were the basis to hunt down and murder thousands of Covenanters who believed in the binding nature of the SLC.

"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." (Gal.3:15)

I have a problem with those who used politics to create *fear* among the people regarding the SLC as a means for war (as you say above), but then silenced the Covenanters in one of the most bloody rampages in history.

Your words are carefully chosen, but in reality, I am afraid your argument was used by others to kill men, women and children called "Covenanters". It is interesting how they were to blame, even today for the charge of, "although not directly stated in the covenant it was intended by the Covenanters."

I admit I have not felt such frustration in a long time until returning to post here with JD/Yamil. Both indeed have no desire to be humble and honest about the Scriptures, but would rather hold to their Arminianism and dispensationalism views over all things.

The distinctions I was trying to make last night on the grounds of our justification and the means of our justification simply get ignored, and the focus is like a swarm of bees on one key quote. This morning, it dawned on me, this is what they do time and time with Scripture.

Everything is taken out of context and an absolute rejection of the "intended meaning" of the author (whether me in the case below, or in God which is their claim to fame on this site). When I felt so beat up by their continual focus on taking me out of context, it finally dawned on my how God Himself sees these false teachers.

Abigail then did the same thing by claiming that God makes it clear that she needs no teachers according to 1Joh.2:27..."but that the Word of God states we need no man to teach us."

Could you be more accurate when you say, "My argument is against the Solemn League and Covenant and that it is not binding and is in fact null and void from the beginning because it is wrong on a biblical basis and historical standpoint."

Couple questions for you:

1) Do you believe it was ever binding as a Covenant when originally approved by the various parties?

2) If yes, what makes it non-binding today?

3) If no, can you give a biblical reason why a Christian covenant of its nature is non-binding to its signers and their posterity?

I'm assuming you have spent adequate time studying the context in which the Solemn League & Covenant was signed, and the intent to bring about unity and uniformity in the churches of Scotland, England and Ireland, and obviously to bring about a reformation among the civil magistrates in the three nations.

I have moved your question here:

"I believe in the ministries set forth in I Cor 12:28. I did not say I could not be taught by anyone, but that the Word of God states we need no man to teach us. Do you believe those Scriptures?"

Again, I'm going to have the same problem with your views as I do with JD and Yamil in their interpretation.

You quote 1Joh.2:27 and state that the intended meaning of God is that "ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things...".

You said also, "I am a sinner saved by grace." but further on in 1 John, he writes:

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him...He that committeth sin is of the devil;..." (1Joh.3:6,8)