# Moral Obligation of Social Covenanting



## Arch2k (Mar 13, 2006)

I have been listening to some lectures on our moral obligation to covenant with God. Some of the scriptures provided are:

Jos 24:21 And the people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD!" 
Jos 24:22 So Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD for yourselves, to serve Him." And they said, "We are witnesses!" 
Jos 24:23 "Now therefore," he said, "put away the foreign gods which are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD God of Israel." 
Jos 24:24 And the people said to Joshua, "The LORD our God we will serve, and His voice we will obey!" 
Jos 24:25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.  

2Ki 11:17 Then Jehoiada made a covenant between the LORD, the king, and the people, that they should be the Lord's people, and also between the king and the people.  
2Ki 11:18 And all the people of the land went to the temple of Baal, and tore it down. They thoroughly broke in pieces its altars and images, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the priest appointed officers over the house of the LORD.

2Ki 23:1 Now the king sent them to gather all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to him. 
2Ki 23:2 The king went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD. 
2Ki 23:3 Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant.  

*Nehamiah Chapter 10 seems to be a full-fledged copy of a social covenant that was made with the Lord, including those who signed their name to it, the duties of it etc.*

There are more scriptural examples, but I think the one's provided are sufficient for this thread.

Given this, what are your thoughts on our duty to covenant ourselves to the Lord?

Is this the duty of the church/state/individual/ or all 3?

If so, is America lax in this or what??? In our country, which 

1) does not acknowledge Christ as our King and 
2) is full of immorality and pluralism

should not our obligation be even more elevated so we can say with Hezekiah: "Now it is in my heart to make a covenant with the LORD God of Israel, that His fierce wrath may turn away from us (2Ch 29:10)"?


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 13, 2006)

What should be the stipulations that we should make with God in this Covenant? What are the consequenses for breaking such a covenant?


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> What should be the stipulations that we should make with God in this Covenant? What are the consequenses for breaking such a covenant?



Well, the stipulations (I think) would be similar to those made in Nehamiah 10 or the Solemn League and Covenant. 

I am not sure what the consequenses would be. I am trying to understand this more (which is the intent of my post).


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 13, 2006)

In my humble opinion, this is a very dangerous thing to do (making a Covenant with God). I don't know of any covenant in the Bible that man has made with God that has worked out. Man is always the one to break it. If any one person, group or nation is going to enter into a Covenant with God, they better fulfill it.

Maybe someone else has something else to contribute, but I would say its not a good idea.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



When the president would swear an oath upon inauguration, it was usually opened to the last chapters of Deuteronomy. The implication: He is asking for God's judgment if he breaks it.

Personally, I like the idea and the fact that it has some unanswered questions or it hasn't always worked in the past does not itself constitute an argument against it.


----------



## satz (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> In my humble opinion, this is a very dangerous thing to do (making a Covenant with God). I don't know of any covenant in the Bible that man has made with God that has worked out. Man is always the one to break it. If any one person, group or nation is going to enter into a Covenant with God, they better fulfill it.
> 
> Maybe someone else has something else to contribute, but I would say its not a good idea.



I think this is a good point. I would not go so far as to say it is not a good idea, but regardless of any voluntary covenant entered into, all christians are duty bound to obey all of God's word in the bible. I think we fail enough at that duty without adding more onto it ourselves.

Still, from the bible examples given in the OP and elsewhere, it seems there is a place for such things, but like Wayne said we must think very carefully and be sure we can keep our covenant.

As for the duty of the nation i honestly think it is a moot point. There is not a nation on earth that would do it and in all likelihood there will never be.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



You are confusing normative with descriptive ethics. You are correct that not many nations _at the present moment_ would do it (although in the near future I see it as very likely), but that is irrelevant to the truth of falsity of the question. 

Let's look at it from another standpoint: laws/values/societies are not ethically neutral. We as a nation are already breaking God's law. We are already suffering God's judgment. Given this light, covenanting is not the worst idea in the world.

However, I will pose some logistic problems with covenanting at the present:

1. America, as has been pointed out, is not ready to covenant. This is a good point, if an uninteresting one. It is true by definition.
2. Covenanting will not be unrelated, given America's present system, to a limitizing of the federal government. America as it stands cannot hold. The center will collapse. Leviathan has assumed more power and responsibility than it can handle (anotehr true by definition). It will implode.
3. However, smaller counties and cities can indeed covenant and this more than warrants further study.


----------



## crhoades (Mar 13, 2006)

The obligatory WCF cut and paste:

Chapter XXII
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows

I.	A lawful oath is part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears. 

II.	The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament as well as under the old; so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken. 

III.	Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority. 

IV.	An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt. Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels. 

V.	A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness. 

VI.	It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto. 

VII.	No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he has no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself. 

For some reason the footnotes and scripture references didn't come through...I'll get them in later...Now we can all play the game: "How confessional are you?" Now a word from our sponsor: Belhaven Scottish Ale (a great beer btw!)


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 13, 2006)

I have found many good works on the Ordinance of Covenanting, but have not had the chance to read them as of yet.

From what I have learned (and those who are more knowledgable...ahem...Andrew...ahem....Matthew...  correct me if I am wrong) but the idea of a social covenant is to covenant to be God's people, to recognize him as king, and to follow in his ways. I understand it not as the Covenant of Grace, but as a reflexive act out of obedience to the Covenant of Grace.

Surely God will always fulfill his end of the Covenant (CoG) but, I think that social covenanting deals more with us recognizing Christ as Prophet, Priest and King _formally_ and covenanting to be his people.

Still hoping for more comments.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> The obligatory WCF cut and paste:
> Now a word from our sponsor: Belhaven Scottish Ale (a great beer btw!)



Thus ending the argument.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Belhaven Scottish Ale (a great beer btw!)



I believe that I have tried that beer recently. If I am remembering correctly, it WAS good!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



Of course its good! Honestly, it has the name scottish in it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 13, 2006)

I think the problem here is what those covenant renewals in the OT were based on. They were grounded in the covenant God had already made with Israel as his holy people. In other words, God made the covenant already. The people were just reaffirming their obligations and renewed desire to be faithful to a covenant that already existed. And they kept renewing it because it was an inferior covenant (see the book of Hebrews), one they couldn't keep, unlike the covenant of grace. Does any other nation have such a foundation to renew a covenant with God? What covenant would the magistrate be renewing? His office does not belong in the covenant of grace. Would he be renewing the covenant of common grace? Just thinking out loud here...


----------



## crhoades (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I think the problem here is what those covenant renewals in the OT were based on. They were grounded in the covenant God had already made with Israel as his holy people. In other words, God made the covenant already. The people were just reaffirming their obligations and renewed desire to be faithful to a covenant that already existed. And they kept renewing it because it was an inferior covenant (see the book of Hebrews), one they couldn't keep, unlike the covenant of grace. Does any other nation have such a foundation to renew a covenant with God? What covenant would the magistrate be renewing? His office does not belong in the covenant of grace. Would he be renewing the covenant of common grace? Just thinking out loud here...



Following your line of thought is there a comparison with marriage? We make oaths and vows there as well. So did the israelites. Marriage isn't part of cog.

Still thinking.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

Just to cover my flanks,
As one who advocates revelatory ethics including reference to the political sphere, I must point out that covenanting is not related to theonomy. This will undoubtedly come up and really confuse the issue, since the two are not related. However, I think the idea
of covenanting raises other ethical questions, equally important, but I feel no urge to defend the idea as such at the present moment.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



How do we know God says "I do" to our new covenant with Him? And what purpose is there in such a covenant that the office of civil magistrate doesn't already possess by obligation anyway?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



I am more interested in part B of your reply. Could you clarify? I think I know where you are goinng with it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 13, 2006)

Perhaps we just need to define the terms better. What is a "social covenant"? Who are the parties? If God is a party then who represents Him (i.e in the OT it was prophets, preists, and kings of God's people)? 

If God is a party (rather than just a witness of a covenant or oath between men) then where in Scripture are we called to make such covenants? What would be involved in which the covenant of common grace and the covenant of grace don't already cover?


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



If the covenant is a biblical one, then he has already promised to bless us if we obey (not in a justification sense). As Hezakiah said:

"Now it is in my heart to make a covenant with the LORD God of Israel, that His fierce wrath may turn away from us (2Ch 29:10)"?



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> And what purpose is there in such a covenant that the office of civil magistrate doesn't already possess by obligation anyway?



I don't think that it contains anything that isn't already our obligation. _ From what I know, the duty to covenant socially is a recognition OF our obligation and a swearing to do those things._

The question is what exactly is our duty in this sense and are we bound to covenant to do them in the form of a social covenant?

Deu 10:20 You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Perhaps we just need to define the terms better. What is a "social covenant"? Who are the parties? If God is a party then who represents Him (i.e in the OT it was prophets, preists, and kings of God's people)?
> 
> If God is a party (rather than just a witness of a covenant or oath between men) then where in Scripture are we called to make such covenants? What would be involved in which the covenant of common grace and the covenant of grace don't already cover?



I would like to hear others reply to this as well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Perhaps we just need to define the terms better. What is a "social covenant"? Who are the parties? If God is a party then who represents Him (i.e in the OT it was prophets, preists, and kings of God's people)?
> 
> If God is a party (rather than just a witness of a covenant or oath between men) then where in Scripture are we called to make such covenants? What would be involved in which the covenant of common grace and the covenant of grace don't already cover?



I understand your concerns, and they are really good ones. As one who holds to the dreaded "t" word, I am curious as to the relationship between social covenanting and the civil magistracy recognizing God as the source of law and ruling accordingly. Where I stand at the moment: If a magistrate recognizes God as the source of Law, then must he do so by means of a coveannt? I don't think so.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 13, 2006)

Well, from the perspective of the SL&C, the point was a "preservation of religion." In other words, the church came together and solemnly swore to uphold the faith and teaching of the Bible as attested by the most Reformed churches.

Now interestingly, the Reformed churches they were following in the SL&C, did not adhere to the Sl&C. Rather, only England, Ireland and Scotland adhered tot he SL&C to follow the "best Reformed Churches" throughout Europe. That about completely destroys the idea that men must "adhere to the SL&C" in order to be a true Church or a Reformed church. No one in the Swiss Canton, in Germany, France or anywhere else held to the SL&C. Rather, it was actually reversed. It was penned so that "loose" theology would not occur, and that men would bind themselves by oath to uphold true religion.

Now, that is not a bad thing for Reformed churches to do this today. But a new covenant could be made in covenanting together to uphold true religion following the best Reformed churches through church history. At this juncture is where the Civil Magistrate or government should come in to uphold what the church has espoused. 

But, in any case, whatever is espoused in the covenant that the church makes with one another to uphold true religion are things said to be upheld also by the Law of God and the obedience we owe to Him. We do not "do religion" in a vacuum, and thus, "social covenanting" is to be public. We don't swear or make an oath to one another and to God in a corner, rather, it is part of the very social structure (or should be) of our country. Its unlikely that it will "take." it didn't take in England moments after it was completed and the confession accepted by Parliament. Cromwell came in with an army and stirred things up.

The key to this is to accept a "single" reformation that takes place in the life of the church. That single reformation continues and should be upheld by everyone professing to uphold that which is true religion.

In this, I think Hebrews 13:7 is quite powerful. "Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct."

And so, whose faith do we follow? 1 Corinthians 3:21-22, "Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come -- *all are yours*."

Thus, the SL&C seems to be on track when they desire to "uphold the true Religion of the best Reformed Churches."

Now if we just could come to grips with "What it REALLY means to be Reformed, then we could get somewhere...."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



And perhaps there's some difference in the usage of the word "covenant" between then and now. The Scots seemed to use it more broadly than we do today in reference to our theology. The SLC seems more to me to be a corporate oath or vow to each other (calling God as a witness), and not a covenant with God. Granted the oath is intended to hold each other acountable to the true faith. But I think the difference is important because it seems to me that if God wants to make a covenant with someone (in the biblical use of the word), then He initiates it, not us. Just in noticing some superficial observations from the OT, the king of Niniveh (in Jonah) and Nebechednezer didn't appear to make a new covenant with God upon their conversions. They just obeyed the law and enforced the law to some degree or another. Again, just thinking out loud...


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 18, 2006)

I've been studying Genesis lately, and I ran across these interesting comments from Calvin. I thought it might be appropriate for this thread.

_ Gen 28:20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "œIf God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on,
Gen 28:21 so that I come back to my father´s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God._

Calvin's comments:



> 21. Then shall the Lord be my God. In these words Jacob binds himself never to apostatize from the pure worship of the One God; for there is no doubt that he here comprises the sum of piety. But he may seem to promise what far exceeds his strength; for newness of life, spiritual righteousness, integrity of heart, and a holy regulation of the whole life, were not in his own power. I answer, when holy men vow those things which God requires of them, and which are due from them as acts of piety; they, at the same time, embrace what God promises concerning the remission of sins by the help of his Holy Spirit. Hence it follows that they ascribe nothing to their own strength; and also, that whatever falls short of entire perfection does not vitiate their worship, because God, mercifully and with paternal indulgence, pardons them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2006)

Here's how I see the debate:
It is a valid concern as to how the word covenant is used (CoW, CoR, CoG)
At the same time, there are numerous examples of this being done in the Bible where the covenanting ones are not too concerned over the invalidity of their actions.


----------

