# The National Covenants and such



## Grillsy (Oct 17, 2009)

I picked up this tiny booklet from Vic Lockman and it was called "Paleopresbyterianism vs. neopresbyterianism", in this work the author basically says that if we do not hold to the National Covenant of Scotland then we are not being confessionally faithful.
I realize, of course, this is all tied in with the Covenanters and such but the author really gave no preliminary explanation of just what these covenants are.

I'm sure you guys can help clarify this issue.


----------



## Hamalas (Oct 17, 2009)

Maybe I'm just being dense, but what exactly is your question? Are you wanting more info on the national covenants? Or do you want to know what we think about this guys thesis?


----------



## Grillsy (Oct 17, 2009)

I want to know both. More about the National Covenants and whether or not they are in any sense still binding and if so what that entails.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 18, 2009)

See these old threads for more info.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/solemn-league-covenant-34805/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/covenanted-reformation-defended-debunked-14397/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/reformed-presbyterian-church-covenanted-8184/


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 25, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> I picked up this tiny booklet from Vic Lockman and it was called "Paleopresbyterianism vs. neopresbyterianism", in this work the author basically says that if we do not hold to the National Covenant of Scotland then we are not being confessionally faithful.
> I realize, of course, this is all tied in with the Covenanters and such but the author really gave no preliminary explanation of just what these covenants are.
> 
> I'm sure you guys can help clarify this issue.



Presbyterianism after the Enlightenment and the rise of German Rationalism has never been the same. The focus away from national covenanting and an established church is largely (in my limited research) connected with both of those movements, neither of which was favorable to the Old Testament (whence the Reformers and Covenanters derived their political philosophy).

Modern Biblical Theology is the major culprit in this case, being largely the by-product (albeit covered within conservative garb) of German Rationalism.

Cheers,


----------



## MW (Oct 25, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> the author basically says that if we do not hold to the National Covenant of Scotland then we are not being confessionally faithful.



There is much that could be said. Let's start with the simple fact that this is the National Covenant of Scotland. There is no reason in Scripture or the law of nations for binding a national constitution on the citizens of a foreign country. And to make an ecclesiastical body like the Church of Scotland a head over all Presbyterian churches in the world is, basically, Popery.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 25, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> See these old threads for more info.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/solemn-league-covenant-34805/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/covenanted-reformation-defended-debunked-14397/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/reformed-presbyterian-church-covenanted-8184/



Thanks for the old SL&C thread. That was an excellent discussion I would not mind seeing reopened.


----------

