# Scotland: A Covenanted Nation? (Scottish Reformation Society Sermon)



## Moireach

Last Friday at the Scottish Reformation Society meeting the Rev Kenneth Stewart of the RPCS preached on this topic and it's really worth listening to. He talks about the covenants and takes countries like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ into it too.

Very very highly recommended. 

Post thoughts after listening to it if you wish.

Scotland: A Covenanted Land? - SermonAudio.com


----------



## ADKing

It was great to hear such a clear statement of historic RP views which have not been so clearly articulated in recent years!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The sermon was phenomenal. He does an especially excellent job of talking about how the whole idea of Covenanting should pervade Reformed theology at every level.


----------



## HaMetumtam

I am lost for words.

I have sent the sermon this to my Minister.Thank you for sharing

I looked for a copy of the covenant, here is the THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT to read, if interested, it's pretty short.


----------



## OPC'n

God doesn't makes covenants with ppl who are not his children, and therefore, a nation as a whole cannot be in a covenant with God. Only those ppl in the nation who belong to God can be in a covenant with God. OT Israel was the only nation who could claim a national covenant with God. God made the covenant with Israel and when Christ came that covenant extended to many people in many races but certainly not with a whole nation. It's not Scriptural. No where in the NT do you find any apostle preaching that whole nations were to write up covenants with God. No nation today is OT Israel. At one time in history, Scotland might have had a majority of reformed Christians who made a covenant with God but what they failed to realize is that their written covenant to God was to only put into writing what was already done for them by a covenant that could not be broken by any power and that is the salvational covenant. So no, Scotland isn't God's covenantal nation nor is any other country only his bride can claim that covenant with him.


----------



## Moireach

OPC'n said:


> God doesn't makes covenants with ppl who are not his children, and therefore, a nation as a whole cannot be in a covenant with God. Only those ppl in the nation who belong to God can be in a covenant with God. OT Israel was the only nation who could claim a national covenant with God. God made the covenant with Israel and when Christ came that covenant extended to many people in many races but certainly not with a whole nation. It's not Scriptural. No where in the NT do you find any apostle preaching that whole nations were to write up covenants with God. No nation today is OT Israel. At one time in history, Scotland might have had a majority of reformed Christians who made a covenant with God but what they failed to realize is that their written covenant to God was to only put into writing what was already done for them by a covenant that could not be broken by any power and that is the salvational covenant. So no, Scotland isn't God's covenantal nation nor is any other country only his bride can claim that covenant with him.



I'd suggest listening to the talk. Your arguments don't counter the arguments put forth.


----------



## OPC'n

I did listen to it. However, I would like to correct a few things I said in my first comment. The salvational covenant was made among the Three Persons of the Godhead and that is why that covenant can never be broken. If it had been made between God and man, man would have broken it long ago and there would be no salvational covenant. His ppl were brought into that covenant a covenant which cannot not be broken by us. The NT states to never swear on anything in heaven or on earth etc for a reason....we cannot keep covenants made to God and it's a sinful thing to try to make one and then end up breaking it. Scripture does not allow us to write up covenants for a whole nation dedicating that nation to God.


----------



## HaMetumtam

I don't think anyone would claim Scotland as God's covenantal nation, thats well beyond me as a reasonable proposition. I think rather the question is does God enter into pledges/covenants like marriage vows and so forth and if He does ...Can we make vows to God and not pay them ?

I've never heard this stuff before, i'm trying to work through it. But thats what i got from the sermon.


----------



## Moireach

OPC'n said:


> I did listen to it. However, I would like to correct a few things I said in my first comment. The salvational covenant was made among the Three Persons of the Godhead and that is why that covenant can never be broken. If it had been made between God and man, man would have broken it long ago and there would be no salvational covenant. His ppl were brought into that covenant a covenant which cannot not be broken by us. The NT states to never swear on anything in heaven or on earth etc for a reason....we cannot keep covenants made to God and it's a sinful thing to try to make one and then end up breaking it. Scripture does not allow us to write up covenants for a whole nation dedicating that nation to God.



Think about it though, vows and covenants are undoubtedly right and scriptural. You take one upon marriage, they're taken when men are inducted into office in the church. It is not a reformed and confessional view to say that they are sinful.


----------



## OPC'n

HaMetumtam said:


> I don't think anyone would claim Scotland as God's covenantal nation, thats well beyond me as a reasonable proposition. I think rather the question is does God enter into pledges/covenants like marriage vows and so forth and if He does ...Can we make vows to God and not pay them ?
> 
> I've never heard this stuff before, i'm trying to work through it. But thats what i got from the sermon.



No, we cannot enter into any covenant with God bc we will enviably break that covenant. We were brought into the salvational covenant and by extension we are in a covenantal relationship with God but only bc the Godhead made the salvational covenant among themselves which cannot not be broken since they are three in one and one in three. Look at what happened to Scotland. They wrote out this covenant and then they broke it. God never asked them to write out a covenant dedicating a whole nation to him. Yet they did it and broke it and thus sinned greatly by doing so....forgiven? yes, but still they did something not taught in Scripture.


----------



## OPC'n

Moireach said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did listen to it. However, I would like to correct a few things I said in my first comment. The salvational covenant was made among the Three Persons of the Godhead and that is why that covenant can never be broken. If it had been made between God and man, man would have broken it long ago and there would be no salvational covenant. His ppl were brought into that covenant a covenant which cannot not be broken by us. The NT states to never swear on anything in heaven or on earth etc for a reason....we cannot keep covenants made to God and it's a sinful thing to try to make one and then end up breaking it. Scripture does not allow us to write up covenants for a whole nation dedicating that nation to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it though, vows and covenants are undoubtedly right and scriptural. You take one upon marriage, they're taken when men are inducted into office in the church. It is not a reformed and confessional view to say that they are sinful.
Click to expand...


A marriage covenant isn't a covenant where you dedicate heathen ppl to God for the life of that nation.


----------



## OPC'n

You cannot write up on paper promising to God that your nation will always follow him until his return. No where in Scripture does God give us that command.


----------



## OPC'n

I shouldn't say we cannot enter into any covenant bc yes we enter into a marriage covenant etc but we are not talking about those things with this sermon. They dedicated a whole nation which had heathens in it to God. It's unscriptural.


----------



## Tim

OPC'n said:


> It's unscriptural.



Sarah, please realize that you are now speaking against the entire body of Scottish Covenanters, which includes the Reformed Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, Ireland, North America, Australia, etc., and other like-minded individuals across the world. As a Presbyterian yourself, I think you might be a bit more cautious about dismissing the entire notion of national covenanting for two reasons that immediately come to mind: 1) the Solemn League and Covenant is included among the documents that are additional to the very standards that you confess; 2) in this thread, two Presbyterian pastors have indicated their approval of these ideas. Those facts alone would seem to call someone to be a bit slower to speak against this practice. 

Instead of proclaiming how these folks are/were all wrong, why not seek to understand a bit more about the history of it and reasons for doing so? Your approach right now is akin to speaking against every Baptist on the PB for their views on baptism. You may hold a different position than they do, but it would clearly not be in good taste to make such sweeping statements.


----------



## ADKing

Sarah, you seem to be unfamiliar with the extensive literature and argumentation behind the ordinance of social covenanting. Many of your objections are answered by authors who have written on the subject. Might I suggest, if you truly have an interest in learning, that you read John Cunningham's "The Ordinance of Covenanting"? The ordinance of covenanting - John Cunningham - Google Books Or for a much shorter introduction see here http://rpc.org/page/testimony&page=4

1). The reformation churches, almost entirely had an understanding of social covenanting. This should at least give us pause to try to understand their reasoning before we are so dismissive.

2). Promising perfect obedience would indeed be wrong, I agree since we have no reason to believe that we can do that in this life. But that is not a reason not to make any vow at all. We may certainly promise (in fact must) that we will embrace the obligations God lays on us and do them. These promises are made in reliance upon his grace as we endeavor to obey his commands. 

3). Why is it so inconceivable that an authority makes promises to God of things that God requires in its name and the name of those under it? Think of an analagous situation. The family is a God ordained institution. Families are obligated to worship God (Jeremiah 10.25). The father of that family is under obligation to see to it that those under his authority serve the Lord. Thus, he is responsible that Sabbath observance be enforced in his home (Exodus 20.10). He can and should declare "as for me and my house we will serve the LORD" (Johsua 24.15). As a Presbyterian, you also recognize it is the duty of the parents to dedicate their children, under their authority to serve God by having them baptized, bringing them under the obligation of God's covenant. All these things are not only right, but duties in Christian families, irrespective of whether or not every member of the home is in fact a true believer. Government is also a God ordained institution. It too is under obligations to God. I fail to see why it would be improper for that nation, recognizing and submitting to its obligations to declare so publicly for itself and those under its authority. Certainly we have several examples of this being done in the Old Testament. 

4). As for nations other than Israel, Isaiah 19.18-25 looks forward to the day when nations such as Egypt and Assyria engage in national covenanting. Undoubtedly what is being referred to by Isaiah here awaits fulfilment in the New Testament age. Read those verses carefully! 

18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, *and swear to the Lord of hosts*; one shall be called, The city of destruction.

19 In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.

20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

21 *And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.*

22 And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.

23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.

24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:

*25 Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.*


----------



## OPC'n

Tim said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's unscriptural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, please realize that you are now speaking against the entire body of Scottish Covenanters, which includes the Reformed Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, Ireland, North America, Australia, etc., and other like-minded individuals across the world. As a Presbyterian yourself, I think you might be a bit more cautious about dismissing the entire notion of national covenanting for two reasons that immediately come to mind: 1) the Solemn League and Covenant is included among the documents that are additional to the very standards that you confess; 2) in this thread, two Presbyterian pastors have indicated their approval of these ideas. Those facts alone would seem to call someone to be a bit slower to speak against this practice.
> 
> Instead of proclaiming how these folks are/were all wrong, why not seek to understand a bit more about the history of it and reasons for doing so? Your approach right now is akin to speaking against every Baptist on the PB for their views on baptism. You may hold a different position than they do, but it would clearly not be in good taste to make such sweeping statements.
Click to expand...


Tim, which Scripture teaches us to write up covenants to dedicate whole nations to God for the lifetime of that nation? Show me that Scripture and I will certainly acknowledge my error.


----------



## HaMetumtam

I see your point very clearly and i almost agree with you as i dont see much of it in scripture outside Israel although Nineveh could be argued as an example of national repentance and dedication to the true and living God, It's rare nevertheless... But you said we cannot enter into a covenant with God. 

What about baptism ? would this not be considered a covenant symbol as circumcision was to the Jew ? 

The point that men are sinful and will 'almost' always break covenants is beside the point. 

My uneducated view on the whole thing is this, The Reformers were coming out of great deal of persecution, toils and struggles with Rome and England and were looking to unify the nations in the protection of religious truth as seen by the Reformers, in the pursuit to do this they ratified a covenant or pledge to unite the 3 countries to serve God in truth. It was ratified by all kinds of people from the top to the bottom of society and was a declaration of intent to serve God by the truth revealed in scripture.

To me it differs from the suzarian/vassel covenant which God had with Israel as He laid out what would happen to them beforehand if the covenant was broken, the blessings and curses were laid out. To me this is an altogether different type of covenant, as it was initiated by God. 

I see the the solemn league covenant as a pledge of intent to hold fast to biblical truth which had been under attack from all sides. The pledge was made by men who were dedicating themselves and the countries to God. Was it significant or insignificant in Gods eyes ?

I think it is significant as i know God responds to genuine repentance but thats about all i can say at the moment. Bottom line for me is .....the Most High has sovereignty over the kingdom of man and gives it to whom he will. Daniel 4

intersting topic regarding covenants and their significance.


----------



## OPC'n

HaMetumtam said:


> I see your point very clearly and i almost agree with you as i dont see much of it in scripture outside Israel although Nineveh could be argued as an example of national repentance and dedication to the true and living God, It's rare nevertheless... But you said we cannot enter into a covenant with God.
> 
> What about baptism ? would this not be considered a covenant symbol as circumcision was to the Jew ?
> 
> The point that men are sinful and will 'almost' always break covenants is beside the point.
> 
> My uneducated view on the whole thing is this, The Reformers were coming out of great deal of persecution, toils and struggles with Rome and England and were looking to unify the nations in the protection of religious truth as seen by the Reformers, in the pursuit to do this they ratified a covenant or pledge to unite the 3 countries to serve God in truth. It was ratified by all kinds of people from the top to the bottom of society and was a declaration of intent to serve God by the truth revealed in scripture.
> 
> To me it differs from the suzarian/vassel covenant which God had with Israel as He laid out what would happen to them beforehand if the covenant was broken, the blessings and curses were laid out. To me this is an altogether different type of covenant, as it was initiated by God.
> 
> I see the the solemn league covenant as a pledge of intent to hold fast to biblical truth which had been under attack from all sides. The pledge was made by men who were dedicating themselves and the countries to God. Was it significant or insignificant in Gods eyes ?
> 
> I think it is significant as i know God responds to genuine repentance but thats about all i can say at the moment. Bottom line for me is .....the Most High has sovereignty over the kingdom of man and gives it to whom he will. Daniel 4
> 
> intersting topic regarding covenants and their significance.



First, I did correct myself that we cannot make a covenant with God such as marriage etc. But why is it that we can enter into those types of covenants? Because God commands that if we marry we make a covenant to him concerning marriage. He commands that we be baptized. Where does he command that we write up on paper something that dedicates a whole nation to God in order to make that nation a covenanted nation for the length of it's existence? What do you do with those who are not of the elect? They certainly are apart of that nation. Are we now suppose to write up the same type of covenant in our churches dedicating America to God? If not, why not? If so, how do you answer to God about all the millions who will never serve him? You just promised God something you can't fulfill.


----------



## OPC'n

ADKing said:


> Sarah, you seem to be unfamiliar with the extensive literature and argumentation behind the ordinance of social covenanting. Many of your objections are answered by authors who have written on the subject. Might I suggest, if you truly have an interest in learning, that you read John Cunningham's "The Ordinance of Covenanting"? The ordinance of covenanting - John Cunningham - Google Books Or for a much shorter introduction see here Covenanting
> 
> 1). The reformation churches, almost entirely had an understanding of social covenanting. This should at least give us pause to try to understand their reasoning before we are so dismissive.
> 
> 2). Promising perfect obedience would indeed be wrong, I agree since we have no reason to believe that we can do that in this life. But that is not a reason not to make any vow at all. We may certainly promise (in fact must) that we will embrace the obligations God lays on us and do them. These promises are made in reliance upon his grace as we endeavor to obey his commands.
> 
> 3). Why is it so inconceivable that an authority makes promises to God of things that God requires in its name and the name of those under it? Think of an analagous situation. The family is a God ordained institution. Families are obligated to worship God (Jeremiah 10.25). The father of that family is under obligation to see to it that those under his authority serve the Lord. Thus, he is responsible that Sabbath observance be enforced in his home (Exodus 20.10). He can and should declare "as for me and my house we will serve the LORD" (Johsua 24.15). As a Presbyterian, you also recognize it is the duty of the parents to dedicate their children, under their authority to serve God by having them baptized, bringing them under the obligation of God's covenant. All these things are not only right, but duties in Christian families, irrespective of whether or not every member of the home is in fact a true believer. Government is also a God ordained institution. It too is under obligations to God. I fail to see why it would be improper for that nation, recognizing and submitting to its obligations to declare so publicly for itself and those under its authority. Certainly we have several examples of this being done in the Old Testament.
> 
> 4). As for nations other than Israel, Isaiah 19.18-25 looks forward to the day when nations such as Egypt and Assyria engage in national covenanting. Undoubtedly what is being referred to by Isaiah here awaits fulfilment in the New Testament age. Read those verses carefully!
> 
> 18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, *and swear to the Lord of hosts*; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
> 
> 19 In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.
> 
> 20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
> 
> 21 *And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.*
> 
> 22 And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.
> 
> 23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
> 
> 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:
> 
> *25 Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.*



Apparently, I am unfamiliar with the extensive literature and argumentation behind the ordinance of social covenanting bc I haven't read one thing in Scripture to support it. I highly value our confessions and highly value all the work that our forefathers did on our behalf. However, only Scripture is infallible. When the cannon was closed it was truly closed. I'm not so closed minded that if you can come up with Scripture which gives us the command to write up covenants to God dedicating a whole nation to serving him, I won't then relent and say I'm wrong. I just need that Scripture which gives us that command to include heathens in serving God.


----------



## ADKing

OPC'n said:


> Are we now suppose to write up the same type of covenant in our churches dedicating America to God? If not, why not? If so, how do you answer to God about all the millions who will never serve him? You just promised God something you can't fulfill.



I encourage you to go back and re-read my post. You still seem to be laboring uder a misconception. You aske if _we_ should write such a covenant in our _churches_. What is being discussed here is national covenanting, i.e. the _nation_ in its representatives covenanting with God. The church may lead the way and help with wording etc. but we are talking about a deed of the nation itself. And yes, America ought to do this. The nation is not to promise that every citizen will be a believer. Such a thing is in the power of God alone to accomplish. No parent can promise that his child will be a believer. But a nation can promise, in its national capactity, to do things like 1) promote the true religion 2) oppose certain dangerous false religions. This is certainly something within its power as a nation, if it had a will to do so. In a covenanted nation, there are still some who will not believe. They could be punished if their rebellion amounted to that (2 Chronicles 15.13). If such rebellion does not rise to that height, a nation can sill mourn a minority who will not serve the Lord as a parent mourns a wayward child. In the case that the majority of the nation apostasizes and will not serve God or stand to its covenant then it will answer before God in in judgment.


----------



## ADKing

OPC'n said:


> Apparently, I am unfamiliar with the extensive literature and argumentation behind the ordinance of social covenanting bc I haven't read one thing in Scripture to support it. I highly value our confessions and highly value all the work that our forefathers did on our behalf. However, only Scripture is infallible. When the cannon was closed it was truly closed. I'm not so closed minded that if you can come up with Scripture which gives us the command to write up covenants to God dedicating a whole nation to serving him, I won't then relent and say I'm wrong. I just need that Scripture which gives us that command to include heathens in serving God.



Yes, the Bible is our only rule of faith and life. But surely you recognize the fact that some doctrines and practices are derived from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. You are a presbyterian. When your baptist friends challenge you about infant baptism you do not respond with one proof text but have to walk them through the whole argument. Covenanting is similar. You need to understand the whole argument derived from Scripture and stop looking for one place that mentions "covenanting on paper" (although this does seem to be in view in Isaiah 44.5 when something is subscribed with the hand!).

Secondly, the fact that you keep metionining "hethens serving God" shows you haven't understood an important principle yet. Who should serve God? Everyone! Just because one is an unbeliever does not "let him off the hook" so to speak from being obliged to serve God. The issue is that proper authority does have the right to oblige those under their authority to serve God outwardly. It is certaily so in the family. A heathen government will not take such an initiative. But the government ought to acknowledge God and ought to do so.


----------



## OPC'n

ADKing said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we now suppose to write up the same type of covenant in our churches dedicating America to God? If not, why not? If so, how do you answer to God about all the millions who will never serve him? You just promised God something you can't fulfill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I encourage you to go back and re-read my post. You still seem to be laboring uder a misconception. You aske if _we_ should write such a covenant in our _churches_. What is being discussed here is national covenanting, i.e. the _nation_ in its representatives covenanting with God. The church may lead the way and help with wording etc. but we are talking about a deed of the nation itself. And yes, America ought to do this. The nation is not to promise that every citizen will be a believer. Such a thing is in the power of God alone to accomplish. No parent can promise that his child will be a believer. But a nation can promise, in its national capactity, to do things like 1) promote the true religion 2) oppose certain dangerous false religions. This is certainly something within its power as a nation, if it had a will to do so. In a covenanted nation, there are still some who will not believe. They could be punished if their rebellion amounted to that (2 Chronicles 15.13). If such rebellion does not rise to that height, a nation can sill mourn a minority who will not serve the Lord as a parent mourns a wayward child. In the case that the majority of the nation apostasizes and will not serve God or stand to its covenant then it will answer before God in in judgment.
Click to expand...


You keep resorting back to OT times. Did ANY of the apostles do this with the nation in which they lived? Did they even come close to mentioning such a thing? Did they command us to do it and where did they command us to do it? I really wish we could get Obama to do this. Look, I'm not saying I wish from the bottom of my heart that America would serve God and make that commitment. I WISH IT SO MUCH! But I"m not going to write out a covenant to God saying we will. I would being lying to do such a thing. What I can do is spread the Gospel which IS clearly written out in Scripture for us to do.


----------



## OPC'n

ADKing said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, I am unfamiliar with the extensive literature and argumentation behind the ordinance of social covenanting bc I haven't read one thing in Scripture to support it. I highly value our confessions and highly value all the work that our forefathers did on our behalf. However, only Scripture is infallible. When the cannon was closed it was truly closed. I'm not so closed minded that if you can come up with Scripture which gives us the command to write up covenants to God dedicating a whole nation to serving him, I won't then relent and say I'm wrong. I just need that Scripture which gives us that command to include heathens in serving God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bible is our only rule of faith and life. But surely you recognize the fact that some doctrines and practices are derived from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. You are a presbyterian. When your baptist friends challenge you about infant baptism you do not respond with one proof text but have to walk them through the whole argument. Covenanting is similar. You need to understand the whole argument derived from Scripture and stop looking for one place that mentions "covenanting on paper" (although this does seem to be in view in Isaiah 44.5 when something is subscribed with the hand!).
> 
> Secondly, the fact that you keep metionining "hethens serving God" shows you haven't understood an important principle yet. Who should serve God? Everyone! Just because one is an unbeliever does not "let him off the hook" so to speak from being obliged to serve God. The issue is that proper authority does have the right to oblige those under their authority to serve God outwardly. It is certaily so in the family. A heathen government will not take such an initiative. But the government ought to acknowledge God and ought to do so.
Click to expand...


So walk me through all the Scripture which leads to a national covenant with God. I'm not saying that the heathens shouldn't obey God's law. The fact that they can't and never will is the reason why they are going to hell. Of course they should! But obeying God's law and failing to do so and entering into a covenantal relationship with God is altogether a whole separate thing. EVERYONE is required to obey the law. Those who have not been brought into the salvational covenant will pay in hell and those who have will earn eternal life bc of Christ's work. Let's look at baptism. We baptist infants bc they are covenant children under their believing parents. WE DON'T baptize unbelieving adults. So why would we bring in unbelieving adults into a covenant with God?


----------



## ADKing

No one is asking _you_ to make such a covenant indivdually. National covenanting requires the nation, in its representatives, to make such a covennat. You are right, that in its present form this seems unlikely in America. If we want to see something like this happen we definitely need to spread the gospel. The Great Commission, afterall, requires us to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28.19)! We do not start by telling unbelievers their duty and expecting them to do it. What is being dealt with here is how Christian nations should (and I believe will) respond. In this regard, America and Scotland are not alike. Scotland has been a Christian nation that is apostasizing, American has never been a Christian nation and still has to be brought under the scepter of Christ.

What is wrong with resorting back to the OT? That sounds like a very baptistic argument  "Why do you keep going back and talking about circumcision?" The apostles did not live long enough to see the nations brought under Christ (though they did teach that Christ was the king of nations e.g. Acts 17.7). Clearly, the result of their work, however, at length _did_ bring the pagan Roman empire to acknowledge Christ! 

Furthermore, some of the OT places I cited (e.g. Isaiah 19) are prophecies of what God will do in NT times. That should speak loudly to NT believers as we wait, labor for and anticipate these things!


----------



## OPC'n

ADKing said:


> No one is asking _you_ to make such a covenant indivdually. National covenanting requires the nation, in its representatives, to make such a covennat. You are right, that in its present form this seems unlikely in America. If we want to see something like this happen we definitely need to spread the gospel. The Great Commission, afterall, requires us to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28.19)! We do not start by telling unbelievers their duty and expecting them to do it. What is being dealt with here is how Christian nations should (and I believe will) respond. In this regard, America and Scotland are not alike. Scotland has been a Christian nation that is apostasizing, American has never been a Christian nation and still has to be brought under the scepter of Christ.
> 
> What is wrong with resorting back to the OT? That sounds like a very baptistic argument  "Why do you keep going back and talking about circumcision?" The apostles did not live long enough to see the nations brought under Christ (though they did teach that Christ was the king of nations e.g. Acts 17.7). Clearly, the result of their work, however, at length _did_ bring the pagan Roman empire to acknowledge Christ!
> 
> Furthermore, some of the OT places I cited (e.g. Isaiah 19) are prophecies of what God will do in NT times. That should speak loudly to NT believers as we wait, labor for and anticipate these things!



No, I've never been a Baptist. I don't even know what they believe to be honest. I have two experiences dispensationalist cults (then living as a heathen) and Presbyterian. The reason I say you keep going back to OT for proof is bc of dispensationalists rhetoric. All this notion that God "has a chosen nation" i.e America (frankly this is the first time i've heard of another nation claiming to be God's chosen nation) will never settle well with me. OT Israel is over we need to move on. There isn't a nation on earth that is Christian or is "God's special nation". All nations have Christians in it but all nations will be hedonistic until his second coming and no paperwork will make this country or any other country a servant of Christ.


----------



## OPC'n

ADKing said:


> The apostles did not live long enough to see the nations brought under Christ (though they did teach that Christ was the king of nations e.g. Acts 17.7). Clearly, the result of their work, however, at length _did_ bring the pagan Roman empire to acknowledge Christ!



The Scriptures are not confined to the length of the apostles' longevity of age! They didn't write Scripture according to "what's happening in my time and that's what you should do in your time". They wrote Scripture through the Holy Spirit and Scripture applies to all ages. If they didn't write up a covenant with God dedicating Rome (or any other nation) in servitude to God then what gives us the right to make up this command?


----------



## ADKing

OPC'n said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The apostles did not live long enough to see the nations brought under Christ (though they did teach that Christ was the king of nations e.g. Acts 17.7). Clearly, the result of their work, however, at length _did_ bring the pagan Roman empire to acknowledge Christ!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scriptures are not confined to the length of the apostles' longevity of age! They didn't write Scripture according to "what's happening in my time and that's what you should do in your time". They wrote Scripture through the Holy Spirit and Scripture applies to all ages. If they didn't write up a covenant with God dedicating Rome (or any other nation) in servitude to God then what gives us the right to make up this command?
Click to expand...


 The apostles were not civil magistrates. As I keep repeating, you confound the roles of church and state. The absence of a covenant drawn up by the apostles for the nation is no indication that they did not believe it was incumbent upon nations themselves to do so. You are beginning to argue against staw men (and ones that have been pointed out to you at that). You really need to do some reading. Start with the shorter introduction I posted from the RPC of Ireland.


----------



## OPC'n

ADKing said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The apostles did not live long enough to see the nations brought under Christ (though they did teach that Christ was the king of nations e.g. Acts 17.7). Clearly, the result of their work, however, at length _did_ bring the pagan Roman empire to acknowledge Christ!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scriptures are not confined to the length of the apostles' longevity of age! They didn't write Scripture according to "what's happening in my time and that's what you should do in your time". They wrote Scripture through the Holy Spirit and Scripture applies to all ages. If they didn't write up a covenant with God dedicating Rome (or any other nation) in servitude to God then what gives us the right to make up this command?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The apostles were not civil magistrates. As I keep repeating, you confound the roles of church and state. The absence of a covenant drawn up by the apostles for the nation is no indication that they did not believe it was incumbent upon nations themselves to do so. You are beginning to argue against staw men (and ones that have been pointed out to you at that). You really need to do some reading. Start with the shorter introduction I posted from the RPC of Ireland.
Click to expand...


I'm not confusing anything at all. What I did ask for was Scriptural proof that we or our governmental agents are suppose to write up covenantal contracts with God pledging a whole nation's devotion and servitude to him until his second coming. All I'm getting is "well, the apostles didn't live that long to know they should do that" or "it's not what the apostles say to do but the Scotts did it so it has to be right".


----------



## JennyG

OPC'n said:


> You just promised God something you can't fulfill.


we can never promise anything good at that rate 
Governments do in fact act in the name of nations and commit their peoples to this or that, sometimes very bad, course of action. It's what it means to be in that position of leadership. So I think that in that state of high national and spiritual unanimity that prevailed at the time, ...what else would they do but declare such an earnest covenant purpose??
I was just reading half an hour ago about how the astronauts read from the Book of Genesis as they orbited the Earth. I don't doubt they felt they were also doing it, in some sense, on humanity's behalf. They had much less of a mandate, you could say (and I know it really annoyed some atheists) but I still think it was the right thing to do. Not that they covenanted anything of course,so I may be going off the point, sorry... it's getting late here


----------



## Peairtach

It is certainly possible for someone or some persons to covenant with God respecting some matter, but serious and solemn thought must go into it, as it is better not to vow than to vow and not fulfil:



> Chapter XXII
> Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
> 
> I. A lawful oath is part of religious worship,[1] 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.[2]
> 
> 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.[3] 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.[4] 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;[5] so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.[6]
> 
> 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:[7] 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.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.[9]
> 
> IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]
> 
> 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.[13]
> 
> VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone:[14] 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.[15]
> 
> 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.[16] 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.[17]
> 
> [1] DEU 10:20 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.
> 
> [2] EXO 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. LEV 19:12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. 2CO 1:23 Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth. 2CH 6:22 If a man sin against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him to make him swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house; 23 Then hear thou from heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, by requiting the wicked, by recompensing his way upon his own head; and by justifying the righteous, by giving him according to his righteousness.
> 
> [3] DEU 6:13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
> 
> [4] EXO 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. JER 5:7 How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots' houses. MAT 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. JAM 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
> 
> [5] HEB 6:16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 2CO 1:23 Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth. ISA 65:16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.
> 
> [6] 1KI 8:31 If any man trespass against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him to cause him to swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house. NEH 13:25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. EZR 10:5 Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware.
> 
> [7] EXO 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. JER 4:2 And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory.
> 
> [8] GEN 24:2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell. 5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest? 6 And Abraham said unto him, Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again. 8 And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath: only bring not my son thither again. 9 And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter.
> 
> [9] NUM 5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse. 21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. NEH 5:12 Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise. EXO 22:7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. 10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: 11 Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
> 
> [10] JER 4:2 And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. PSA 24:4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
> 
> [11] 1SA 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 32 And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: 33 And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand. 34 For in very deed, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. PSA 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
> 
> [12] EZE 17:16 As I live, saith the Lord God, surely in the place where the king dwelleth that made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant he brake, even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die. 18 Seeing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when, lo, he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape. 19 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head. JOS 9:18 And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel. And all the congregation murmured against the princes. 19 But all the princes said unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them. 2SA 21:1 Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
> 
> [13] ISA 19:21 And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it. ECC 5:4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. 5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. 6 Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands? PSA 61:8 So will I sing praise unto thy name for ever, that I may daily perform my vows. 66:13 I will go into thy house with burnt offerings: I will pay thee my vows, 14 Which my lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble.
> 
> [14] PSA 76:11 Vow, and pay unto the Lord your God: let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared. JER 44:25 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. 26 Therefore hear ye the word of the Lord, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the Lord, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord God liveth.
> 
> [15] DEU 23:21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. 22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. 23 That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth. PSA 50:14 Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High. GEN 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21 So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: 22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee. 1SA 1:11 And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no rasor come upon his head. PSA 66:13 I will go into thy house with burnt offerings: I will pay thee my vows, 14 Which my lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble. 132:2 How he sware unto the Lord, and vowed unto the mighty God of Jacob; 3 Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; 4 I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids, 5 Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob.
> 
> [16] ACT 23:12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. 14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. MAR 6:26 And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her. NUM 30:5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her. 12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her. 13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
> 
> [17] MAT 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 1CO 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. EPH 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. 1PE 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 1CO 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

*They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten.*

All I ask is, when was this practice abrogated?


----------



## OPC'n

JennyG said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just promised God something you can't fulfill.
> 
> 
> 
> we can never promise anything good at that rate
> Governments do in fact act in the name of nations and commit their peoples to this or that, sometimes very bad, course of action. It's what it means to be in that position of leadership. So I think that in that state of high national and spiritual unanimity that prevailed at the time, ...what else would they do but declare such an earnest covenant purpose??
> I was just reading half an hour ago about how the astronauts read from the Book of Genesis as they orbited the Earth. I don't doubt they felt they were also doing it, in some sense, on humanity's behalf. They had much less of a mandate, you could say (and I know it really annoyed some atheists) but I still think it was the right thing to do. Not that they covenanted anything of course,so I may be going off the point, sorry... it's getting late here
Click to expand...


Well, Jenny IDK about you but i don't promise God to do anything good I depend on Christ.


----------



## OPC'n

Pilgrim Standard said:


> *They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten.*
> 
> All I ask is, when was this practice abrogated?



that perpetual covenant is the salvational covenant made among the Godhead which cannot be forgotten or broken and we are brought into that covenant by his grace and so it has never been abrogated.


----------



## ADKing

OPC'n said:


> [I'm not confusing anything at all. What I did ask for was Scriptural proof that we or our governmental agents are suppose to write up covenantal contracts with God pledging a whole nation's devotion and servitude to him until his second coming. All I'm getting is "well, the apostles didn't live that long to know they should do that" or "it's not what the apostles say to do but the Scotts did it so it has to be right".



My point was not that the apostles did not live long enough to know they were supoosed to write up covenants. I have a hard time seeing how you can gather that from my words. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, let me rephrase. The apostles were called to a work of laying foundations not placing the capstone. The progress of the kingdom in this world is not immediate. What will become a great tree begins as a small mustard seed. It should not be surprising to us to see that things like national covenanting did not play a huge role in the lives of the apostles, since that wasn't the principle work to which they were called. They knew such would happen. But they also knew it would not happen in their time. This is not to say that there is no biblical teaching about the matter, however, either. References have been provided to you. Instead of reading or interacting with any of them, however, you insist on making the same charges that do not address the substance of what is being contended for. Frankly, your comment that you are being told that "the Scots did it so it must be right" is offensive in light of efforts that have been made to help you understand. Quite the opposite was stated in my earlier posts about the Bible being our only infallible rule of faith and life and needing to understand the larger biblical argument rather than proof-texting. If you want to interact with some of the material I have provided, I would love to do that. However, you are giving the impression that you do not have a teachable spirit or a respectful attitude and further interaction on this topic with you at this time seems like it would be unprofitable.


----------



## Peairtach

Moireach said:


> Last Friday at the Scottish Reformation Society meeting the Rev Kenneth Stewart of the RPCS preached on this topic and it's really worth listening to. He talks about the covenants and takes countries like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ into it too.
> 
> Very very highly recommended.
> 
> Post thoughts after listening to it if you wish.
> 
> Scotland: A Covenanted Land? - SermonAudio.com



Excellent


----------



## Afterthought

OPC'n said:


> Because God commands that if we marry we make a covenant to him concerning marriage.


Apologies if I'm just too tired to remember but....where does God command that we make marriage vows?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I've not read through all the posts but I did listen to Rev. Stewarts' lecture on covenanting.

Do we need renewal in the church? Absolutely. Would that refresh the whole nation in some measure? Yes. If the church were to be renewed in, and to renew, the covenant that God has made with us and brought us into (the covenant of grace), it would have salubrious effects on the nation more broadly. The church broadly is in a low spiritual state, and such a depressed spiritual condition manifests itself in a moribund church and a wicked nation. 

Much more than that could be said, but having said that, a case has to be made that nations can make covenants with God. I do not believe that Pastor Stewart did anything close to showing that a nation can make a covenant with God, through its representatives or in any fashion whatsoever. Nothing that he offers as proof properly serves as such. I think that a person or even group can take oaths and vows that bind them to something (WCF 22), but covenanting, as Stewart argues for, goes significantly beyond this. Yes, God made a covenant with Israel, as the visible church in the Old Testament, and, now, the New Testament Church. Yes, we can speak of the outer and inner aspects of the covenant of grace, or the legal and vital aspects, corresponding to the visible church and the invisible church. Not all in the visible church are in the covenant of grace vitally; some are only in it legally or outwardly. No one denies that someone may be only outwardly in the covenant of grace, but this is not the same thing as affirming that a nation can make a covenant with God and have some of its members outside such vitally. There is no proper analogy between God bringing Israel or the church into covenant with Him and a nation as a political entity covenanting with God in a way that binds all its present members and posterity and applies even to those who subscribed it under duress. 

All this is to say that this is the clear biblical extent of covenanting: it has been, and is, a minority position within the Reformed and Presbyterian faith that asserts the rightful existence of something called a national covenant (outside the nation of Israel in the OT, which, I repeat, was the visible church). I understand, and appreciate, all the zeal that actuates the desire for such. I love my covenanting brethren and share their love of and desire for holiness in the church and rigtheousness in the nation. I think, however, that it is ultimately counter-productive and divisive. It is not an article of faith. It is not in the Westminster Confession of Faith at all (even Chapter 22). Yes, it was adopted by the Parliament at the time but was not made part of the Confession of Faith. And to try to recapture that as the answer for today will not, I believe, be fruitful, but tend toward something that did not work then and certainly will not work now. 

Rev. Stewart does not bring, I believe, a sober biblical and historical analysis to this. It is without biblical warrant in the gospel era and any measured, not hagiographic, assessment of the history will not conclude that it was successful, as it is claimed in the talk to be. I do not mean to be uncharitable but as a minister of Christ's church I would call us not to put our focus or hope on something that is not biblically warranted. The covenanting position assumes something that needs to be proved: the biblical warrant for the practice of a nation covenanting as did Scotland in 1638 and the three nations in 1643.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## OPC'n

Afterthought said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because God commands that if we marry we make a covenant to him concerning marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies if I'm just too tired to remember but....where does God command that we make marriage vows?
Click to expand...


I stated *if* we marry. I didn't say we had to get married.


----------



## OPC'n

Alan D. Strange said:


> I've not read through all the posts but I did listen to Rev. Stewarts' lecture on covenanting.
> 
> Do we need renewal in the church? Absolutely. Would that refresh the whole nation in some measure? Yes. If the church were to be renewed in, and to renew, the covenant that God has made with us and brought us into (the covenant of grace), it would have salubrious effects on the nation more broadly. The church broadly is in a low spiritual state, and such a depressed spiritual condition manifests itself in a moribund church and a wicked nation.
> 
> Much more than that could be said, but having said that, a case has to be made that nations can make covenants with God. I do not believe that Pastor Stewart did anything close to showing that a nation can make a covenant with God, through its representatives or in any fashion whatsoever. Nothing that he offers as proof properly serves as such. I think that a person or even group can take oaths and vows that bind them to something (WCF 22), but covenanting, as Stewart argues for, goes significantly beyond this. Yes, God made a covenant with Israel, as the visible church in the Old Testament, and, now, the New Testament Church. Yes, we can speak of the outer and inner aspects of the covenant of grace, or the legal and vital aspects, corresponding to the visible church and the invisible church. Not all in the visible church are in the covenant of grace vitally; some are only in it legally or outwardly. No one denies that someone may be only outwardly in the covenant of grace, but this is not the same thing as affirming that a nation can make a covenant with God and have some of its members outside such vitally. There is no proper analogy between God bringing Israel or the church into covenant with Him and a nation as a political entity covenanting with God in a way that binds all its present members and posterity and applies even to those who subscribed it under duress.
> 
> All this is to say that this is the clear biblical extent of covenanting: it has been, and is, a minority position within the Reformed and Presbyterian faith that asserts the rightful existence of something called a national covenant (outside the nation of Israel in the OT, which, I repeat, was the visible church). I understand, and appreciate, all the zeal that actuates the desire for such. I love my covenanting brethren and share their love of and desire for holiness in the church and rigtheousness in the nation. I think, however, that it is ultimately counter-productive and divisive. It is not an article of faith. It is not in the Westminster Confession of Faith at all (even Chapter 22). Yes, it was adopted by the Parliament at the time but was not made part of the Confession of Faith. And to try to recapture that as the answer for today will not, I believe, be fruitful, but tend toward something that did not work then and certainly will not work now.
> 
> Rev. Stewart does not bring, I believe, a sober biblical and historical analysis to this. It is without biblical warrant in the gospel era and any measured, not hagiographic, assessment of the history will not conclude that it was successful, as it is claimed in the talk to be. I do not mean to be uncharitable but as a minister of Christ's church I would call us not to put our focus or hope on something that is not biblically warranted. The covenanting position assumes something that needs to be proved: the biblical warrant for the practice of a nation covenanting as did Scotland in 1638 and the three nations in 1643.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



You said everything I couldn't get from my brain into written form....thank you for your input!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The Covenanter position has certainly been soiled by sinful schismatic abuse in later generations. Here is a link to Thomas Boston's sermon against schism which he preached as a corrective to those in his day who misunderstood the Scottish Covenanters of the 17th century. The Evil, Nature and Danger of Schism | Naphtali Press


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Having said what I did above, I want to re-emphasize how much I love and respect our fathers who were covenanters, and these men and women today who are. I deeply appreciate all my covenanter brethren, realizing that we have so much in common. I think that we want the same things in essence: Churches that are Reformed according to the Word of God and nation-states that reflect that godliness in proper ways in all their counsels. It's this last part where we may have some differences, and I think that to require something extra-biblical like national covenanting was a mistake then and now. It takes and uses the sword for the church in a way that it was not meant to be used (yes, I believe that states are not to hinder the church in its task and indeed are to provide a civil atmosphere in which the church can most fully carry out its divine task). 

If it is insisted that national covenanting is the way to do this, it won't work and I don't mean that pragmatically. I see no biblical principle for this. And neither have most confessional Christians. But I want to go back and ask, "Can't we find a way to work together in this that does not insist on something most of us see no warrant for?" This is not the way forward. Let's go forward together in a vigorous use of the means of grace and pray for our God to have mercy on this sinful world. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## OPC'n

ADKing said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I'm not confusing anything at all. What I did ask for was Scriptural proof that we or our governmental agents are suppose to write up covenantal contracts with God pledging a whole nation's devotion and servitude to him until his second coming. All I'm getting is "well, the apostles didn't live that long to know they should do that" or "it's not what the apostles say to do but the Scotts did it so it has to be right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the apostles did not live long enough to know they were supoosed to write up covenants. I have a hard time seeing how you can gather that from my words. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, let me rephrase. The apostles were called to a work of laying foundations not placing the capstone. The progress of the kingdom in this world is not immediate. What will become a great tree begins as a small mustard seed. It should not be surprising to us to see that things like national covenanting did not play a huge role in the lives of the apostles, since that wasn't the principle work to which they were called. They knew such would happen. But they also knew it would not happen in their time. This is not to say that there is no biblical teaching about the matter, however, either. References have been provided to you. Instead of reading or interacting with any of them, however, you insist on making the same charges that do not address the substance of what is being contended for. Frankly, your comment that you are being told that "the Scots did it so it must be right" is offensive in light of efforts that have been made to help you understand. Quite the opposite was stated in my earlier posts about the Bible being our only infallible rule of faith and life and needing to understand the larger biblical argument rather than proof-texting. If you want to interact with some of the material I have provided, I would love to do that. However, you are giving the impression that you do not have a teachable spirit or a respectful attitude and further interaction on this topic with you at this time seems like it would be unprofitable.
Click to expand...


I apologize that I offended you I didn't want to offend you at all so I do apologize.


----------



## Unoriginalname

I do not wish to side tract this conversation but I just have a kick question. Generally, when ever you see the term _reformed presbyterian _does it mean covenanter?


----------



## HaMetumtam

This is the first line of the mission statement given in the Solemn league and covenant in the very article itself, along with the first point. 

"THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT,

FOR

_Reformation and defence of religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and safety of the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland."

I.THAT we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us."_

Help me to understand why this is considered unbiblical, i'm really struggling here to comprehend any argument against such a declaration in the face of Rome and other enemies of the Gospel. These men knew how dangerous and subtle heresy is and wanted to protect the Biblical truth..... Second article;

"_II. That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissioners, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms._

It could be i'm biased based on my nationality ? but this is from the concluding paragraph;

_And this Covenant we make in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; most humbly beseeching the LORD to strengthen us by his HOLY SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success, as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and encouragement to other Christian Churches, groaning under, or in danger of the yoke of antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and covenant, to the glory of GOD, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths._

I cannot think of any legitimate argument against these intentions laid out in the covenant itself, hundreds of years later Scotland has fallen away, but i cannot fathom why anyone would disagree with the intentions laid out in the covenant, it seems the intentions within covenant itself are being ignored and the idea of a covenant is being argued. So if no one has any arguments regarding the intentions within the covenant ....then what would you suggest the Reformers do instead of a national covenant ? bearing in mind the historical context and immense pressure that was upon the Reformers ? 

What would preserve the Gospel for the nations and generations to come ?.... I'm not expecting any superior solutions to be made here. So if the intentions were biblical and they were contending for the truth and there was no better method, what is left to question ?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

The aims and intentions of covenanting are good. The burden of proof, however, is on those who argue that there is a positive biblical warrant to bind (not a mere person or persons or even a whole ecclesiastical body) the whole body politic among the nations of the earth to give themselves to God. First of all, we don't make a covenant with God without him first having made one with us. He makes no covenant with any particular nation now. Period. All of our covenanting (owning the covenant, renewing the covenant) occurs in a context of His having brought us, at least externally, into the covenant of grace. And, secondly, it's not done at the level of what is admittedly a variegated nation (even if all are baptised, many have forsaken that covenant and do not profess saving faith in Jesus Christ).

Is this, Pastor Stewart says, not the same as a nation having treaty olbigations, paying off long-ago war debts, and so forth? Not even close. National treaties are binding but may also, on just grounds, be abrogated (they are not inviolate in all cases). But all of this (treaties, war debts, etc.) has to do with what is properly within the power of nations to do: engage in civil actions for the commonwealth. The state as such is not an ecclesiastical person. The church is and can properly act as such. The state is surely under God but carries out the duties that pertain to her realm and sphere and not those that pertain to the church. Certainly, church and state have overlapping concerns and each can call the other to account in a proper way, but the notion that a state that has not as political entity been brought into covenant with God can enter into covenant with Him as a state and enforce churchly compliance is foreign to the biblical witness.

Let's look at the particulars of the SLC: the Parliament of England was largely Erastian, quite opposed to the correct anti-Erastian views of the Scottish church. This was why the Parliament had such trouble with the Westminster Assembly. The King, who was king of both nations, was opposed to all of this (he may have agreed under duress but it shows the whole wrong-headed nature of the enterprise: you don't seek to force unwilling persons to bind themselves in this oath to God). The use of the sword in all of this seems quite opposite the ethos of Him whose kingship was heavenly, not out of or from this world (John 18:36) and whose servants were not given to fight. If a person or persons wishes to bind himself in an oath to God that's perfectly fine. But I see no warrant for seeking to do this for a nation (this is different, I think, even from things like recognizing the lordship of Christ in an constitutional statement; to acknowledge in a general way that the nation is under God and subject to His law is not the same as covenanting but simply recognizing a creational truth). 

What preserves the gospel? The Lord Himself. And His people (His church) endeavoring, in gratitude, to live out the life that they enjoy in Christ Jesus. There is no guarantee in church or state but that of a covenant God. Can we not, with whom He has covenanted, covenant back with Him? Yes, but He's not covenanted with the whole nation, but with His church, and that's what we do in the church: we regularly renew the covenant through the appointed means. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## ADKing

Alan D. Strange said:


> All this is to say that this is the clear biblical extent of covenanting: it has been, and is, a minority position within the Reformed and Presbyterian faith that asserts the rightful existence of something called a national covenant (outside the nation of Israel in the OT, which, I repeat, was the visible church). I understand, and appreciate, all the zeal that actuates the desire for such. I love my covenanting brethren and share their love of and desire for holiness in the church and rigtheousness in the nation. I think, however, that it is ultimately counter-productive and divisive. It is not an article of faith. It is not in the Westminster Confession of Faith at all (even Chapter 22). Yes, it was adopted by the Parliament at the time but was not made part of the Confession of Faith. And to try to recapture that as the answer for today will not, I believe, be fruitful, but tend toward something that did not work then and certainly will not work now.
> 
> Rev. Stewart does not bring, I believe, a sober biblical and historical analysis to this. It is without biblical warrant in the gospel era and any measured, not hagiographic, assessment of the history will not conclude that it was successful, as it is claimed in the talk to be. I do not mean to be uncharitable but as a minister of Christ's church I would call us not to put our focus or hope on something that is not biblically warranted. The covenanting position assumes something that needs to be proved: the biblical warrant for the practice of a nation covenanting as did Scotland in 1638 and the three nations in 1643.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Professor Strange, 
I appreciate your very chartiable post(s) and certainly share the spirit of desire for reformation in the churhc that obviously animates your words. Just a couple brief observations 

1) You say covenanting is not an article of faith. This is too general. The Church of Scotland during the Reformation regarded it as such, threatening censure on those who refused to subscribe or were unfaithful to the covenant. Covenanting long continued a termo of communion in the Reformed Presbyterian Churches. It may be true that covenanting is not an article of faith in other Presbyterian denominations (though the Seceders long acknowledged it), but what does that ultimately prove?

2). You are correct that there is no article in the WCF on covenanting (though a very pertinent one on lawful oaths and vows). But as we both know, the WCF itself rose out of the covenanting movement and every single member of the Westminster Assembly had sworn the Solemn League and Covenant. Surely we do not view the work of the Assembly correctly if we forget that they were all committed to the concept of covenanting and had subscribed this one in particular.

3). Ultimately, however, you are right that the biblical evidnce is key. It seems on this we simply disagree. Cunningham's work on covenanting (afore cited) is rather persausive. Have you read it? 

4). Heathen lands are indeed included in the concept in the Bible--not _as_ heathen lands but lands that have turned to serve the Lord. Isaiah 19 is just such an example. The Seceder, Ebenezer Erskine finds an example in Psalm 68 Ebenezer Erskine: The Covenanters of Ethiopia « Reformed Covenanter

5). Of course we can and should work together, brother. However, such work will only succeed in the way the Bible prophecies it will succeed. Covenanters believe that the Bible teaches such reformation will be brought about by covenanting and so is an ordinance that cannot be forgone. The fact it is, at present, a minority position indicates nothing since the cause of Christ has often been small and yet will always prevail. 

Peace


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

OPC'n said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten.*
> 
> All I ask is, when was this practice abrogated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that perpetual covenant is the salvational covenant made among the Godhead which cannot be forgotten or broken and we are brought into that covenant by his grace and so it has never been abrogated.
Click to expand...


No... The question you answered is: "When was this specific covenant abrogated?"
The question is: "When was this practice abrogated?"


----------



## JennyG

OPC'n said:


> Well, Jenny IDK about you but i don't promise God to do anything good I depend on Christ.


that's right, of course. But that doesn't actually prevent us from making promises and undertakings before God which right enough we then fail in, such as on entering marriage. 
Here's a covenant apparently being initiated "from below" (though it's the exact opposite of what I just said). Ezra 10 v 3: 
_Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of out God; and let it be done according to the law. _
that isn't Ezra himself speaking, it's the response of some of his hearers to his prayer and confession.


----------



## Loopie

I have been reading this thread very intently, and I also just finished listening to the sermon by Pastor Stewart. First of all I want to say that I have much to learn regarding this topic, as it is only recently that I have been trying to fully understand the proper and Biblical relationship between Church and State.

I am as of yet undecided on the matter being discussed in this thread, but I do wish to gather greater clarification from those of you who are more knowledgeable in this area. Here are a few questions I had:

1) From what I have heard about Oliver Cromwell, would any of you consider his actions moral and Biblical? I am referring specifically to his rather oppressive measures against the Roman Catholics in Ireland, his signing the death warrant for King Charles I, as well as his banning of Christmas as a pagan festival (please correct me if my information concerning Cromwell is wrong). I do not mean to deviate from the topic of this thread, but I just was curious as to how Oliver Cromwell would fit into this discussion, and whether his actions should be applauded as defending the true Faith of a nation in Covenant with God, or if his actions should be rejected as unnecessary persecution of non-Reformed folks.

2) Even if a nation (such as Scotland) were to declare itself a nation under Covenant with God, how would this play out practically? Most, if not all nations, contain multiple denominations of orthodox Christianity (they all agree on the essentials of the faith). So if a nation that was primarily Presbyterian entered into Covenant with God, would it form laws that favor Presbyterianism to the detriment of minority denominations (such as Baptist)? What if those laws try to enforce something that other groups (such as Baptists) would not agree with? It seems then that if any nation is going to enter into Covenant with God, it must be careful to promote unity on the essentials of Christianity, while allowing disunity (with charity) on the non-essentials. Essentially, it seems like the result of National Covenants is to try to merge the Church and the State. Is that even possible on a practical level? And if so, is that helpful or detrimental to the spreading of the gospel?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Alan D. Strange said:


> The aims and intentions of covenanting are good. The burden of proof, however, is on those who argue that there is a positive biblical warrant to bind (not a mere person or persons or even a whole ecclesiastical body) the whole body politic among the nations of the earth to give themselves to God.





Alan D. Strange said:


> The use of the sword in all of this seems quite opposite the ethos of Him whose kingship was heavenly, not out of or from this world (John 18:36) and whose servants were not given to fight.



But King Asa gathered the people together, put away the idols, repared the alter, then they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord. They swore an oath vocally to the Lord, and used trumpets etc. But that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. The result was that the Lord gave them rest all around & there was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Asa. see 2 Chronicles 15

Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people. King Josiah covenanted to God to which the people stood to the covenant. both in 2nd Kings.

1) I don't see a _lack _of positive biblical warrant to bind a nation to give themselves to God. Are not the examples given above clear enough to infer this is a valid practice?

2) How can the use of the sword _in all of this_ be called opposite to King Jesus when this is what Asa did and was much blessed of God after doing so? Are you saying what Asa did was immoral or wicked?




Alan D. Strange said:


> _[God has]_not covenanted with the whole nation, but with His church,


But what of the Church in the old testament? Please help me understand. So who in the OT were these covenants made to/from? Does OT Israel have the option to covenant 'as a church' that comprises the greater body of a nation, even though they are not all Israel, which are of Israel? Somehow the NT Church does not have this option? Or can Israel do this as a 'nation' and the poeple today can not?

I say the burden of proof is to show National Covenanting as a practice is abrogated. How is this an invalid practice today when it was validated by God before?

Am I missing some abolishment or annulment of the practice of National Covenanting?


----------



## Peairtach

> But what of the Church in the old testament? Please help me understand. So who in the OT were these covenants made to/from? Does OT Israel have the option to covenant 'as a church' that comprises the greater body of a nation, even though they are not all Israel, which are of Israel? Somehow the NT Church does not have this option? Or can Israel do this as a 'nation' and the poeple today can not?
> 
> I say the burden of proof is to show National Covenanting as a practice is abrogated. How is this an invalid practice today when it was validated by God before?
> 
> Am I missing some abolishment or annulment of the practice of National Covenanting?



I think Alan is maybe saying that OT Israel _was _the Church, with its priestly and royal aspects.

What corresponds to OT Israel is the NT Church/the Israel of God i.e. a transnational nation or people.

So although we have examples of OT Israel covenanting with God, that would more properly correspond to the NT Church, or *a* NT Church e.g. the Scottish Church covenanting with God.

Having said that, I don't see how you can argue against a nation covenanting with God, if you don't mind an individual, family, congregation, denomination, etc, covenanting with God; it's just on a larger scale.

But this is something I need to study more closely - something I've sadly neglected.


----------



## py3ak

Ben, in the OT God did have a national covenant with Israel. When Israel made covenants along that line, it was on the basis of what God had already done. But Israel was in a unique position: "Thee only have I known, of all the nations of the earth." 
And that nation is gone. 
So the question becomes, by what right does a contemporary nation make a national covenant with God? They can't simply assume that they are in the place of Israel, having a God-initiated covenant already in place as a warrant and foundation for them to renew their commitment.
Or look at it this way: a covenant involves two parties. When God initiates a covenant, we know he accepts whatever terms he holds out to us; when we initiate a covenant, how do we know that God accepts the terms? We are certainly in no position to impose terms on him. And so the question returns to warrant: do we have warrant to believe that God initiates a national covenant, and that therefore it is acceptable to him? We know that he has held out terms to individual sinners in the covenant of grace. What terms has he held out to nations? On what basis will he commit to being the God of Scotland or of the island nation of Presbytopia?


----------



## Peairtach

*Eric*


> 1) From what I have heard about Oliver Cromwell, would any of you consider his actions moral and Biblical? I am referring specifically to his rather oppressive measures against the Roman Catholics in Ireland, his signing the death warrant for King Charles I, as well as his banning of Christmas as a pagan festival (please correct me if my information concerning Cromwell is wrong). I do not mean to deviate from the topic of this thread, but I just was curious as to how Oliver Cromwell would fit into this discussion, and whether his actions should be applauded as defending the true Faith of a nation in Covenant with God, or if his actions should be rejected as unnecessary persecution of non-Reformed folks.



Oliver Cromwell failed to uphold the Solemn League and Covenant, much of his army being independents rather than presbyterians. He went to war with the Covenanters (Scots) - or rather they went to war with him - and he defeated the Scots at Dunbar.

He was basically a good guy who spearheaded parliamentarianism and a truly Christian man in tough times, and his name has been unjustly besmirched because of his so-called crimes in Ireland -which were nothing of the kind- by a strange combination of royalists and Irish nationalists, and by anyone who hates the Puritans or their memory.

Cromwell was a Puritan but not a Covenanter.

This book sets his record in Ireland straight:

Amazon.com: Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy (9780863223907): Tom Reilly: Books


----------



## OPC'n

Pilgrim Standard said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten.*
> 
> All I ask is, when was this practice abrogated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that perpetual covenant is the salvational covenant made among the Godhead which cannot be forgotten or broken and we are brought into that covenant by his grace and so it has never been abrogated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... The question you answered is: "When was this specific covenant abrogated?"
> The question is: "When was this practice abrogated?"
Click to expand...


Well, without a reference to your Scriptural quote and my ability to put it into context, I have to read it at face value and say that it is talking about the *salvational covenant*, and therefore, I have to stand by my statement that God never abrogated this covenant with his ppl.


----------



## Peairtach

*Eric*


> Essentially, it seems like the result of National Covenants is to try to merge the Church and the State. Is that even possible on a practical level? And if so, is that helpful or detrimental to the spreading of the gospel?



It wasn't the merging of Church and state that was sought but the co-operation of church and state while keeping to their different spheres, i.e. establishmentarianism.


----------



## OPC'n

JennyG said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jenny IDK about you but i don't promise God to do anything good I depend on Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> that's right, of course. But that doesn't actually prevent us from making promises and undertakings before God which right enough we then fail in, such as on entering marriage.
> Here's a covenant apparently being initiated "from below" (though it's the exact opposite of what I just said). Ezra 10 v 3:
> _Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of out God; and let it be done according to the law. _
> that isn't Ezra himself speaking, it's the response of some of his hearers to his prayer and confession.
Click to expand...


Even Israel knew the sin they had committed by marrying outside of the commonwealth. They didn't try to write up a covenant with God to include Gentiles that didn't belong to the commonwealth of Israel, but instead, put them and their children away from themselves. Concerning the sermon which started this topic, it is not our place to include those heathens which are not of the elect into a covenant with God for the lifetime of a nation. Scripture does not tell us to do such a thing. God never said he wanted a covenant with the unelect. When you write up a covenant to God which includes the whole of a nation for the lifetime of a nation, you yoke the elect and unelect to God. Which Scripture states we are to do such a thing?


----------



## Peairtach

Unoriginalname said:


> I do not wish to side tract this conversation but I just have a kick question. Generally, when ever you see the term _reformed presbyterian _does it mean covenanter?



The Reformed Presbyterian Church did maintain a distinctive relationship to the covenants after the Glorious Revolution of 1688; not that other Presbyterian churches repudiated them.

Reformation History


----------



## JennyG

Peairtach said:


> He basically a good guy and a truly Christian man in tough times, and his name has been unjustly besmirched because of his so-called crimes in Ireland, which were nothing of the kind, by a strange combination of royalists and Irish nationalists, and by anyone who hates the Puritans or their memory.


Cromwell is a hero of mine. He was basically just an obscure countryman, a gentleman farmer, who stepped into the role God gave him to become a military leader. Trusting in God brought Israel victory over their enemies - Cromwell had the same trust, and he never lost a battle. I'm not sure what if anything that teaches about national covenants.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

py3ak said:


> Ben, in the OT God did have a national covenant with Israel. When Israel made covenants along that line, it was on the basis of what God had already done. But Israel was in a unique position: "Thee only have I known, of all the nations of the earth."
> And that nation is gone.


 I am not following this. Because God said "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" this means they are in such a unique position that Judas had the privilege of being a member of a covenanting nation but Rutherford did not <- 'cause it was invalid? 



py3ak said:


> So the question becomes, by what right does a contemporary nation make a national covenant with God?


Because Christ is the King of Nations. I am not seeing how it would be sinful for them to do so?



py3ak said:


> They can't simply assume that they are in the place of Israel, having a God-initiated covenant already in place as a warrant and foundation for them to renew their commitment.


 This is where my understanding must be lacking because I can't see how a nation "Must be Israel" to have a covenant with God, but a person or persons can have a covenant with God as Pastor Strange says? 



py3ak said:


> Or look at it this way: a covenant involves two parties. When God initiates a covenant, we know he accepts whatever terms he holds out to us; when we initiate a covenant, how do we know that God accepts the terms? We are certainly in no position to impose terms on him.


 Why does one have to impose terms on God to be in covenant with him? Is this all boiled down to symantics in which one says "Oath" & another says "Covenant which must have terms for both parties?" I did not see any terms imposed upon God in the Solemn League and Covenant, should this not be called a covenant or am I running in circles of misunderstanding here?



py3ak said:


> And so the question returns to warrant: do we have warrant to believe that God initiates a national covenant, and that therefore it is acceptable to him? We know that he has held out terms to individual sinners in the covenant of grace. What terms has he held out to nations?



Ps.22.27-28 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations. 

Ps. 9.17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Isa. 60.12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.



py3ak said:


> On what basis will he commit to being the God of Scotland or of the island nation of Presbytopia?


 Why do you need to argue that God must commit to being the God of a particular nation in order for that nation to Justfully enter into a national covenant? Again are these symantics between "National Oath" and "National Covenant?" I really don't know.

Seriously, thanks for your patience by the way. I know I am a slow one at times. I am just not getting it.


----------



## OPC'n

OPC'n said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jenny IDK about you but i don't promise God to do anything good I depend on Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> that's right, of course. But that doesn't actually prevent us from making promises and undertakings before God which right enough we then fail in, such as on entering marriage.
> Here's a covenant apparently being initiated "from below" (though it's the exact opposite of what I just said). Ezra 10 v 3:
> _Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of out God; and let it be done according to the law. _
> that isn't Ezra himself speaking, it's the response of some of his hearers to his prayer and confession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Israel knew the sin they had committed by marrying outside of the commonwealth. They didn't try to write up a covenant with God to include Gentiles that didn't belong to the commonwealth of Israel, but instead, put them and their children away from themselves. Concerning the sermon which started this topic, it is not our place to include those heathens which are not of the elect into a covenant with God for the lifetime of a nation. Scripture does not tell us to do such a thing. God never said he wanted a covenant with the unelect. When you write up a covenant to God which includes the whole of a nation for the lifetime of a nation, you yoke the elect and unelect to God. Which Scripture states we are to do such a thing?
Click to expand...


Also, Jenny, the covenant talked about in this verse is only a renewal of the covenant God set up wit Israel. They remembered the covenant God made with them and throw out those things (pagan wives/children) that broke the covenant. God told them not to marry outside of the commonwealth of Israel bc they were a chosen nation separated unto him from the Gentiles. So it wasn't a new covenant they made up with God.


----------



## MW

I am sorry to see a glorious work of God come under criticism on this board. The issue of applicability to the modern era is a valid question. But there should be no question about the fact that God worked through the covenanting period to bring about a much needed reformation with all its standards and blessed consequences that we still enjoy today. Please read the title page of your Confession, Catechisms, and Directories. It is doubtful whether there would be a Presbyterian church without the covenants. It is certain that it would not have been of such quality as it has been.

I am a Freechurchman. I cannot agree with our dear brethren, the Reformed Presbyterians, on this issue. I find it inconsistent with covenanting principles to make the covenanting documents a point of separation in the church. Please, dear brethren, take some time to read Thomas Boston's sermon against Schism, to which Chris Coldwell has provided a link on the first page of this thread.

Rev. Stewart has stated many important and valuable truths. There are also some historical inaccuracies which somewhat confuse the issue of applicability in the present. The most fundamental inaccuracy pertains to his statements on the relationship of the British crown to the covenants. Various factors are often overlooked on this subject. E.g., Scotland and England were two different kingdoms although they were ruled by the same king. The relationship of the king differed towards each kingdom according to the laws of each realm. The authority of Parliament was not what it is today. The union of the 18th century created a new state of affairs. No determination on the subject of applicability can be properly made until these and similar factors are properly understood and appreciated.

On the issue of covenanting, it is obvious that one's view of the civil magistrate's duty to God is fundamental. The fact is, our modern nations are bound to the principle of "constitutional freedoms" as a result of the commitment to covenanting. That is correct. We would not have the freedom to discuss this subject without the prior history of covenanting. I would go so far as to say that the constitutions under which we live and move are themselves religious covenants. A little thought on the history and nature of constitutionalism will validate this point. We are all covenanted people, one way or another. The question for us becomes, What is the religious quality of the covenanted society in which we live.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought

^Thank you for those historical details. I know I personally was not aware of them. (And good to see you are well enough to be able to make a couple of posts!)



OPC'n said:


> I stated if we marry. I didn't say we had to get married.


I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I never assumed nor intended to make it seem I assumed you had said that. To rephrase the question so it is clearer, I was asking "For those who get married, where are they commanded to make vows?" Having spent some time mulling it over, it seems that the question needs to be tightened some still. Namely, a marriage is a covenant by its nature--a covenant between men and men. However, does that necessarily imply that making these vows are commanded? I thought a vow was a promise to God, while an oath called upon God to witness, but I could be mixing things up.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Matthew:

I am just glad to see you back on this board, though we may have some slight disagreements (I like your nuances, which I found to be absent from Pastor Stewart's talk). It would take quite a bit of space for me to go through the whole talk bit by bit, noting agreements and disagreements. I do not disagree that there are aspects of covenanting present in explicit constitutionalism (such as we came to have in America in contrast to the implicit constitutionalism based on the whole of the laws and traditions of Britain). There are points of continuity and discontinuity, however. And though I think that such covenanting played a role in the glorious work of God that you rightly mention, I am not prepared to say that God would not have done the glorious work that He did without it. To assert such unqualifiedly seems to me to edge up against the _post hoc ergo propter hoc _fallacy. Our own errors historically are always involved in many wonderful providential developments. 

Having said that, covenanting has to be justified on its own terms and I think that there are serious problems with a nation outside of Israel of old making a covenant with God when God has made no such covenant with the nation as a political entity; with His church within that nation, yes, but that's something altogether different from the nation doing it without God's initiation of such. That is not what the U.S. Constitution is, even in its Southern variety that eliminated the "no religious test" clause and recognized the reign of God as Creator. One can realize in a compact that the basis of law is divine without the kind of action, far more specific, involved in Scottish covenanting. I believe that the civil magistrate has a proper answerability to God and an obligation that civil law properly reflect divine law, as we speak of the second use of it. This is all still not covenanting in the Scottish sense. There is a robust Reformed and Presbyterian approach to all this that does not see the warrant or necessity for covenanting. 

Again, I appreciate what you are saying here and pointing, as has Chris, to Boston's sermon. It seems to me that Pastor Stewart's position is exclusivistic, arguing that covenanting is the way that we are to understand these things and to think otherwise is to depart from God's way. That becomes, of necessity, divisive, though not a single Reformed confession requires or teaches it, even Westminster's original establishmentarian form. I would want to be careful to distinguish establishmentarianism _simpliciter _and covenanting. 

I don't take it that you were referring to me at any rate in lamenting the denigrating of a work of God, but I wanted to make a few more things clear. Above all, I am deeply thankful to see you here!

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak

Ben, I'm not arguing a position: I'm just trying to explain what questions, in my view, it is essential for a pro-covenanting viewpoint to address. The question is of how contemporary nations are related to Christ's church and his universal dominion: and I don't think that question is settled by a quick appeal to Asa. I'm not saying you have to be Israel to have a national covenant - I'm saying it's important to think through what implications the uniqueness of Israel may have.
Is Portugal today related to the Lord as OT Israel was? Is Portugal today related to the Lord as OT Philistia was? Is the NT relationship of any nation comparable to OT Israel?
Take a different test case: what if Egypt, in the times of Josiah, had wished to make a covenant with the Lord? Would this have involved them being incorporated into Israel much as the Gibeonites were? Or could they have kept an independent existence? Would the sundry judicial laws given to Israel as a body politic have bound the Egyptians in detail, and not merely in their general equity? What guidelines can be given for national covenanting?
As I understand it, covenanting is not the only way that nations can acknowledge the kingship of Christ. The debate doesn't have to be between secularism/establishmentarianism. Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon made no covenant. So you could say that there are two questions. First, is national covenanting _warranted_? Marriage clearly is; individual promises of particular devotion (with due qualification) clearly are; but is it equally clear that a body politic as such has authorization from God's word, or a promise of help to fulfill what is offered? Second, is national covenanting required?

I haven't said that there is sin in making such a covenant: I have only asked if we know for sure that nations in general are competent parties to have a covenant with God.


----------



## MW

Alan,

Thankyou for your gracious response and kind thoughts. My post was more a reply in general to the thread than to any individual in particular. The subject of covenanting is bound to be approached according to prior theological commitments, and foremost in that commitment will be one's view of the religious duty of nations. It seems to me to be a fruitless task to advance a discussion on "national covenanting" where there is no shared commitment on "national obligation" in general. If one can allow the possibility of a "Christian nation" under the specific category of the visibility and catholicity of the church, which was the status quo of the covenanting period, then one should have no difficulty with the idea of national religious oaths, since, ecclesiastically, the baptismal vow already functions in that way, and civilly, all solemn admissions and engagements to office would inevitably be of a religious nature.

Concerning my statement of God's works in history, I was speaking more in terms of "special providence" than "general providence" (WCF 5.7). We acknowledge a moral identity and descent so far as our presbyterian and confessional convictions are concerned. The covenanting movement was essential to the "special providence" which has created our identity. It has bequeathed to us our privileges and laid upon us our most solemn obligations. Our sense of duty to our tradition is tied up with the covenants. It is impossible to reject them or disparage them without at the same time undermining our moral connection to our spiritual heritage.

Ecclesiastically, there is a direct historical link between the obligation of the covenants and the vows of office-bearers in Presbyterianism. The national covenant was the confession to which ministers subscribed prior to 1638. It was this subscription which maintained a constitutional and protesting minority in the Church of Scotland up to 1638, and this formed the ground out of which subsequent second reformation attainments sprung up. After the creation of the Westminster Confession and relative documents subscription to the covenant remained the means of avowal until after the Revolution settlement.

Regarding covenanting and constitutionalism, my library is all boxed up, so it will be impossible to refer to the various articles and books which have made this point. I can't expect anyone to take it on my say-so, and I don't have the energy to do any original research online, so I am content to leave it where it stands -- as a mere suggestion worthy of study.

Many blessings!


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Pastor Winzer I am filled with Joy to see you on the board again!



py3ak said:


> Ben, I'm not arguing a position: I'm just trying to explain what questions, in my view, it is essential for a pro-covenanting viewpoint to address. The question is of how contemporary nations are related to Christ's church and his universal dominion: and I don't think that question is settled by a quick appeal to Asa. I'm not saying you have to be Israel to have a national covenant - I'm saying it's important to think through what implications the uniqueness of Israel may have.


I am just trying to understand what difference there is in the relationship between God & Israel, and God and Nations today that affects their ability to covenant on any level. It is rather confusing. If I have a misunderstanding here, then I very well may have a misunderstanding of the relationship between myself and God. 

Rev. Strange stated that People or Persons have the right to covenant, but not nations. Where does it stop and how do we know? Can a State have a State Covenant, or a Region, or a Neighborhood likewise? How about a Family? Do you see what I am trying to understand? This is an issue of the relationship of bodies of people with God.




py3ak said:


> Is Portugal today related to the Lord as OT Israel was? Is Portugal today related to the Lord as OT Philistia was? Is the NT relationship of any nation comparable to OT Israel?
> Take a different test case: what if Egypt, in the times of Josiah, had wished to make a covenant with the Lord? Would this have involved them being incorporated into Israel much as the Gibeonites were? Or could they have kept an independent existence? Would the sundry judicial laws given to Israel as a body politic have bound the Egyptians in detail, and not merely in their general equity? What guidelines can be given for national covenanting?


 Well this is why I appealed to Asa. He was King not of Israel, but of Judah. People from Israel left Israel, to come to become part of Judah under the covenant I am referencing. Hence I thought it rather foundational. Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of that relationship too. It's rather frightening to think one has massive misconceptions unknown to oneself as to their relationship with God in some aspect. 


py3ak said:


> As I understand it, covenanting is not the only way that nations can acknowledge the kingship of Christ. The debate doesn't have to be between secularism/establishmentarianism. Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon made no covenant. So you could say that there are two questions. First, is national covenanting _warranted_? Marriage clearly is; individual promises of particular devotion (with due qualification) clearly are; but is it equally clear that a body politic as such has authorization from God's word, or a promise of help to fulfill what is offered?


 That's where I am. It seems to be warranted to me. I may be employing too much simplicity in my interpretation I suppose.


py3ak said:


> Second, is national covenanting required?


 I have not seen this represented in scripture. I have no Idea even what the mechanics behind this would be. To think of another making a covenant I am bound to has its own issues. But this is not what I am trying to understand at this point. 

I do believe that the lack of the acknowledgement of Christ as King has it's own curse, very well represented in the US and its supposed neutrality today. 


py3ak said:


> I haven't said that there is sin in making such a covenant: I have only asked if we know for sure that nations in general are competent parties to have a covenant with God.


 What would it be then for a country to make a Covenant with God unjustly? Is it just an invalidation of confused people from the start?

Again I appreciate your patience. This is more about relationships and understanding of scripture for me.


----------



## Zach

Welcome back, Pastor Winzer! We've missed your wise and insightful contributions to the Board.


----------



## OPC'n

I talked with my pastor about the notion of writing up a national covenant with God and he disagreed with that notion. He gave me an article to read on this subject. Apparently, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all disagreed that nations should have national covenants with God. Here is the link for those interested in reading it. It's short so not a hard read.


----------



## JennyG

OPC'n said:


> Also, Jenny, the covenant talked about in this verse is only a renewal of the covenant God set up wit Israel. They remembered the covenant God made with them and throw out those things (pagan wives/children) that broke the covenant. God told them not to marry outside of the commonwealth of Israel bc they were a chosen nation separated unto him from the Gentiles. So it wasn't a new covenant they made up with God.


There's no way I would fall out with you on this, Sarah, when the truth is that not only do I value your input, I'm also extremely foggy on the whole question.  You may well be right. ...as so often, I come to the PB to learn.
The very idea of a national Covenant, especially where my beloved homeland is concerned, absolutely thrills me to the core, but I realise that's not exactly an argument (though I agree with what armourbearer says about the long felt effects of our covenanting history).


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> Apparently, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all disagreed that nations should have national covenants with God.



The Schmalkaldic League of 1530 and the Genevan oath of 1537 demonstrate otherwise.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Thank you Rev. Winzer. I grow tired of the Escondido 2K crowd acting like the Institutes is the only thing Calvin ever wrote (and even then speaking as if what he says there agrees with their formulation). The idea his doctrine of the two kingdoms is even in the same galaxy as the Escondido brand is beyond laughable.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all disagreed that nations should have national covenants with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Schmalkaldic League of 1530 and the Genevan oath of 1537 demonstrate otherwise.
Click to expand...


Simply put! It is a unique dance that it performed when modern R2K proponents attempt to rewrite Christians of yesteryear into their image with some very selective proof-texting. Ask Servetus how R2K Calvin was. Augustine I will not argue, nor do I care to. But, the notion of R2K is a very new phenomenon and will find little if any historical representation within the Reformed camp beyond very modern times, Covenanting notwithstanding. While the American standards have written out the Establishment language, that has only been but a few years ago. I still find it difficult to understand WLC 191 outside of Establishment, and some degree of a National Religion:

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in *all the world*, as may best conduce to these ends.

The Confessors taught that this is what Christians pray for in the second petition. Why would we pray for a godless or a supposed "morally neutral" agent making use of "natural law" to "countenance and maintain" the Church? Are we praying for Christ to only rule in the Church or in "all the world?" I know few who are faithfully teaching 191 and many who are teaching the opposite. While one may argue this is not fully "Covenanting," they will find the impossible task of explaining how this is R2K language.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all disagreed that nations should have national covenants with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Schmalkaldic League of 1530 and the Genevan oath of 1537 demonstrate otherwise.
Click to expand...


I read the history of Schmalkaldic League and that was about the Lutherans trying to separate themselves from the Catholic Church. They drew up their beliefs and presented them to King Charles. Long story short they had battles over this where they were fighting for the freedom to practice Lutherism (is that a word? lol). Basically, they were fighting for religious freedom and they had to write up their beliefs on paper to present to the king. This, however, doesn't equal writing up a national covenant with God. Some ppl still stayed within the Catholic Church and would have never entered into such a covenant if there had been one written up. If you know of more information that shows they wrote up a national covenant to God I would be interested in reading it. I couldn't find anything about Genevan oath of 1537 so I can't speak to that. 

However, here are a few quotes from the link I provided.

"Like Augustine, Luther emphasized the distinction between “things heavenly” and “things earthly,” righteousness before God and righteousness before fellow humans. On one hand, the Reformers were rejecting Rome’s confusion of Christ’s kingdom, which is extended by the proclamation of the Word, and earthly kingdoms. On the other hand, they were also opposing the Anabaptist movement, which regarded the earthly city as simply evil and unworthy of Christian involvement."

"Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says that we must recognize that we are “under a two-fold government… so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature.” Just as the body and spirit are distinct without being intrinsically opposed, “Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. …Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men.” These two kingdoms are “distinct,” yet “they are not at variance” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.1–2)."

There's more info in that article about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin not believing in national covenants if you would like to read it. It's pretty short so it wouldn't take too long to read.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

OPC'n said:


> "Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says that we must recognize that we are “under a two-fold government… so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature.” Just as the body and spirit are distinct without being intrinsically opposed, “Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. …Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men.” These two kingdoms are “distinct,” yet “they are not at variance” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.1–2)."



To be honest Sarah this sounds like someone who might not understand the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. I don't know where the quote comes from and I am suspect to even try to interpret this small portion. God can and does use both distinct categories that have temporal situations in both the Church and state for His eternal Kingdom. Just because some things are temporal in both institutions does not make them void of having everlasting effectual purpose under His Mediatorial Authority which he is said to have received based upon His person and Work. There are things temporal in the Church as well as in the Civil realm. There are things that Christ's rule makes effectual for Everlasting Purpose in both. Though these offices differ as a Deason and or Elder they both are under His authority. And they may be temporal. Philippians 2 expresses that He received a name above every name based upon what He did and that everyone should bow on Earth even. This is a present situation. We are to pray that the Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven (even though we are awaiting the consummation of all things) and we are to make the same proclamation Paul made in Acts 17 that God is not winking at sin any longer. Commands every man everywhere to repent. That includes those who are in the Civil realm. They are to rule under His authority or face judgment. In fact the command that is given is in reference to the 1st and 2nd Commandment, if not tied to all ten. So, in fact, God is requiring all men to understand that they are all under some Covenantal responsibility to Him. So for a Nation to recognize it is not a bad thing. It really is a blessing for a Nation to realize it has a Covenantal responsibility before God.(Pro 14:34) Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Lets discuss the Psalms, Nations, and men later on but right now let us discuss the following noted situation between God, Israel, and the seriousness of even a misguided Covenant that was entered into. I think it might be eye opening. I want to point out the following passages to let you know that God takes Covenanting serious. Even if it seems misguided. At the same time I want you to realize that God was not cut off guard by it and that some would tend to sound like Openess Theologians to me by discounting or questioning what man has done and what God has performed through history. I want you to examine a situation. Then lets talk more about it. 



> (Jos 9:15) And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.


 


> (2Sa 21:1) Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, _It is_ for Saul, and for _his_ bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
> 
> (2Sa 21:2) And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites _were_ not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)
> 
> (2Sa 21:3) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?
> 
> (2Sa 21:4) And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, _that_ will I do for you.


----------



## OPC'n

PuritanCovenanter said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says that we must recognize that we are “under a two-fold government… so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature.” Just as the body and spirit are distinct without being intrinsically opposed, “Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. …Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men.” These two kingdoms are “distinct,” yet “they are not at variance” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.1–2)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest Sarah this sounds like someone who might not understand the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. I don't know where the quote comes from and I am suspect to even try to interpret this small portion. God can and does use both distinct categories that have temporal situations in both the Church and state for His eternal Kingdom. Just because some things are temporal in both institutions does not make them void of having everlasting effectual purpose under His Mediatorial Authority which he is said to have received based upon His person and Work. There are things temporal in the Church as well as in the Civil realm. There are things that Christ's rule makes effectual for Everlasting Purpose in both. Though these offices differ as a Deason and or Elder they both are under His authority. And they may be temporal. Philippians 2 expresses that He received a name above every name based upon what He did and that everyone should bow on Earth even. This is a present situation. We are to pray that the Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven (even though we are awaiting the consummation of all things) and we are to make the same proclamation Paul made in Acts 17 that God is not winking at sin any longer. Commands every man everywhere to repent. That includes those who are in the Civil realm. They are to rule under His authority or face judgment. In fact the command that is given is in reference to the 1st and 2nd Commandment, if not tied to all ten. So, in fact, God is requiring all men to understand that they are all have some Covenantal responsibility to Him. So for a Nation to recognize it is not a bad thing. It really is a blessing for a Nation to realize it has a Covenantal responsibility before God. Lets discuss the Psalms, Nations, and men later but right now let us discuss this situation between God and the seriousness of even a misguided Covenant that was entered into. I think it might be eye opening.
> 
> .
> 
> I want to point out the following passages to let you know that God takes Covenanting serious. Even if it seems misguided. At the same time I want you to realize that God was not cut off guard by it and that some would tend to sound like Openess Theologians to me by discounting or questioning what man has done and what God has performed through history. I want you to examine a situation. Then lets talk more about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Jos 9:15) And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2Sa 21:1) Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, _It is_ for Saul, and for _his_ bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
> 
> (2Sa 21:2) And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites _were_ not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)
> 
> (2Sa 21:3) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?
> 
> (2Sa 21:4) And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, _that_ will I do for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That quote came from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. In my opinion, Calvin understood more than most ppl so I have to say he does understand Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. I gave the reference for the quote which you can look up and read the whole context. I have the hardcover book and also have the kindle version which you can get very cheaply if you don't have it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I see the article Sarah. I will respond to it tomorrow morning. A Tale of Two Kingdoms:: Westminster Seminary California


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

OPC'n said:


> "Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says



This is what I am referring to Sarah. I didn't read the words "contrived empire" of Christendom. What is meant by it? I think I understood the Calvin quote. I appreciate the language of two fold government. Even what Calvin calls distinctions. I especially appreciate the thought about the Jewish vanity that the Kingdom of God is found under the Civil. It is not. The Civil is under the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ and the Civil is not adverse to it according to Calvin. It is to help maintain the outward observance and promote the freedom's found in Christ that are external. 

There are some assumptions in the article that I am finding hard to swallow. The article seems to have some straw men in it. They probably aren't intentional but are scriptural situations that are set up as examples to promote an ideology. (ie. the situation with Daniel) BTW, I am not sure that the School this Professor speaks from is totally in line with him. I am interested in knowing. But I am not sure of that so maybe I need to say that. After all the area has had its name attached to the situation now. At the same time the author of the article you reference is done by a major spokesman for the views expressed and the School seems to endorse them with media endorsements and name attachment. 



> The question was whether there were many “missionaries” left in an empire that had weakened the faith precisely to the extent that it had fused it with civil religion.



Could this be precisely why Rome fell? Could it be the same reason why Israel ended up in Babylon? They forsook God. It could be the same situation that Daniel was in. 



> Consequently, each city has its own polity, serving distinct ends through distinct means. Although some of its citizens are converted to citizenship in the city of God, *the earthly city is always Babylon*.



This is assumption..... The City can be in Covenant with God and in a relational status with him through its Elders, Leaders, and Countrymen. Yes, it can also forsake God and suffer thus leading to where Daniel ended up. BTW, Babylon is synonymous with being an unchaste whore. I would caution against calling every city Babylon. God doesn't do that in the scriptures. Covenanting is found in the scriptures. Calling every city Babylon isn't. 




> Like Daniel, believers pray for the city, work in the city, contribute to the city’s general welfare, and even fight in its armies. However, they never forget that they are exiles and pilgrims. Babylon is never the promised land.



Daniel was in a period of chastisement and exile because of sin. This is not a good illustration. 




> The kingdom of God advances through the proclamation of the Gospel, not through the properly coercive powers of the state,



At the same time we are to pray They Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven. The Kingdom of the Gospel has a lot to do with the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ which is a doctrine that is not understood in this present age. And it is so sad. 



Concering the above statement, I am flabber gassed to think that the Reformed faith is being accused of such since we understand that Conversion comes from God. The Doctrine of Civil and law are discussed in great depth in our confessions. Even in the Belgic Confession question 36. In the Hand of Messiah the Prince God can use the state in the promotion of Law, discipline, and submission to Christ to guide men inwardly to this life Changing Gospel. Yes, the Gospel changes Society and helps the citizens of the area repent and promote Godliness. Ever read about book burning? 

Anyways, I pray that others will see this for those God is calling to faith and for Society to come to know God. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul.

A King and His Kingdom - Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc



[video=youtube;aiZMwGNLA4g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiZMwGNLA4g&amp;feature=g-user-u[/video]

Covenanting is recognition of Messiah the Prince and a submission to Christ. That is what it is about. Christ and His Kingdom.

BTW, Calvin also states this....



> But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity. All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of God that while we aspire to true piety we are pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of his humanity.


http://www.puritanboard.com/institutes/4_20.htm#4.20.1

If you don't mind Sarah, can we discuss what I was directing toward in the Joshua passage and the 2 Samuel passages? It was about Covenanting. In Philippians 2 the scriptures express that Christ received a name above every name based upon what He did and that everyone should bow on Earth even. This is a present situation. We are to pray that the Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven (even though we are awaiting the consummation of all things) and we are to make the same proclamation Paul made in Acts 17 that God is not winking at sin any longer. God Ccmmands every man everywhere to repent. That includes those who are in the Civil realm. They are to rule under His authority or face judgment. In fact the command that is given is in reference to the 1st and 2nd Commandment, if not tied to all ten. So, in fact, God is requiring all men to understand that they are all under some Covenantal responsibility to Him. So for a Nation to recognize it is not a bad thing. It really is a blessing for a Nation to realize it has a Covenantal responsibility before God.(Pro 14:34) Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

So since every man has some covenantal responsibility to God due to the Law of God and God's requirement of obedience to that Law according to Acts 17 it seems that there is a Covenantal responsibility in the situation. 



> (Act 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
> 
> (Act 17:25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
> 
> 
> (Act 17:26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
> 
> 
> (Act 17:27) That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
> 
> 
> (Act 17:28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
> 
> 
> (Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
> 
> 
> (Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
> 
> 
> (Act 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.



In light of the above I would like to discuss the following passages as I noted in the above post. Is Covenanting a bad thing or is there some scriptural inference for it. Is there a biblical precedent and how far does God allow us to participate with Him in our seeking his face? Can it possibly even extend to a geographical civil situation that recognizes responsibility to God and His Covenant of Grace? I sincerely believe it is so. And it isn't a liberal ideology that this comes from as some people set out to claim. 



> (Jos 9:15) And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.





> (2Sa 21:1) Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, _It is_ for Saul, and for _his_ bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
> 
> (2Sa 21:2) And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites _were_ not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)
> 
> (2Sa 21:3) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?
> 
> (2Sa 21:4) And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, _that_ will I do for you.



BTW, I sense that we are in an age of reaction. That is part of the problem here. When an abuse is recognized or an aberration is noticed the reaction to it is throwing out or in too much sometimes.


----------



## Peairtach

*Benjamin*


> I am just trying to understand what difference there is in the relationship between God & Israel, and God and Nations today that affects their ability to covenant on any level. It is rather confusing. If I have a misunderstanding here, then I very well may have a misunderstanding of the relationship between myself and God.



Israel corresponds to the Church, not to any entity like the state or nation of Scotland.

We would have a different discussion if the Scottish Church (the Israel of God in Scotland) _qua_ the Scottish Church had covenanted with God in the 17th century. 

The State/Kingdom and King of Israel doesn't correspond in any simplistic way to modern nation states so that merely citing what one did with God's approval means that the same can or should be done with God's approval by Great Britain or the United States.

The priestly, prophetic and royal aspects of OT Israel are firstly fulfilled in the NT Church.

Then there is a wider and general equity correspondence between Israel and modern (Christian) nation states. 

I say that as someone who is sympathetic to what the Rev. Stewart is saying, but would have to study it further.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Maybe I am incorrect but Covenanting is just recognizing the authority of Christ and submitting to it. We are to pray for this as God wills our prayers. God desires that Kings and Authorities repent and Follow Him in the Covenant. It is submitting to His Law. Christ does Mediate over this. And he asks for us to intercede. 



> (1Ti 2:1) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
> 
> (1Ti 2:2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


----------



## HaMetumtam

Maybe a definition is needed for 'covenant' It seems the word has more than one use depending on context and maybe the disagreement is due to equivocation rather than anything else ?

I know next to nothing regarding this topic but from reading the SLC itself it seems to be a pledge to protect and promote Gospel truth rather than placing the nation and individuals who have no interest in God under obligation. 

Definition of covenant
Definition of the SLC

But as stated before i know very little.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Maybe I am incorrect but Covenanting is just recognizing the authority of Christ and submitting to it. We are to pray for this as God wills our prayers. God desires that Kings and Authorities repent and Follow Him in the Covenant. It is submitting to His Law. Christ does Mediate over this. And he asks for us to intercede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:1) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
> 
> (1Ti 2:2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
> 
> 
> (1Ti 2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Click to expand...


It seems there are multiple definitions of Covenanting being debated on this thread. We are all over the map here.


So the primary question to start with is:
"What is covenanting?" as a verb.

Is "covenanting" (specifically as a verb):
1) Simply making a one sided Oath to God by a person, persons or persons collectively in an institution? _oathing, if you will_
2) A contractual obligation between two or more parties in which the initiating party _covenanting_ places or renews terms upon the other party.

If 1) is so, then certainly all constitutions are products of covenant*ing* since they are inherently religious in nature because they deal primarily with moral foundations, what is right & what is wrong, what is permitted and what is not.

If 2) is so, then there are multitudes of problems that arise with the idea of National covenanting today.

None of this is to debate the necessity of covenanting, but is to understand the nature of covenanting and to determine if the authority exists for any individual, family or group has the right to engage in covenanting. So what is _*covenanting*_?

We can't very well continue a debate on a word if it seems we define it differently.


---edit---
Oh! I see JJ Slater beat me to the punch on this one.


----------



## HaMetumtam

I think defining terms is so important it needs to be said twice.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Well, first off someone needs to know that there are historical factors that played up to the issue of Covenanting. In general they were corporate agreements to solidify conviction and practice. In the 1580's King James VI was Covenanted with the Scots. He later saw his power base failing and he fell back into Anglicizing the Church and Erastian rule ejected the Godly from their pulpits. In 1618 the Articles of Perth were forced upon the Church which basically was a step back into Popish Ceremonies and Erastianism. But the Scots had a Confession that had been drawn up in the mid 1500's that was dear to many men. When King Charles I succeeded his father he and Archbishop Laud forced the Book of Prayer upon the Scots. It rankled ole Jenny Geddes and she is credited with throwing her stool at the Dean as he started to read from it declaring she wouldn't tolerate such nonsense. It was 1637 and the Popish Ceremonies along with Erastianism was being crammed down their throats again. So the Noblemen got together considering the Scots Confession and drew up a Covenant that was signed by men all across the country. Some signed it with their blood. The initial signing took place at Greyfriars Kirk in 1638. It led to the Bishops wars which the King couldn't win. 

In principle The National Covenant was an agreement that these men would band together for Christ's Crown and Covenant and fight for the Crown Rights of Christ's Authority. They held strongly to opposing a return of Popish Ceremonies and claimed that the original 1582 agreement was to be held up by the King and their Country. They would support the King as long as they weren't forced into idolatry. They were just defending themselves from being forced into false Religion. In the early 1640's the King of England was at war again with the Irish Catholics and needed the Covenanters to support him and a Covenant between the Parliament and the Covenanters was drawn up. That is the Solemn League and Covenant. 

*So really in principle, Sarah, this is the same thing as the Lutherans did in the Schmalkaldic League of 1530.
*
There is a reason why I posted the passage above. Please can we discuss the passage now? I believe it applies. 





PuritanCovenanter said:


> (Jos 9:15) And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.
> 
> 
> (2Sa 21:1) Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
> 
> (2Sa 21:2) And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)
> 
> (2Sa 21:3) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?
> 
> (2Sa 21:4) And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you.


----------



## Peairtach

Were the Gibeonites Pagans?


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I read the history of Schmalkaldic League and that was about the Lutherans trying to separate themselves from the Catholic Church.



It was a civil league for the maintenance of religious principles which included the use of defensive arms. The national covenant of Scotland was the same in nature.



OPC'n said:


> I couldn't find anything about Genevan oath of 1537 so I can't speak to that.



Thomas Fuller, Abel redevivus, vol. 1, p. 320: "The first thing which he [John Calvin] attempted, after his admission into this city, was a more exact reformation in the church; and for that cause he drew a compendium of Christian religion and form of doctrine, unto which he laboured to have the inhabitants to subscribe, and to bind themselves by an oath to abjure the superstitious doctrine of Rome, and to defend the same with their lives. This motion was refused by many at the first; yet not long after, (God so disposing,) even in the year 1537, the senate and people of Geneva took their oaths for the defence of the same."



OPC'n said:


> There's more info in that article about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin not believing in national covenants if you would like to read it. It's pretty short so it wouldn't take too long to read.



I couldn't find a reference to covenanting in the article. I did see a false parallel created between Augustine's two cities and the two kingdoms of Calvin. Augustine's two cities were antithetical. The two kingdoms in Calvin's thought were to maintain a mutual relationship. Furthermore, Augustine and Calvin supported the concept of the civil power being the keeper of both tables of the law, and of inflicting civil penalties for crimes against the true religion.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the history of Schmalkaldic League and that was about the Lutherans trying to separate themselves from the Catholic Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a civil league for the maintenance of religious principles which included the use of defensive arms. The national covenant of Scotland was the same in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't find anything about Genevan oath of 1537 so I can't speak to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Fuller, Abel redevivus, vol. 1, p. 320: "The first thing which he [John Calvin] attempted, after his admission into this city, was a more exact reformation in the church; and for that cause he drew a compendium of Christian religion and form of doctrine, unto which he laboured to have the inhabitants to subscribe, and to bind themselves by an oath to abjure the superstitious doctrine of Rome, and to defend the same with their lives. This motion was refused by many at the first; yet not long after, (God so disposing,) even in the year 1537, the senate and people of Geneva took their oaths for the defence of the same."
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's more info in that article about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin not believing in national covenants if you would like to read it. It's pretty short so it wouldn't take too long to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't find a reference to covenanting in the article. I did see a false parallel created between Augustine's two cities and the two kingdoms of Calvin. Augustine's two cities were antithetical. The two kingdoms in Calvin's thought were to maintain a mutual relationship. Furthermore, Augustine and Calvin supported the concept of the civil power being the keeper of both tables of the law, and of inflicting civil penalties for crimes against the true religion.
Click to expand...


From what I have read so far which isn't much, I have to disagree with you. However, I'll do more research about what Augustine, Luther, and Calvin thought about binding whole nations (ppl who were not of the elect included) into a covenant with God. I don't believe they would ever do such a thing since it's no where in Scripture to do so, but I'll do some research on it. 

My problem with the OP link to that sermon is this: God tells us not to be unevenly yoked. I don't believe he gave that command bc he ran out of brilliant commands to give to us or bc he wanted to "keep" something we might want away from us to make us "suffer". I believe that he gave us that command bc like him he wants us to be a pure church. God never intended that we yoke ourselves to ppl we know are not Christians and he never intended that we yoke (as if we ever could) ppl who are not of the elect to him.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> From what I have read so far which isn't much, I have to disagree with you. However, I'll do more research about what Augustine, Luther, and Calvin thought about binding whole nations (ppl who were not of the elect included) into a covenant with God. I don't believe they would ever do such a thing since it's no where in Scripture to do so, but I'll do some research on it.



Please do research the subject further.

Concerning your claim that "it's no where in Scripture," what do you think of our Saviour's saying that the scribes and Pharisees _ought_ to have performed judgment, mercy, and faith, notwithstanding the fact that he had cast a woe upon them as unbelievers? What do you make of the Confession of Faith when it teaches (16.7) that the neglect of unregenerate men to do good works is "more sinful, and displeasing unto God?" or when it teaches (22.3) that it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority?" I am sorry to see that many today have lost sight of the moral obligation of man as man, be he regenerate or unregenerate. The doctrine of depravity and grace which is currently being taught and propagated is out of accord with the scriptural teaching; it turns the grace of God into lasciviousness.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have read so far which isn't much, I have to disagree with you. However, I'll do more research about what Augustine, Luther, and Calvin thought about binding whole nations (ppl who were not of the elect included) into a covenant with God. I don't believe they would ever do such a thing since it's no where in Scripture to do so, but I'll do some research on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do research the subject further.
> 
> Concerning your claim that "it's no where in Scripture," what do you think of our Saviour's saying that the scribes and Pharisees _ought_ to have performed judgment, mercy, and faith, notwithstanding the fact that he had cast a woe upon them as unbelievers? What do you make of the Confession of Faith when it teaches (16.7) that the neglect of unregenerate men to do good works is "more sinful, and displeasing unto God?" or when it teaches (22.3) that it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority?" I am sorry to see that many today have lost sight of the moral obligation of man as man, be he regenerate or unregenerate. The doctrine of depravity and grace which is currently being taught and propagated is out of accord with the scriptural teaching; it turns the grace of God into lasciviousness.
Click to expand...


The word "_ought to_" is significant here, bc, here were men who were of the true covenantal nation, who were the leaders of that covenantal nation, and yet, Christ saw how they truly didn't belong in his kingdom. And so, instead of reaffirming their place within that covenant, he throws them out as unbelievers going to hell. 

I would like to quote the whole of 16.7 

"Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and other: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God"

This is very true. God's law isn't *only* for his chosen ppl. If it were, then those who are not chosen wouldn't be held accountable according to the law, and there would be no sin, and therefore, no punishment for them bc the law would not pertain to them. It would only pertain to the elect, and the elect would be justified by Christi's works. But we know that's an absurd thought! Of course, the law pertains to all of mankind, and for them to toss it aside is more sinful than if they did try to uphold it even in the sinful manner in which they upheld it. However, I fail to see how you are connecting this with bringing whole nations into a covenant with God. What we should be doing is spreading the Gospel to everyone, and allowing God to bring his elect into the salvational covenant with him.

Quoting 22.3 fully
" Whosoever taketh 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 anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform."

This is a great statement and reflects what Scriptures says about letting your yeses be yeses and no's be no's. So we must never do anything of which we are not fully persuaded as being the truth. Scripture doesn't teach us to bind whole nations to God in a covenant (the Scriptures you gave earlier do not tell us to do that....just not seeing it) so we shouldn't. But more persuasively does the next sentence concrete my belief in that it states, "neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just". Binding oneself to ppl who clearly are not Christians would be committing a sin. It goes back to the Scripture for us not to be unevenly yoked. If then Scripture tells us to not be unevenly yoked and our confession tells us not to, then it would be unwise to bind whole nations to God in a covenant with him for two reasons: 1) we would be in a covenant *with* unsaved ppl to God making us unevenly yoked, and 2) worse of all we bind unsaved ppl in a covenant to God. Since we don't know who are of the elect, we have just bound ppl not of the elect to God which is just unscriptural. The wisest thing for us to do is simply follow God's command and spread the Gospel to each and every human being that we can.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

You are misapplying the unequally yoked passage for one thing Sarah. If you signed a contract at work concerning any issue or for any benefit you have bound yourself to things that you are claiming to be evil. Even in doing a loan or binding yourself to any sort of situation as a deal. Even with a handshake. There are unregenerate men who do those things and even orchestrate them. 

Sarah, read the Standards on the Moral Law and the Covenants. Take some time to think about this. The world is already bound to the Covenant of Works in Adam. We are still bound to doing the law even if it isn't considered a Covenant of Works to us any longer. It is a grace to Society that we have the Law and are bound to it. And we still are. The Fall didn't eliminate any responsibility to do the law. Once we are saved the Gospel Law is even more bound to us according to Jeremiah Burroughs and the Confession. The Covenant Law reveals our fallen estate. It reveals what we should be. It reveals what God is like (which is something we should want since it reveals His beauty and goodness). It restrains men from harming each other in many situations when he would be naturally inclined to. Even unregenerate men are bound to the Law, whether they want to be or not, as we are all bound to God's judgment and mercy every morning. It is not sin for a man to place his Covenant Child under the Yoke of Christ and God's law when the child is born in sin and corruption. It isn't a sin for a Nation to submit to God's Covenant Law and require others to either. They are responsible for rewarding men with liberty and rewarding men with punishment or chastisement when that law is violated. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Read all of the Confessional Standards slowly and it will help you see a bigger picture I believe.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

PuritanCovenanter said:


> ...Sarah, read the Standards on the Moral Law and the Covenants. Take some time to think about this...Read all of the Confessional Standards slowly and it will help you see a bigger picture I believe.



While the WCF adopted by the OPC doesn't contain the many Establishment passages, nor do most US churches adopt any National Covenant, the US standards still acknowledge and teach this:

"Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; *the church *furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends." (emphasis mine)

Sarah, what do you say the Confessors were teaching here?

Regarding Calvin, are you assuming that Genevan magistracy was running a "principled pluralism" in Geneva when they (with Calvin's consent/counsel) put to death Servetus? Are you aware his two crimes? You may argue that what the Genevan league that Calvin contributed to (as referenced Pastor Winzer) is not covenanting, but you will have a hard time explaining to me how they were acting together for a city of "common grace" that Horton argues for.

As far as the "common grace" kingdom that Horton is trying to propose here, is that not an "unequal yoking" in your eyes? He is saying that we are bound together under a "common grace" (Christ died so that His grace could be given to the elect and the non-elect, and so that we can live in "relative peace and justice?" His proof text is Matt 5:43-48?  Part of His redemption, hence His grace, is given to the elect and the non-elect? Grace is quite UNcommon in this respect.) To quote the link you gave:

"In this era of *common grace*, God “sends rain on the just and on the unjust” and calls us to imitate His clemency (Matt. 5:43–48). So Christians have two callings: the high calling in Christ to belong to His body and the calling to the world as citizens, parents, children, friends, coworkers, and neighbors. Because God is still faithful to His creation, there is the possibility of an earthly city with its relative peace and justice...Consequently, each city has its own polity, serving distinct ends through distinct means. (not rewarding good and punishing evil as taught in Scripture? Romans 13:2-4??) Although some of its citizens are converted to citizenship in the city of God, the earthly city is always Babylon. Like Daniel, believers pray for the city, work in the city, contribute to the city’s general welfare, and even fight in its armies. However, they never forget that they are exiles and pilgrims. Babylon is never the promised land....The good things that we do with non-Christian citizens to preserve and enlarge society really are good, but they are not ultimate goods. The earthly city will never be transformed into the city of God this side of Christ’s return in glory. A Christian would then approach politics not with the question as to how the world can best be saved, but how it can best be served in this time between the times." (emphasis mine)

Isn't that just what you are protesting, Sarah? Unequal yoking? That is just what Horton is advocating. He says unequal yoking is ok because of "common grace."

Mind you, you will never find the Confessors using such language. They never assume or teach anything like this.

In fact he stands in direct contrast with them as he fears and warns:

"Of course, Christians have an obligation both to proclaim the heavenly and everlasting freedom of the Gospel and the earthly and temporal freedom from injustice. But they are different. When we confuse them, we take the kingdom into our own hands, transforming it from a kingdom of grace into a *kingdom of *...*power*." (emphasis mine)

To quote the Confessors on the other hand, they teach the expansion of Christ "kingdom of power" in all the world, not just the church:

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; *the church *furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise *the kingdom of his power in all the world*, as may best conduce to these ends." (emphasis mine)

What do you say they are teaching here?


----------



## OPC'n

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You are misapplying the unequally yoked passage for one thing Sarah. If you signed a contract at work concerning any issue or for any benefit you have bound yourself to things that you are claiming to be evil. Even in doing a loan or binding yourself to any sort of situation as a deal. Even with a handshake. There are unregenerate men who do those things and even orchestrate them.
> 
> Sarah, read the Standards on the Moral Law and the Covenants. Take some time to think about this. The world is already bound to the Covenant of Works in Adam. We are still bound to doing the law even if it isn't considered a Covenant of Works to us any longer. It is a grace to Society that we have the Law and are bound to it. And we still are. The Fall didn't eliminate any responsibility to do the law. Once we are saved the Gospel Law is even more bound to us according to Jeremiah Burroughs and the Confession. The Covenant Law reveals our fallen estate. It reveals what we should be. It reveals what God is like (which is something we should want since it reveals His beauty and goodness). It restrains men from harming each other in many situations when he would be naturally inclined to. Even unregenerate men are bound to the Law, whether they want to be or not, as we are all bound to God's judgment and mercy every morning. It is not sin for a man to place his Covenant Child under the Yoke of Christ and God's law when the child is born in sin and corruption. It isn't a sin for a Nation to submit to God's Covenant Law and require others to either. They are responsible for rewarding men with liberty and rewarding men with punishment or chastisement when that law is violated. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Read all of the Confessional Standards slowly and it will help you see a bigger picture I believe.



I never said that the unregenerate wasn't bound to God's law. They are responsible for their actions which they will pay for in hell if they are not of the elect. In fact, I stated that very clearly in many of my comments. I also stated in one of my comments that we do have covenant children of *believing parents* who belong to the church. Mankind being bound to God's law is a whole different ball of wax than binding a nation to God as a covenantal nation. You talk about covenants made by us and banks or at work etc. That has nothing to do with the linked sermon which claims that Scotland is *God's* (not a bank or work) covenantal nation. We don't marry heathens bc it impacts our spiritual walk with Christ and bc Scripture tells us not to. Getting a loan from a bank doesn't impact our walk with Christ. This is the "unevenly yoked" meaning about which I'm speaking. Perhaps we have a different definition of covenant. The first covenant was the covenant of works which was broken by Adam unto each person formed in the womb. Another covenant was made and that was the covenant of grace (I know you know this). So mankind is under the first covenant which they break until they by Christ are brought into the covenant of grace. If they never are brought into the covenant of grace, they remain under the law. In other words, God holds them to the covenant of works. God's part in the covenant never changed. However, man's part in the covenant of works changed in that he broke the covenant and has to pay (hell) or have payment (Christ's work for us) for breaking it. In my opinion, the Scottish men who wrote up the covenant "trying to make Scotland a covenantal nation, were renewing their commitment to the covenant of works through the covenant of grace. If they were only renewing their commitment to the first covenant (which as Christians they wouldn't bc no one can please God in and of themselves), then they wouldn't have just said a few countries were God's covenantal nations bc every person formed in the womb is under the first covenant which of course they break. So their renewal of their commitment was to that of both the first and second covenant (you can't have one without the other as Christians). They, therefore, were trying (I'm sure not deliberately they just didn't think it through) to bring unsaved ppl into both covenants since there were unsaved persons among them.


----------



## OPC'n

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sarah, read the Standards on the Moral Law and the Covenants. Take some time to think about this...Read all of the Confessional Standards slowly and it will help you see a bigger picture I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the WCF adopted by the OPC doesn't contain the many Establishment passages, nor do most US churches adopt any National Covenant, the US standards still acknowledge and teach this:
> 
> "Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; *the church *furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends." (emphasis mine)
> 
> Sarah, what do you say the Confessors were teaching here?
Click to expand...


I believe what they are teaching that we are to pray for his kingdom to come (spreading of the Gospel) keep ourselves pure that we might spread the Gospel and pray that we might have civil leaders who maintain this in order that we might do so freely. The supporting Scripture they use is 1 Tim 2:1-2 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." I believe those civil leaders are to support us in this way by protecting the freedoms we have and those who's leaders have taken away their freedoms are to still pray for those leaders that they might give their ppl freedom in order for them to live godly lives which would include spreading the Gospel. I believe we do this in order that we might live godly lives in peace as 1 Tim 2 states. But nothing in there states anything about binding a nation to God in a covenant. But I need to go to bed so i'm awake for church. I'll try and get back to the rest of your comment.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> Of course, the law pertains to all of mankind, and for them to toss it aside is more sinful than if they did try to uphold it even in the sinful manner in which they upheld it.



Very good. So we are agreed that the unregenerate man ought to obey God.



OPC'n said:


> This is a great statement and reflects what Scriptures says about letting your yeses be yeses and no's be no's.



You seem to have sidestepped the point about lawful authority imposing an oath to do what is good. If you can affirm what the Confession is saying on that point then there is no difficulty with a national covenant. A national covenant is in essence a lawful authority imposing an oath on its people to obey God.



OPC'n said:


> If then Scripture tells us to not be unevenly yoked and our confession tells us not to, then it would be unwise to bind whole nations to God in a covenant with him for two reasons: 1) we would be in a covenant *with* unsaved ppl to God making us unevenly yoked, and 2) worse of all we bind unsaved ppl in a covenant to God. Since we don't know who are of the elect, we have just bound ppl not of the elect to God which is just unscriptural. The wisest thing for us to do is simply follow God's command and spread the Gospel to each and every human being that we can.



First, who says such who are in covenant with God are unbelievers? I think you would have to usurp God's prerogative to judge the heart in order to come to this conclusion.

Secondly, infants are baptised and thereby made fellow covenanters with the church of God. We do not "presume" they are elect. It may happen that they are reprobate, like Esau. Our duty, though, is based on the revealed will of God, not His secret counsel.

Thirdly, you say, it is wisest for us to simply follow God's command. But what is His command? It is not simply to preach the gospel, but to make disciples of all "nations." It is not only individuals but nations which are to be made subject to Christ. Please consider the following from Revelation:
2:26, "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, *to him will I give power over the nations*."
7:9, "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, *of all nations*, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands."
10:11, "And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, *and nations*, and tongues, and kings."
11:18, "And *the nations were angry*, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."
12:5, "And she brought forth a man child, *who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron*: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."
14:8, "And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because *she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication*."
15:4, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for *all nations shall come and worship before thee*; for thy judgments are made manifest."
We are led to hope and pray, as we preach the gospel, that the nations as nations shall be subdued unto Him.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Of course, it should be realized that the OPC and PCA confess this:

WCF 22.3: "Whosoever taketh 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 anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform."

The Original WCF has the clause cited by Matthew:

WCF 22.3: "Whosoever taketh 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 believeth 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*."

Emphasis added (bold type) to show what was taken out in the 1903 revisions to the WCF. This was one of the three 1903 revisions retained by the OPC when she adopted the WCF in 1936. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## TylerRay

OPC'n said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because God commands that if we marry we make a covenant to him concerning marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies if I'm just too tired to remember but....where does God command that we make marriage vows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated *if* we marry. I didn't say we had to get married.
Click to expand...


Are y'all getting married???


----------



## MW

Alan D. Strange said:


> Emphasis added (bold type) to show what was taken out in the 1903 revisions to the WCF. This was one of the three 1903 revisions retained by the OPC when she adopted the WCF in 1936.



Thankyou, Alan, for clearing up the discrepancy. Given the fact that the proposition of the original was retained by the confessing presbyterians of North America before 1903, and that men like A. A. Hodge regarded the Scriptures as explicitly teaching the proposition, is there any specific "reason" in the history of the time which can explain the alteration on confessional grounds?


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the law pertains to all of mankind, and for them to toss it aside is more sinful than if they did try to uphold it even in the sinful manner in which they upheld it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good. So we are agreed that the unregenerate man ought to obey God.
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a great statement and reflects what Scriptures says about letting your yeses be yeses and no's be no's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have sidestepped the point about lawful authority imposing an oath to do what is good. If you can affirm what the Confession is saying on that point then there is no difficulty with a national covenant. A national covenant is in essence a lawful authority imposing an oath on its people to obey God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difficulty with a national covenant in terms of how the linked sermon was saying they were a covenantal nation. The pastor stated that Scotland along with just a few other countries were covenantal nations. Now if he were only talking about the covenant of works he would be incorrect bc all nations are under that covenant. If he were talking about both covenants, then he's also incorrect bc Scotland along with the other countries he mentioned had unbelievers in it and unbelievers do not belong to the covenant of grace until/if they are brought into the covenant of grace by *God*.
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> If then Scripture tells us to not be unevenly yoked and our confession tells us not to, then it would be unwise to bind whole nations to God in a covenant with him for two reasons: 1) we would be in a covenant *with* unsaved ppl to God making us unevenly yoked, and 2) worse of all we bind unsaved ppl in a covenant to God. Since we don't know who are of the elect, we have just bound ppl not of the elect to God which is just unscriptural. The wisest thing for us to do is simply follow God's command and spread the Gospel to each and every human being that we can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, who says such who are in covenant with God are unbelievers? I think you would have to usurp God's prerogative to judge the heart in order to come to this conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National means national. It doesn't mean church. If he meant the national church, then he should have said so, but he didn't from what I remember. There were/are unbelievers in every nation.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> , infants are baptised and thereby made fellow covenanters with the church of God. We do not "presume" they are elect. It may happen that they are reprobate, like Esau. Our duty, though, is based on the revealed will of God, not His secret counsel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infants of* believing parents* are apart of the covenant according to Scripture until they are old enough state they are not believers, and we baptize the infants into that covenant just as the OT circumcised their male infants into the covenant. We* don't* baptize adults and bring them into the covenant if they haven't made a confession of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly, you say, it is wisest for us to simply follow God's command. But what is His command? It is not simply to preach the gospel, but to make disciples of all "nations." It is not only individuals but nations which are to be made subject to Christ. Please consider the following from Revelation:
> 2:26, "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, *to him will I give power over the nations*."
> 7:9, "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, *of all nations*, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands."
> 10:11, "And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, *and nations*, and tongues, and kings."
> 11:18, "And *the nations were angry*, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."
> 12:5, "And she brought forth a man child, *who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron*: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."
> 14:8, "And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because *she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication*."
> 15:4, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for *all nations shall come and worship before thee*; for thy judgments are made manifest."
> We are led to hope and pray, as we preach the gospel, that the nations as nations shall be subdued unto Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making disciples of all nations means going to each nation to preach the Gospel to make disciples of *some* ppl (the elect....we don't know who are or are not so we are to tell the Gospel to *everyone*) within each nation. You and I know that there's never been nor ever will be a nation this is purely made up of only Christians. We do know that each nation will have its share of ppl who are not of the elect. "Many are called but few are chosen".
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> There is a difficulty with a national covenant in terms of how the linked sermon was saying they were a covenantal nation. The pastor stated that Scotland along with just a few other countries were covenantal nations. Now if he were only talking about the covenant of works he would be incorrect bc all nations are under that covenant. If he were talking about both covenants, then he's also incorrect bc Scotland along with the other countries he mentioned had unbelievers in it and unbelievers do not belong to the covenant of grace until/if they are brought into the covenant of grace by *God*.



It should be observed that "covenant" in "national covenant" is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace. It is not God's transaction with man, but man's transaction with God. One will find this clear differentiation by examining Larger Catechism, answers 31 and 174. In the former, God makes a covenant with Christ and the elect. In the latter, the communicants at the Lord's supper are regarded as having entered into covenant with God. It is the latter that is in view in social covenants like the National Covenant.



OPC'n said:


> National means national. It doesn't mean church. If he meant the national church, then he should have said so, but he didn't from what I remember. There were/are unbelievers in every nation.



The National Covenant was made at a time when the whole Scottish nation was Christian and a part of the visible church.



OPC'n said:


> Infants of* believing parents* are apart of the covenant according to Scripture until they are old enough state they are not believers, and we baptize the infants into that covenant just as the OT circumcised their male infants into the covenant. We* don't* baptize adults and bring them into the covenant if they haven't made a confession of faith.



In the event that all children are born into a nation in which every family is a part of the visible church it comes about that all infants are baptised and in covenant.



armourbearer said:


> Making disciples of all nations means going to each nation to preach the Gospel to make disciples of *some* ppl (the elect....we don't know who are or are not so we are to tell the Gospel to *everyone*) within each nation. You and I know that there's never been nor ever will be a nation this is purely made up of only Christians. We do know that each nation will have its share of ppl who are not of the elect. "Many are called but few are chosen".



Such does not fulfil the commission of Christ. The commission contains explicit terms. One of those terms is "nation." By exchanging terms one alters the commission of Christ. Reverence and honour to Christ should suffice to constrain one from doing this.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> There is a difficulty with a national covenant in terms of how the linked sermon was saying they were a covenantal nation. The pastor stated that Scotland along with just a few other countries were covenantal nations. Now if he were only talking about the covenant of works he would be incorrect bc all nations are under that covenant. If he were talking about both covenants, then he's also incorrect bc Scotland along with the other countries he mentioned had unbelievers in it and unbelievers do not belong to the covenant of grace until/if they are brought into the covenant of grace by *God*.



It should be observed that "covenant" in "national covenant" is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace. It is not God's transaction with man, but man's transaction with God. One will find this clear differentiation by examining Larger Catechism, answers 31 and 174. In the former, God makes a covenant with Christ and the elect. In the latter, the communicants at the Lord's supper are regarded as having entered into covenant with God. It is the latter that is in view in social covenants like the National Covenant.



OPC'n said:


> National means national. It doesn't mean church. If he meant the national church, then he should have said so, but he didn't from what I remember. There were/are unbelievers in every nation.



The National Covenant was made at a time when the whole Scottish nation was Christian and a part of the visible church.



OPC'n said:


> Infants of* believing parents* are apart of the covenant according to Scripture until they are old enough state they are not believers, and we baptize the infants into that covenant just as the OT circumcised their male infants into the covenant. We* don't* baptize adults and bring them into the covenant if they haven't made a confession of faith.



In the event that all children are born into a nation in which every family is a part of the visible church it comes about that all infants are baptised and in covenant.



armourbearer said:


> Making disciples of all nations means going to each nation to preach the Gospel to make disciples of *some* ppl (the elect....we don't know who are or are not so we are to tell the Gospel to *everyone*) within each nation. You and I know that there's never been nor ever will be a nation this is purely made up of only Christians. We do know that each nation will have its share of ppl who are not of the elect. "Many are called but few are chosen".



Such does not fulfil the commission of Christ. The commission contains explicit terms. One of those terms is "nation." By exchanging terms one alters the commission of Christ. Reverence and honour to Christ should suffice to constrain one from doing this.


----------



## Sola Gratia

So, a newbie question. What on earth is R2K and Escondio 2K? I'm lost


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difficulty with a national covenant in terms of how the linked sermon was saying they were a covenantal nation. The pastor stated that Scotland along with just a few other countries were covenantal nations. Now if he were only talking about the covenant of works he would be incorrect bc all nations are under that covenant. If he were talking about both covenants, then he's also incorrect bc Scotland along with the other countries he mentioned had unbelievers in it and unbelievers do not belong to the covenant of grace until/if they are brought into the covenant of grace by *God*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be observed that "covenant" in "national covenant" is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace. It is not God's transaction with man, but man's transaction with God. One will find this clear differentiation by examining Larger Catechism, answers 31 and 174. In the former, God makes a covenant with Christ and the elect. In the latter, the communicants at the Lord's supper are regarded as having entered into covenant with God. It is the latter that is in view in social covenants like the National Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, if the pastor wasn't talking about the covenants of works and grace, but was only talking about "renewing" (that's the word the WCF uses they don't use "enter" since they have already entered the covenant of grace in order to partake of his supper ) their covenant to God, it is still wrong to bring unbelievers to the Lord's Supper Table.
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> National means national. It doesn't mean church. If he meant the national church, then he should have said so, but he didn't from what I remember. There were/are unbelievers in every nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> National Covenant was made at a time when the whole Scottish nation was Christian and a part of the visible church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe all of Scotland was made up of Christians. What about the other nations he said were also in that covenant? Were all those nations all Christians too? This certainly is news to me as it would be to many other ppl. In any event, those nations do have heathens in it *now*, and the pastor was contending that they were still to be a covenantal nation which is impossible since they do now have unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infants of* believing parents* are apart of the covenant according to Scripture until they are old enough state they are not believers, and we baptize the infants into that covenant just as the OT circumcised their male infants into the covenant. We* don't* baptize adults and bring them into the covenant if they haven't made a confession of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the event that all children are born into a nation in which every family is a part of the visible church it comes about that all infants are baptised and in covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, when a whole nation is filled with only Christians then everyone will be baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making disciples of all nations means going to each nation to preach the Gospel to make disciples of *some* ppl (the elect....we don't know who are or are not so we are to tell the Gospel to *everyone*) within each nation. You and I know that there's never been nor ever will be a nation this is purely made up of only Christians. We do know that each nation will have its share of ppl who are not of the elect. "Many are called but few are chosen".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such does not fulfil the commission of Christ. The commission contains explicit terms. One of those terms is "nation." By exchanging terms one alters the commission of Christ. Reverence and honour to Christ should suffice to constrain one from doing this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then what you are saying is that from the time of the command (besides Scotland...I don't believe this to be true btw ) until now, God has failed to use us to make disciples of nations? That he has only been able to use us to make disciples of some ppl within each nation? If you don't mind, I would like to see some supporting Scriptures that confirm your interpretation of this verse, bc you are the first person I have ever heard that feels that whole nations will be disciples of God.
Click to expand...


----------



## OPC'n

I have to agree with Calvin about the "teaching or making disciples" of nations. He states concerning Matt 28:19, 

19. _*Go out, therefore, and teach all nations*_. Though Mark, after having related that Christ appeared to the eleven disciples, immediately subjoins the command to preach the gospel, he does not speak of these as an unbroken series of events, for we learn from the enumeration of them which is given by Matthew, that the latter event did not take place before they had gone into Galilee. The meaning amounts to this, that by proclaiming the gospel everywhere, they should bring all nations to the obedience of the faith, and next, that they should seal and ratify their doctrine by the sign of the gospel. In Matthew, they are first taught simply to teach; but Mark expresses the kind of doctrine, that they should preach the gospel; and shortly afterwards Matthew himself adds this limitation, to teach them to observe all things whatsoever the Lord hath commanded.
Let us learn from this passage, that the apostleship is not an empty title, but a laborious office; and that, consequently, nothing is more absurd or intolerable than that this honor should be claimed by hypocrites, who live like kings at their ease, and disdainfully throw away from themselves the office of teaching. The Pope of Rome and his band proudly boast of their succession, as if they held this rank in common with Peter and his companions; and yet they pay no more regard to doctrine than was paid by the Luperci, or the priests of Bacchus and Venus. 324 And with what face, pray, do they claim to be the successors of those who, they are told, were appointed to be preachers of the gospel? But though they are not ashamed to display their impudence, still with every reader of sound judgment this single word is sufficient to lay prostrate their silly hierarchy—that no man can be a successor of the apostles who does not devote his services to Christ in the preaching of the gospel. In short, whoever does not fulfill the duties of a teacher acts wickedly and falsely by assuming the name of an apostle; and what is more—the priesthood of the New Testament consists in slaying men, as a sacrifice to God, by the spiritual sword of the word. Hence it follows, that all are but pretended and spurious priests who are not devoted to the office of teaching.
_*Teach all nations*_. Here Christ, by removing the distinction, makes the Gentiles equal to the Jews, and admits both, indiscriminately to a participation in the covenant. Such is also the import of the term: go out; for the prophets under the law had limits assigned to them, but now,
the wall of partition having been broken down, 
(Ephesians 2:14,)
the Lord commands the ministers of the gospel to go to a distance, in order to spread the doctrine of salvation in every part of the world. For though, as we have lately suggested, the right of the first-born at the very commencement of the gospel, remained among the Jews, still the inheritance of life was common to the Gentiles. Thus was fulfilled that prediction of Isaiah, (49:6,) and others of a similar nature, that Christ was
given for a light of the Gentiles, 
that he might be the salvation of God to the end of the earth.
*Mark means the same thing by every creature*; for when peace has been proclaimed to those that are within the Church, the same message reaches those who are at a distance, and were strangers, (Ephesians 2:17, 19.) How necessary it was that the apostles should be distinctly informed of the calling of the Gentiles, is evident from this consideration, that even after having received the command, they felt the greatest horror at approaching them, as if by doing so they polluted themselves and their doctrine.
Baptizing them. Christ enjoins that those who have submitted to the gospel, and professed to be his disciples, shall be baptized; partly that their baptism may be a pledge of eternal life before God:, and partly that it may be an outward sign of faith before men.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> Ok, if the pastor wasn't talking about the covenants of works and grace, but was only talking about "renewing" (that's the word the WCF uses they don't use "enter" since they have already entered the covenant of grace in order to partake of his supper ) their covenant to God, it is still wrong to bring unbelievers to the Lord's Supper Table.



This statement just continues the confusion of associating a social covenant with the divine covenants. A social or personal covenant is one's own commitment to God and His covenant. It is not God's covenant with man. In the Lord's supper there is an implicit acceptance and commitment to pay one's vows to the Lord, whatever those vows may be. This is the covenanting referred to in the Larger Catechism answer, not the covenant of grace. Of course it is wrong for unbelievers to intentionally partake of the Lord's table. The fact is, though, they might partake of it on the basis that the oversight of the church cannot see into the hearts of the covenanters, and must leave it to God to judge of that matter. The same applies to a national covenant: God judges the heart while man can only take the person on his word.



OPC'n said:


> I don't believe all of Scotland was made up of Christians. What about the other nations he said were also in that covenant? Were all those nations all Christians too? This certainly is news to me as it would be to many other ppl. In any event, those nations do have heathens in it *now*, and the pastor was contending that they were still to be a covenantal nation which is impossible since they do now have unbelievers.



To clarify terms historically, the Directory for Public Worship does not classify a "Christian" as one who is elect or regenerate, but one who is a part of the professing visible church, including infants. Hence it says "they are Christians." Given that the term "Christian" is only used in connection with visible profession in the New Testament, this would be the more appropriate way to use the word. It does not refer technically to those who are truly the Lord's people. In which case, it is an historical fact that all of Scotland was made up of Christians. They were not infidels, Mohametans, Jews, etc. They were all Christians.



OPC'n said:


> So then what you are saying is that from the time of the command (besides Scotland  ) until now, God has failed to use us to make disciples of nations? That he has only been able to use us to make disciples of some ppl within each nation? If you don't mind, I would like to see some supporting Scriptures that confirm your interpretation of this verse, bc you are the first person I have ever heard that feels that whole nations will be disciples of God.



I am sorry to be the first person you have come across who has said that. If you read some of the historical literature from the Presbyterian church you will find that it is the normal way of interpreting Scripture. I gave you many Scriptures in Revelation to consider on this point. If you would read them, and not reinterpret the word "nations" to include only "some of every nation," which is impossible given the battle that Revelation describes, it will be apparent that the nations as nations are subject to the Lamb and are the inheritance of His followers.

I am glad that you agree with Calvin that the Gentiles are now equal to the Jews. The Jews are a nationality. Gentiles are nationalities. The point should now be firmly settled.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

OPC'n said:


> Mankind being bound to God's law is a whole different ball of wax than binding a nation to God as a covenantal nation.



How so Sarah? 

Have you addressed the situation that I mentioned from the books of Joshua and Samuel? God does require things generations past even. Even when the following generations didn't make the Covenant. That situation is very revealing I believe and might even prove why a Nation can be a Covenanting Nation before God and man. God held them accountable for it.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> I am sorry to be the first person you have come across who has said that. If you read some of the historical literature from the Presbyterian church you will find that it is the normal way of interpreting Scripture. I gave you many Scriptures in Revelation to consider on this point. If you would read them, and not reinterpret the word "nations" to include only "some of every nation," which is impossible given the battle that Revelation describes, it will be apparent that the nations as nations are subject to the Lamb and are the inheritance of His followers.



If you want to believe that when it says, "make disciples of all nations" it actually means whole nations and not individuals in every nations, then I won't continue on and on except to point to the fact that many times in Scripture when it says things such as "nation" or "world" etc it doesn't mean the "whole world" etc.... i.e. in John 3:17 it doesn't mean every person in the world which other Scriptures support, but I"m not going to go into all that. Also, I've been reading the OPC official site. It would seem it supports what I've been trying to say as does my pastor. Below is just a small portion of what they say and here is the link to the whole article if you're interested.

"The greatest value of VanDrunen's book is unearthing of a tradition of 2k that had been lost thanks largely to the influence of Dutch Calvinism in North America. In fact, from the perspective of Reformed history, VanDrunen's most impressive contribution is to show that an older Reformed 2k tradition, used by Puritans and Old School Presbyterians, declined as Dutch neo-Calvinism rose and replaced it. At the same time, the book offers guidance on Christian involvement in politics and culture from a 2k perspective. In so doing, VanDrunen recognizes the difficulty of sorting out the competing claims that confront believers who live between the times—that is, between the theocratic arrangements of Israel and the ultimate theocracy of the New Heavens and New Earth. To be sure, to Reformed Protestants used to hearing that dualism or a division of personal loyalties is a concession to modern secular society, the distinctions that VanDrunen traces and explains will sound strange and perhaps wrong. But for Presbyterians who seek a better country because Christ's kingdom awaits a fuller and ultimate establishment upon his return, 2k may provide the comfort and resources needed to negotiate an existence that is in but not of this world."

And I leave you all with that and take my bow out of this conversation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

OPC'n said:


> "The greatest value of VanDrunen's book is unearthing of a tradition of 2k that had been lost thanks largely to the influence of Dutch Calvinism in North America. In fact, from the perspective of Reformed history, VanDrunen's most impressive contribution is to show that an older Reformed 2k tradition, used by Puritans and Old School Presbyterians, declined as Dutch neo-Calvinism rose and replaced it. At the same time, the book offers guidance on Christian involvement in politics and culture from a 2k perspective. In so doing, VanDrunen recognizes the difficulty of sorting out the competing claims that confront believers who live between the times—that is, between the theocratic arrangements of Israel and the ultimate theocracy of the New Heavens and New Earth. To be sure, to Reformed Protestants used to hearing that dualism or a division of personal loyalties is a concession to modern secular society, the distinctions that VanDrunen traces and explains will sound strange and perhaps wrong. But for Presbyterians who seek a better country because Christ's kingdom awaits a fuller and ultimate establishment upon his return, 2k may provide the comfort and resources needed to negotiate an existence that is in but not of this world."



READ THIS>>>>> http://worldviewresourcesinternational.com/kloosterman/DVDreviewNL2K.pdf 

I know you want to bow out. I understand. Please read the following.

Please read this. http://worldviewresourcesinternational.com/kloosterman/DVDreviewNL2K.pdf


----------



## kodos

Reading this thread has made me confused about the concerns about the SLC. I read the SLC, and to be fair I didn't study it too deeply. However, to me it reads as an Oath that is being made to God, not a divine covenant instituted by Him. So maybe the terminology is tripping up people?

I don't see it much different than Federal officers who take an Oath on the Bible and say "so help me God". Except these are affirming the Crown Rights of the Rule of the Lord Jesus Christ over His Church and the Civil Magistrate instead of upholding the United States Constitution. 

What makes an Oath of this kind wrong? Can the family running Chick-fil-A make an oath to God that their company be run by Biblical practices under the Lordship of Christ (the source of all ethics, right?). And then could they hold their employees to uphold that oath even if they are unbelievers? I don't see why not from a Biblical basis.

Remember, we are not talking about the institutional church making these vows, but rather God's ministers in the civil spheres. They are His deacons as Paul says in Romans 13 - and his ministers / deacons should very well proclaim His rule over their commonwealth. 

It seems to make sense to me, but I very well could have misread the SLC


----------



## crixus

NaphtaliPress said:


> The Covenanter position has certainly been soiled by sinful schismatic abuse in later generations. Here is a link to Thomas Boston's sermon against schism which he preached as a corrective to those in his day who misunderstood the Scottish Covenanters of the 17th century. The Evil, Nature and Danger of Schism | Naphtali Press



I've thought about this in the past and have to agree with you. I think there's been more schisms within the Presbyterian church than in any other denomination? There was even another one last year when a group of churches left the PCUSA (over the homosexual ministry issue) to form yet another. I forget the new denominations name, they're just like the PCUSA on all other issues, but this is where they drew the line.


----------



## kodos

I was thinking about the Fifth Commandment this morning - and the WLC's treatment of it. If I were a civil magistrate, and had the ability to do so - I think the SLC would be a perfectly apt application of this:

Question 129: What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?

Answer: It is required of superiors, according to that power they* receive from God*, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and *discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body*: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to* procure glory to God*, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that *authority which God* has put upon them.

The SLC appears to follow this - that the civil magistrate acknowledged that the power they received is from God, and that as his ministers, they pledged an oath to uphold God's Law for both the Church and State. I almost see the SLC as an application of the 5th commandment as taught in the WLC.

Very interesting things to consider regardless. This thread, the establishment principle and other studies on the Civil Magistrate I've considered recently has been pretty interesting. I love that we can discuss these things on the PB . Because before the PB was around, it probably would never have been on my radar!


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

OPC'n said:


> AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sarah, read the Standards on the Moral Law and the Covenants. Take some time to think about this...Read all of the Confessional Standards slowly and it will help you see a bigger picture I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the WCF adopted by the OPC doesn't contain the many Establishment passages, nor do most US churches adopt any National Covenant, the US standards still acknowledge and teach this:
> 
> "Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; *the church *furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends." (emphasis mine)
> 
> Sarah, what do you say the Confessors were teaching here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe what they are teaching that we are to pray for his kingdom to come (spreading of the Gospel) keep ourselves pure that we might spread the Gospel and pray that we might have civil leaders who maintain this in order that we might do so freely. The supporting Scripture they use is 1 Tim 2:1-2 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." I believe those civil leaders are to support us in this way by protecting the freedoms we have and those who's leaders have taken away their freedoms are to still pray for those leaders that they might give their ppl freedom in order for them to live godly lives which would include spreading the Gospel. I believe we do this in order that we might live godly lives in peace as 1 Tim 2 states. But nothing in there states anything about binding a nation to God in a covenant. But I need to go to bed so i'm awake for church. I'll try and get back to the rest of your comment.
Click to expand...


Covenanting aside, what I'm asking is by what standard will the countenancing and maintaining be done? While I will agree on the surface of what you are suggesting, it would be wrong to say that this is ALL that is being said there. That is where the sticking point comes. That is where I believe the logical conclusion to covenanting or collective recognition by a state of Jesus' leadership of the entire nation comes in. What civil magistrate would "countenance and maintain" the Biblical Christian religion if they were not convinced of it and the merits of it and were personally bound to it. There's no way I see that the notion is - 'I'll let it go on and you can pray for me while I'm letting it go on (along with a pantheon of others).' No plain reading of this clause would suggest the revisionism that is being injected into it. This clause is not the American concept of general religious "freedom" ie, to enjoy the church, temple, cult, Mosque or synagogue of your choice. What civil magistrate could countenance and maintain Biblical Christianity while also countenancing and maintaining all of its opponents simultaneously? This is a unique recasting of a historical document into an Escondido light that doesn't reflect the sentiment of the men who drafted it. You will not find your/Escondido/Van Drunnen/Horton civil magistracy represented at the Westminster assembly. I want to genuinely give you credit for not knowing what Covenanting is or its prevalence, but I fear this is the state of American Presbyterianism. For those who don't come out and disclaim "mistakes of the past" in regards to historical reformed doctrines on civil magistracy (this would be the most consitent position for an R2Ker to take), some (perhaps most) teachers in the broader Reformed community are either ignorant of or inadvertantly misrepresenting our shared Reformed past, perhaps being products of their times - it seems that some modern revisionists would have you believe that covenanting is/was utterly evil (or at least misguided), they would have you believe that application of both tables of the law to modern civil states is wicked, and they insist that Calvin was the father of R2K (you never answered why Calvin consented and recommended Servetus' execution. I'll tell you - he denied infant baptism and denied the Trinity. Here were Calvin's words: _"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory."_ That is an example of Calvin's view of countenancing and maintaining. So to quote him and claim a slam dunk for R2K, is quite incorrect. I hope this shows that it is far more textured that it may seem at first. Read up on some of the civil code of Geneva. Not very "principled pluralism" in nature.) Again, in reference back Pastor Winzer's Genevan League citation there is more going on. New England America, Scotland, Geneva in all the UK shortly for a sliver of time after drafting the WCF/LC/SC/DPW to name a few.

If nothing else, please understand that there is a historical context to all this. To just step in and insert one objection does not make it magically recast itself nor would all of the Commissioners at Westminster gasped, scratched their heads and said, "wow, we never thought about that - we can't covenant. There could be unbelievers among us! That might logically imply that we bring them into the covenant of grace!" (And I don't want to paint them monolithically, but generally. There were a very few Erastians amongst them, but their view was muted on the notions of civil magistracy. They would have dismissed the ideas of R2K heartily as well, but for much different reasons.)

Besides, I'll take the Westminster Assemblers and most namely the Scottish Commissioners over anyone available in Reformed Christianity today. Why Horton and Van Drunen would want to lock horns with them in the way they do is beyond me and then to swear they've 'won back' the "Reformed" view of civil magistracy from the neo-Dutch theology is very confusing. Historically, their view does not have root in the Reformation - Van Drunen gladly boasts his acceptance of a Romie position, Thomism (though he attempts to argue that the Reformers, including the Assemblers, were "natural law" proponents in the same way he is.) Aquinas couldn't be farther from the Reformed position.

At times I see you get your general history and Church history very confused as I responded to you in another thread . At the same time, I don't want to take a strike at your decision to speak on a subject. I would just recommend that you understand the position of those you oppose, if nothing more. Some modern theologians give overly simplified, and historically misguided broad sweeping generalizations (an example is Horton's/Van Drunen's conflation of "two kingdom" theology with Augustine's "two city" concept- they are not the same thing. I will grant that they misunderstand here and don't deliberately misrepresent these items, in charity. Moreover [if I read correctly,] Horton uses this to suggest that though civil magistracy is inherently evil and worldly, it is ok to participate in it because it is "common grace" evil. We can be in the world, so to speak, because, well, God 'sends rain on the just and unjust.' So therefore, "clemency" equals "rain" or, you know, seeing that society is ruled from a proper moral axis. I shudder. If that Matt. passage he offers is the Biblical proof text slam dunk that you can follow while bitterly criticizing Covenanting for lack of proof texts, it seems a straining at Covenanting gnat and a swallowing a R2K camel.)

Understand, the covenanting position is far closer to the general Reformed tradition than anything that is coming out of the West Coast here in USA (though I would agree that Covenanting is the most mature theology of civil magistracy, despite not necessarily being practiced by every Reformed community in history.) If you are of the opinion that doctrines of civil magistracy came to their fullest maturity in a narrow historical contextualizing/reading of John Calvin, the Reformed community as of late (beginning with the revisions of the 1700's and 1900's), climaxing with Escondido, then of course that is your position. But there are more than a few of us who hearken back to the Puritans for our doctrine of civil magistracy and national religion, climaxing at the Westminster Assembly and an adjacent document, the Solemn League and Covenant.


----------

