# The solemn league and covenant



## Backwoods Presbyterian

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.

Taken and Subscribed several times by King Charles II., and by all ranks in the said three kingdoms.
WITH
AN ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1643 AND AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT 1644, RATIFYING AND APPROVING THE SAID LEAGUE AND COVENANT.
Jer. 50:5—Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten.
Prov. 25:5—Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.
2 Chron. 15:15—And all Judah rejoiced at the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart.
Gal. 3:15—Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed by an oath, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto.

Assembly at EDINBURGH, August 17, 1643. Sess. 14.
The General Assembly’s Approbation of the SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.

THE Assembly having recommended unto a Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of the Honourable Convention of Estates, and the Commissioners of the Honourable Houses of the Parliament of England, for bringing the kingdoms to a more near conjunction and union, received from the foresaid Committees the Covenant after mentioned, as the result of their consultations: and having taken the same, as a matter of so publick concernment and so deep importance doth require, unto their gravest consideration, did, with all their hearts, and with the beginnings of the feelings of that joy, which they did find in go great measure upon the renovation of the National Covenant of this kirk and kingdom, All with one voice approve ad embrace the same, as the most powerful mean, by the blessing of GOD, for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty’s dominions, and propagating the same to other nations, and for establishing his majesty’s throne to all ages and generations. And therefore, with their best affections, recommend the same to the Honourable Convention of Estates, that, being examined and approved by them, it may be sent with all diligence to the kingdom of England, that, being received and approven there the same may be, with publick humiliation, and all religious and answerable solemnity, sworn and subscribed by all true professors of the reformed religion, an all his Majesty’s good subjects in both kingdoms.

A. JOHNSTOUN.

___________________________
CHARLES I. Parl. 3. Sess. 1. Act 5.
ACT anent the Ratification of the calling of the Convention, Ratification of the League and Covenant, Articles of Treaty betwixt the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, and remanent Acts of the Convention of Estates, and Committee thereof.
AT EDINBURGH, July 15, 1644.

THE Estates of Parliament, presently convened by virtue of the last act of the last Parliament, holden by his Majesty, and the three Estates, in anno 1641, considering, that the Lords of his Majesty’s Privy Council, and Commissioners for conserving the articles of the treaty, having, according to their interests and trust committed to them by his Majesty and Estates of Parliament, used all means, by supplications, remonstrances, and sending of Commissioners, for securing the peace of this kingdom, and removing the unhappy distractions betwixt his Majesty and his subjects in England, in such a way as might serve most for his Majesty’s honour, and good of both kingdoms; and their humble and dutiful endeavours for so good ends having proven ineffectual, and their offer of mediation and intercession being refused by his Majesty; and thereby finding the weight and difficulty of affairs, and the charge lying on them to be greater than they could bear; did therefore, in the month of May 1643, meet together with the Commissioners for the common burdens, that, by joint advice, some resolution might be taken therein; and in respect of the danger imminent to the true Protestant religion, his Majesty’s honour, and peace of thir kingdoms, by the multitude of Papists and their adherents in arms in England and Ireland, and of many other publick and important affairs, which could not admit delay, and did require the advice of the representative body of the kingdom; appointed and caused indict a meeting of the Convention of Estates (his Majesty having formerly refused their humble desires for a Parliament) to be on the 22d of June following; which diet being frequently kept by the Noblemen, commissioners of shires and burghs, and they finding these dangers against this kirk and state still increasing, resolved, after serious deliberation and advice of the General Assembly, and joint concurrence of the Commissioners authorized by the Parliament of England, that one of the chiefest remedies for preventing of these ad the like dangers, for preservation of religion, and both kingdoms, from ruin and destruction, and for procuring of peace, That both kingdoms should, for these ends, enter into Covenant; which was accordingly drawn up, and cheerfully embraced and allowed.—And at last a treaty was agreed unto by both kingdoms, concerning the said Covenant, and assistance craved from this kingdom b the kingdom of England, in pursuance of the ends expressed therein:--And the Estates being still desirous to use all good means, that, without the effusion of more blood, there may be such a blessed pacification betwixt his Majesty and his subjects, as may tend to the good of religion, his Majesty’s true honour and safety, and happiness of his people, did therefore give commission to John Earl of Loudoun, Lord Chancellor, Lord Maitland, Lord Waristoun, and Mr. Robert Barclay, to repair to England, and endeavour the effectuating of these ends contained in the covenant of treaties, conform to their instructions.—
And the said Estates having taken the proceedings above written to their consideration, do find and declare, That the Lords of council, and conservers of peace, did behave themselves as faithful counsellors, loyal subjects, and good patriots, in tendering their and in calling the Commissioners for the common burdens, and, by joint advice, appointing the late meeting of Convention, wherein they have approven themselves answerable to the duty of their places, and that trust committed to them; and therefore ratifies and approves their whole proceedings therein, and declares the said Convention was lawfully called, and also full and free in itself, consisting of all the members thereof, as any Convention hath been at any time bygone; and ratifies and approves the several acts made by them, or their committee, for enjoining the Covenant.—And also, the said estates of Parliament (but prejudice of the premises, and of the general ratification above mentioned) ratify, approve, and confirm the foresaid mutual League and Covenant, concerning the reformation and defence of religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace a safety of the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland; together with the acts of the Kirk an Estate authorizing the same League and Covenant; together also with the foresaid articles of treaty and the Commissioners of both the Houses of Parliament of England, concerning the said Solemn League and Covenant.—And the said Estates ordain the same acts, with the League and Covenant above specified, acts authorizing the same, and the articles of treaty foresaid, to have the full force and strength of perfect laws and acts of Parliament, and to be observed by all his Majesty’s lieges, conform to the tenors thereof respective. Of the which League and Covenant, the tenor follows:

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; agreed upon by Commissioners from the Parliament and Assembly of Divines in England, with Commissioners of the Convention of Estates and General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and by both Houses of Parliament, and the Assembly of Divines in England, and taken and subscribed by them anno 1643; and thereafter, by the said authority, taken and subscribed by all ranks in Scotland and England the same year; and ratified by act of the Parliament of Scotland anno 1644. (And again renewed in Scotland, with an acknowledgement of sins and engagements to duties, by all ranks, anno 1648, and by Parliament, 1649; and taken and subscribed by King Charles II., at Spey, June 23, 1650; and at Scoon, January 1, 1651.)

"We, noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, and commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, by the providence of GOD living under one king, and being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the king's majesty and his posterity, and the true public liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdom, wherein every one's private condition is included: and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of GOD, against the true religion and professors thereof in all places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power, and presumption, are of late, and at this time, increased and exercised, whereof the deplorable state of the Church and kingdom of Ireland, the distressed state of the Church and kingdom of England, and the dangerous state of the Church and kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies: we have now at last (after other means of supplication, remonstrance, protestation, and sufferings), for the preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in former times, and the example of GOD'S people in other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a Mutual and Solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the Most High GOD, do swear,

"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.

"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.

"III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the king's majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no other thoughts or intentions to diminish his majesty's just power and greatness.

"IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, be hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League and Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.

"V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is, by the good providence of GOD, granted unto us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both Parliaments; we shall, each one of us, according to our place and interest, endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity; and that justice may be done upon the willful opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent article.

"VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided or withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdom, and honour of the king; but shall, all the days of our lives, zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same, according to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome, we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: All which we shall do as in the sight of God.

"And, because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against GOD, and his Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof; we profess and declare, before GOD and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms; especially that we have not, as we ought, valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof; and the we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts, not to walk worthy of him in our lives; which are the causes of other sins and transgression so much abounding amongst us: and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire, and endeavour, for ourselves, and all others under our power and charge, both in public and private, in all duties we owe to GOD and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a real reformation; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy indignation, and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace. 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."


----------



## Kevin

Amen, & Amen!


----------



## Pergamum

So what exactly is this, on what authority did they have to draft it and speak for others and what binding effect does it have on anyone? Could a group of PBers do the same for America? And if so great, why do not more Presbyterians adopt this officially as a part of their church documents. I think Reg the Stillwaters Revival guy belongs to a church that does...why hasn't it caught on?


----------



## Stephen

Pergamum said:


> So what exactly is this, on what authority did they have to draft it and speak for others and what binding effect does it have on anyone? Could a group of PBers do the same for America? And if so great, why do not more Presbyterians adopt this officially as a part of their church documents. I think Reg the Stillwaters Revival guy belongs to a church that does...why hasn't it caught on?




Actually this has nothing to do with Still Waters. This was the document that the Westminster Divines wrote, which called the nation of Scotland to enter into covenant with the LORD. They believed that the nation was under the authority of Jesus Christ. The American Presbyterians rejected it when they revised the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Stephen said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly is this, on what authority did they have to draft it and speak for others and what binding effect does it have on anyone? Could a group of PBers do the same for America? And if so great, why do not more Presbyterians adopt this officially as a part of their church documents. I think Reg the Stillwaters Revival guy belongs to a church that does...why hasn't it caught on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this has nothing to do with Still Waters. This was the document that the Westminster Divines wrote, which called the nation of Scotland to enter into covenant with the LORD. They believed that the nation was under the authority of Jesus Christ. *The American Presbyterians rejected it when they revised the Westminster Standards.*
Click to expand...


Which I personally think was a terrible mistake.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Just some corrections; the SL&C was not a production of the Westminster Assembly though the members did sign it. From that point the SL&C essentially set their agenda to produce the Westminster Standards. Hetherington gives some background:


> This spiritual independence enjoyed by the Church of Scotland was by no means agreeable to James VI., who set himself to subvert it by every means which fraud (by him called “king-craft”) could devise, or force accomplish. He did not wholly succeed, though, by banishing the faithful and the fearless, and overawing the timid, he did manage to mould it somewhat into conformity with his arbitrary will, and imposed upon it a set of sycophantic and tyrannical prelates. His sterner but not less deceitful son, Charles I., urged on by the narrow-minded and cruel Laud, seeking to complete what his father had begun, drove Scotland to the necessity of rising in defence of her liberties, civil and sacred. This gave rise to the great National Covenant of 1638, by which the people of almost the entire kingdom were knit to God and to each other, in a solemn bond for the maintenance and defence of sacred truth and freedom. The contest proceeding, a General Assembly was held at Glasgow towards the close of the same year, in which the system of Prelacy was abolished, and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland restored. In vain did the king attempt to overthrow this second Reformation, even by the extreme measure of an attempted invasion. The tide of war rolled back from the Scottish borders, and the Church and kingdom continued covenanted and free.
> 
> But a storm had been long gathering in England, and was ready to burst forth with uncontrollable might. Although the progress of the Reformation in England had been paralized in all its elements, and stopped short long ere it had reached anything like completeness, still there were many who ardently desired to promote the greater purity of the English Church, by additional reforms in doctrine, worship, and discipline. This could not be obtained; but the persevering efforts of these true Reformers gave rise to the Puritan party, as they were designated, and prepared for a more intense and formidable struggle. On the other hand, while the Puritans were striving for further reform, what may be termed the Court party were receding further and further from the principles of the Reformation, and gradually approximating to those of Rome. The evil genius of the unhappy Laud brought matters to a crisis. His influence urged on the unfortunate king to the adoption of measures formidable alike to both civil and religious liberty. The free spirit of England was at length aroused; and the contest between the despotic monarch and his freehearted subjects began to assume the aspect of a civil war. The Parliament declared its own sittings permanent; and regarding the despotic principles and conduct of the bishops as the direct cause of the oppression under which they had so long groaned, passed a bill for the abolition of Prelacy. The king unsheathed the sword of civil war; and the English Parliament sought the assistance of Scotland, as necessary to preserve the liberties of both kingdoms. The leading Scottish statesmen were well aware, that if the king should succeed in his attempt to overpower the English Parliament, he would immediately assail Scotland with increased power and determination. But at the same time, as their whole contest had been on sacred ground, they could not enter into an offensive and defensive alliance with the English Parliament for any less hallowed cause, or with any less important object in view. Had the king not gone beyond his own province, and invaded that of religion, they would have left his jurisdiction and authority unquestioned and untouched. For such reasons they would not frame with England a civil league, except it were based upon, and pervaded by, a religious covenant. To these views England consented; and the consequence was, the formation of the solemn league and covenant—a document which we cannot help regarding as the noblest and best, in its essential nature and principles, of all that are recorded among the international transactions of the world.
> 
> A considerable time before this important event took place, the idea had been entertained in England that it would be extremely desirable to call a “general synod of the most grave, pious, learned, and judicious divines,” for the purpose of deliberating respecting all things necessary for the peace and good government of the Church. This desire had been intimated as early as 1641; while it was not till June 12, 1643, that Parliament issued the Ordinance calling the Assembly. Although, therefore, the Solemn League and Covenant exercised no little influence in the deliberations of that Assembly, it was not the cause of that Assembly being held. At the time when the Assembly was called together, there was no organized Church in England. Prelacy had been abolished, and no other form of Church government was in existence. It did not meet as a Church court, in any accurate sense of that expression, but was in reality merely an assembly of divines, called together in a case of extreme emergency, to consult, deliberate, and advise, but not to exercise directly any judicial or ecclesiastical functions. This it is necessary to bear in mind, not for the purpose of casting any slight upon its character and proceedings, but for the purpose of showing how utterly groundless are the assertions of those who charge it with being constituted on an Erastian principle. It could not have met except under the protection of Parliament. It was not an ecclesiastical court at all; for it had no conformity with either the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Congregational systems of Church government; it neither ruled the Parliament, nor was ruled by the Parliament; it deliberated, reasoned, voted, formed its own free judgment concerning the important matters before it, and gave the result as its advice to Parliament, to be followed or rejected by that body on its own responsibility. When the members of Parliament, who formed a constituent element of it as lay assessors, strove to introduce Erastian principles into its decisions, it met these attempts with strong, persevering, and invincible opposition—willing rather that its whole protracted labours should be rejected, than that, by any weak and sinful compromise, it should consent to the admission of an evil principle.


The above comes from the introduction to Shaw's Exposition of the Confession of Faith.


Stephen said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly is this, on what authority did they have to draft it and speak for others and what binding effect does it have on anyone? Could a group of PBers do the same for America? And if so great, why do not more Presbyterians adopt this officially as a part of their church documents. I think Reg the Stillwaters Revival guy belongs to a church that does...why hasn't it caught on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this has nothing to do with Still Waters. This was the document that the Westminster Divines wrote, which called the nation of Scotland to enter into covenant with the LORD. They believed that the nation was under the authority of Jesus Christ. The American Presbyterians rejected it when they revised the Westminster Standards.
Click to expand...


----------



## Stephen

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly is this, on what authority did they have to draft it and speak for others and what binding effect does it have on anyone? Could a group of PBers do the same for America? And if so great, why do not more Presbyterians adopt this officially as a part of their church documents. I think Reg the Stillwaters Revival guy belongs to a church that does...why hasn't it caught on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this has nothing to do with Still Waters. This was the document that the Westminster Divines wrote, which called the nation of Scotland to enter into covenant with the LORD. They believed that the nation was under the authority of Jesus Christ. *The American Presbyterians rejected it when they revised the Westminster Standards.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which I personally think was a terrible mistake.
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Stephen said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this has nothing to do with Still Waters. This was the document that the Westminster Divines wrote, which called the nation of Scotland to enter into covenant with the LORD. They believed that the nation was under the authority of Jesus Christ. *The American Presbyterians rejected it when they revised the Westminster Standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which I personally think was a terrible mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


A Total shot in the dark but do you think there would be any chance we could convince the American churches of this?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Nothing's impossible with God.
BTW, FYI for SL&C lovers. I am doing critical research on the SL&C text for a very special printing project that looks closer to getting done than even a few weeks ago. 



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which I personally think was a terrible mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Total shot in the dark but do you think there would be any chance we could convince the American churches of this?
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

NaphtaliPress said:


> Nothing's impossible with God.
> BTW, FYI for SL&C lovers. I am doing critical research on the SL&C text for a very special printing project that looks closer to getting done than even a few weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Total shot in the dark but do you think there would be any chance we could convince the American churches of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Looking forward to that...


----------



## Pergamum

How many churches would have to sign it for it to be binding? How many churches until God would "hear it?" Would we need legal permission from the US since we seem to be speaking on behalf of the nation? Can clergy man enter into covenant on behalf of a nation? If a group of satainists entered into covenant with the devil on behalf of America, is that too a binding contract?

Did the parlament pass this in England? 

This topic brings up many questions for me?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Pergamum said:


> How many churches would have to sign it for it to be binding? How many churches until God would "hear it?" Would we need legal permission from the US since we seem to be speaking on behalf of the nation? Can clergy man enter into covenant on behalf of a nation? If a group of satainists entered into covenant with the devil on behalf of America, is that too a binding contract?
> 
> Did the parliament pass this in England?
> 
> This topic brings up many questions for me?



1) I do not understand your first four questions and may misunderstand the SL&C, Please restate.

2) The last question is not applicable to this debate/covenant.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Links and Downloads Manager - General Links - The Solemn League and Covenant -- Robert Burns - The PuritanBoard

The Solemn League and Covenant by Robert Burns

The Solemn League and Covenant
Now brings a smile, now brings a tear;
But sacred Freedom, too, was theirs:
If thou'rt a slave, indulge thy sneer.


----------



## Pergamum

If the covenant supposed to speak on behalf of a nation then it would need national approval right? Thus, it would need approved by king, parlament or democracy, right?

And, what if a group of baptists did the same?


The gist is, this is a religious and a political document. What makes it binding and why isn't this just a piece of paper?




If me and 4 other people declared a fast on behalf of the sins of the USA and made a solemn promise to God on behalf of the US, what actually does that do?


----------



## Christusregnat

Backwoods Presbyterian,

There would be several things that would need to take place:

1. A catharsis of American culture from the adoption of Anabaptist and Dispensational theology

2. A wide-spread reformation in our views of the nature of civil society, the nature of the church, and the duties of Christian men in both

3. A recovery of the Puritan doctrine of covenants: civil, personal and ecclesiastical

4. We'd have to have a bunch of staunchly reformed men who would be willing to speak to civil issues on a local, state-wide and national level.


The church is so seeped in antinomian and Anabaptist views of society that we would make no headway if we tried this.

Change the church, change the world. Reform our lives as godly men, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, we are milquetoast pluralists, who want the "will of the people" to be heard. We're more Rousseau than Rutherford.

Thank about it: the PCA is fighting with feminism; are we really ready to take on the civil magistrate when we can't keep our ministers from accepting societal norms? I think not.

Cheers,

Adam




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which I personally think was a terrible mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Total shot in the dark but do you think there would be any chance we could convince the American churches of this?
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Christusregnat said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian,
> 
> There would be several things that would need to take place:
> 
> 1. A catharsis of American culture from the adoption of Anabaptist and Dispensational theology
> 
> 2. A wide-spread reformation in our views of the nature of civil society, the nature of the church, and the duties of Christian men in both
> 
> 3. A recovery of the Puritan doctrine of covenants: civil, personal and ecclesiastical
> 
> 4. We'd have to have a bunch of staunchly reformed men who would be willing to speak to civil issues on a local, state-wide and national level.
> 
> 
> The church is so seeped in antinomian and Anabaptist views of society that we would make no headway if we tried this.
> 
> Change the church, change the world. Reform our lives as godly men, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, we are milquetoast pluralists, who want the "will of the people" to be heard. We're more Rousseau than Rutherford.
> 
> Thank about it: the PCA is fighting with feminism; are we really ready to take on the civil magistrate when we can't keep our ministers from accepting societal norms? I think not.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Total shot in the dark but do you think there would be any chance we could convince the American churches of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sounds like a plan to me.

Anyone want to join in? I'm all for doing and working towards 1-4. 

Crown Rights for King Jesus anyone?


----------



## Christusregnat

I am interested, and perhaps this would be a good forum to mention this.

Our session has been thinking of reasons why the church no longer has a voice in society. For instance, why don't the newspapers ever publish "election day" sermons? Why doesn't the media care what the PCA or OPC says about any political issues? Why? Because we don't care!

If we want to change this, we need to reform our churches, and our session was trying to think of effective ways to do this.

It might be a good idea to have a website or a forum for assisting, encouraging, praying and sharing ideas.

How about the "Solemn League and Covenant Board" or the "Lex Rex Board" 

Anybody tech savvy, and interested?

Adam






Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian,
> 
> There would be several things that would need to take place:
> 
> 1. A catharsis of American culture from the adoption of Anabaptist and Dispensational theology
> 
> 2. A wide-spread reformation in our views of the nature of civil society, the nature of the church, and the duties of Christian men in both
> 
> 3. A recovery of the Puritan doctrine of covenants: civil, personal and ecclesiastical
> 
> 4. We'd have to have a bunch of staunchly reformed men who would be willing to speak to civil issues on a local, state-wide and national level.
> 
> 
> The church is so seeped in antinomian and Anabaptist views of society that we would make no headway if we tried this.
> 
> Change the church, change the world. Reform our lives as godly men, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, we are milquetoast pluralists, who want the "will of the people" to be heard. We're more Rousseau than Rutherford.
> 
> Thank about it: the PCA is fighting with feminism; are we really ready to take on the civil magistrate when we can't keep our ministers from accepting societal norms? I think not.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Total shot in the dark but do you think there would be any chance we could convince the American churches of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a plan to me.
> 
> Anyone want to join in? I'm all for doing and working towards 1-4.
> 
> Crown Rights for King Jesus anyone?
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Good questions...


----------



## Christusregnat

Yes, but anybody got answers? 




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Good questions...


----------



## toddpedlar

Christusregnat said:


> I am interested, and perhaps this would be a good forum to mention this.
> 
> Our session has been thinking of reasons why the church no longer has a voice in society. For instance, why don't the newspapers ever publish "election day" sermons?



Perhaps another question: who ever PREACHES "election day" sermons? (I mean REAL ones - not simply generic sermons that have appended to them, "Do your duty as a good citizen and vote on Tuesday")


----------



## Pergamum

Am I right to assume that to adopt this documents is to adopt theocracy?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

For what it's worth, there is a little known corollary to Godwin's Law known as Carter's Law of Political Rhetoric:



> As the number of religious conservatives expressing an opinion on a moral or political issue increases, the probability that someone on the political left will invoke the term theocracy approaches one.


----------



## Pergamum

Every true Christian believes that Jesus is our Lord. But some of us get itchy about dream scenarios with Presbyterians in overwhelming political power.


My job is to evangelize. Am I doing it all wrong, should I be focusing on politics instead?


----------



## Pergamum

So, if not theocracy what is it? 

I am FAR from the political left and yet I do not want to go back to the days of Zwingli drowning baptists or the days of Roger Williams when a man could suffer a civil punishment for an ecclesiastical offense.




Serious questions here: 

What exactly would it look like if churches adopted this document? 

And why would it apply anyhow since it seems only to concerns Scotland, Ireland and England I think.

What is the use of this document today exactly besides a quaint historical relic?

If we had to "convince the American churches" of the need to sign this, what would that do? And what is your definition of "the American Churches?" A small segment of micro-presbyterians or the "American Church" as a whole to include baptists, bible churches, and even some pentecostals? How broad of a cross-section of a country needs to approve such a document such as this before it goes into effect ot before God honors it?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

This is a good work to read (republished recently by the Baptist publisher, Sprinkle Publications) concerning the principles of church-state relations addressed here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f118/civil-magistrates-power-thomas-cobbet-33870/


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks, I will read it.


----------



## ADKing

Thanks for posting this and reminding us Presbyterians of our roots. The Solemn League and Covenant was so crucial in the formation of the tradition and documents that many of us hold dear. It is a sad thing that its abuse by some goups have given it a bad reputation among many today. What a wonderful thing it would be indeed if Presbyterians would go back to their covenanting roots in a desire for a biblical uniformity of doctrine, worship, dicipline and government as found expressed in principle in the SL&C.


----------



## Pergamum

Can you explain what you mean by "covenanting roots"? I am not necessarily trying to bait you here, I am genuinely curious.


----------



## toddpedlar

Pergamum said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "covenanting roots"? I am not necessarily trying to bait you here, I am genuinely curious.



I suspect he's referring to the roots Presbyterians have among the Covenanters in Scotland - in the "Killing Times", etc. , when to argue that the king is NOT the head of the church and must submit himself to God's Law and that Christ alone is the ultimate authority was effectively a capital offense. This time period is extremely fascinating, and is worthy of study. You can check out the well-known history of the Scots Worthies by John Howie (available umpteen places on the web) and others like "Fair Sunshine" by Jock Purves, etc. I'm sure our friend the Virginia Huguenot can point out many other sources


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what you mean by "covenanting roots"? I am not necessarily trying to bait you here, I am genuinely curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect he's referring to the roots Presbyterians have among the Covenanters in Scotland - in the "Killing Times", etc. , when to argue that the king is NOT the head of the church and must submit himself to God's Law and that Christ alone is the ultimate authority was effectively a capital offense. This time period is extremely fascinating, and is worthy of study. You can check out the well-known history of the Scots Worthies by John Howie (available umpteen places on the web) and others like "Fair Sunshine" by Jock Purves, etc. I'm sure our friend the Virginia Huguenot can point out many other sources
Click to expand...


 Indeed, Adam and Todd are quite right! I would point out these and other resources for historical reading on the subject for any who are interested (some of which can be found in the links manager); however, I'm about to take a long trip. So, best wishes to all,

FCC&C,
Andrew


----------



## Pergamum

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what you mean by "covenanting roots"? I am not necessarily trying to bait you here, I am genuinely curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect he's referring to the roots Presbyterians have among the Covenanters in Scotland - in the "Killing Times", etc. , when to argue that the king is NOT the head of the church and must submit himself to God's Law and that Christ alone is the ultimate authority was effectively a capital offense. This time period is extremely fascinating, and is worthy of study. You can check out the well-known history of the Scots Worthies by John Howie (available umpteen places on the web) and others like "Fair Sunshine" by Jock Purves, etc. I'm sure our friend the Virginia Huguenot can point out many other sources
Click to expand...



Who can say anything but a hearty amen to those that would argue that the king is not the head of the church. Sounds great. Those Scottish Covenanters (a particular people at a particualr time) were right to say the Jesus was King and that Charles had no ultimate authority over doctrine or worship.

However, many folks like this document immensely in our times...which do not seem to fit those Killing Times. 

Are these afraid that George Bush thinks he is the head of the church? 

I don't think there has ever been an environment better in the history of the world than this modern era in America for freely worshipping as one's conscience dictates and not being dictated to by intrusive kings who usurp their authority.

What is motivation for posting the SL and C here besides merely being neat history?


----------



## ADKing

The covenanting roots to which I was referring are not roots unique only the covenanters of the killing times and the Cameronians, but are the common heritage of all professing Presbyterians. The great work of the Westminster Assembly was made possible by the Solemn League and Covenant but had antecedents in the National Covenant(s) of Scotland. I think one reason, I for one, find the SL&C to be something noteworthy for our attention today is that so many who love (parts of) the Westminster Standards (such as the Confession and Catechisms) have lost sight of the fact that the great goal of that body was to bring the churches of Scotland, England and Ireland into a uniformity of doctrine, worship government and discipline. Too many pick and chose but miss the central heart of what Westminster was all about. Not only is this a biblical desire but one that, in my humble opinion, is sorely needed in the fragmented presbyterian bodies of our day. There is not even much unity or uniformity in these areas within specific Presbyterian denominations and too often every man does what is right in his own eyes.


----------



## ADKing

For example, this desire for uniformity could have effects on creedal subscription. In many denominations the question is usually how much can one reject and still be within the system of doctrine and so minister. This is alien to what should be driving Presbyterians who understand what their movement was at one time all about. The Westminster standards should be the bond that unite us because we actually believe what they say is the basis on which unity may be had.


----------



## RTaron

ADKing said:


> The Solemn League and Covenant was so crucial in the formation of the tradition and documents that many of us hold dear. .



I agree Adam, it was by means of swearing to God and binding themselves to the words of this document that they were kept on track as they deliberated in meeting during the Westminster Assembly. 
But we must not forget however the great work of the Holy Spirit during the 100 years of reformation that preceded the days of the Assembly. 
I don't know how you can compare it to now days. Was there a greater measure of Godly fear poured out at the grass roots back then? I think so. I think we are weak in the duty of prayer and we are entertaining ourselves to death. 

May the Almighty bring about a godly fear at the grass roots level of the church and that we would learn to pray.


----------



## Christusregnat

Thankfully my pastor does! Even mentions the propositions. But I see your point....




toddpedlar said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested, and perhaps this would be a good forum to mention this.
> 
> Our session has been thinking of reasons why the church no longer has a voice in society. For instance, why don't the newspapers ever publish "election day" sermons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps another question: who ever PREACHES "election day" sermons? (I mean REAL ones - not simply generic sermons that have appended to them, "Do your duty as a good citizen and vote on Tuesday")
Click to expand...


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum,

First, if you associate modern baptists with the anabaptists of the early reformation, you are doing modern baptists a great disservice. There are some similarites (such as a latent dislike of the Bible's plain teaching on civil righteousness), but I would not say modern baptists are as consistent or "radical" as the anabaptists Zwingli had executed.

Second, man DOES NOT have any pretense to a right to worship God "according to the dictates of his own conscience". What if my conscience dictates that I should marry several women, or that I should practice child sacrifice, or that I should smoke marijuana while worshipping "God"? What if my conscience believes that murder is justifiable for higher ends, or that adultery is some times a good idea? Should the magistrate protect such a right?

Man is commanded to worship God according to the dictates of God's Word, and in no other way. This is the radical failure of the Baptist culture in America (ala Roger Williams). Once man makes a claim that his conscience is lord, and not that Jehovah is Lord, he opens the door for pluralism.

If the colonists are to blame for a civil penalty being imposed on an ecclesiastical offense, what shall we say against Moses, who (in God's name) commanded idolaters, sabbath breakers, adulterers, blasphemers and other notorious and high-handed sinners to be executed? Was that a mistake? Do the 10 Commandments no longer apply to one of the most basic institutions of life: the civil realm?

Anabaptist theology cannot have a consistent understanding of civil law, except in total lawlessness: pluralism. Every man having the right to do what is right "in his own eyes." This is the same thing as every man "worshipping God according to the dictates of his own conscience." It is lawless, and this is why the Puritans rejected it. NOTE, I am not saying that you, personally are lawless. What I am saying is that this idea is lawless, and I am bound to assume that you do not practice it yourself.

Hence the abiding example of the SL&C. It is an historic bulwark against tyranny, oppression, and false ideas about the civil realm and its relationship to the church.

To answer your question about how many churches would be required to subscribe to such a covenant: God is not concerned with numbers. He won't take a vote to see if such a covenant is lawful or valid. Basically the SL&C was merely the positive expression of duties already lying on the three kingdoms which took it, and on all men within them. Though its terms are not inspired, yet insofar as they agree with the teaching of Inspiration, ALL of such terms are still binding on all nations to this day.

Hope that helps to explain.

Cheers,

Adam









Pergamum said:


> So, if not theocracy what is it?
> 
> I am FAR from the political left and yet I do not want to go back to the days of Zwingli drowning baptists or the days of Roger Williams when a man could suffer a civil punishment for an ecclesiastical offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious questions here:
> 
> What exactly would it look like if churches adopted this document?
> 
> And why would it apply anyhow since it seems only to concerns Scotland, Ireland and England I think.
> 
> What is the use of this document today exactly besides a quaint historical relic?
> 
> If we had to "convince the American churches" of the need to sign this, what would that do? And what is your definition of "the American Churches?" A small segment of micro-presbyterians or the "American Church" as a whole to include baptists, bible churches, and even some pentecostals? How broad of a cross-section of a country needs to approve such a document such as this before it goes into effect ot before God honors it?


----------



## Pergamum

ADKing said:


> The covenanting roots to which I was referring are not roots unique only the covenanters of the killing times and the Cameronians, but are the common heritage of all professing Presbyterians. The great work of the Westminster Assembly was made possible by the Solemn League and Covenant but had antecedents in the National Covenant(s) of Scotland. I think one reason, I for one, find the SL&C to be something noteworthy for our attention today is that so many who love (parts of) the Westminster Standards (such as the Confession and Catechisms) have lost sight of the fact that the great goal of that body was to bring the churches of Scotland, England and Ireland into a uniformity of doctrine, worship government and discipline. Too many pick and chose but miss the central heart of what Westminster was all about. Not only is this a biblical desire but one that, in my humble opinion, is sorely needed in the fragmented presbyterian bodies of our day. There is not even much unity or uniformity in these areas within specific Presbyterian denominations and too often every man does what is right in his own eyes.





Thanks for the great summary. 


Since the presbyterian bodies are so fragmented now, how do you propose that greater unity (which I am for) be accomplished? I fully support boards like the PB where broad segments of reformed Christianity are involved and I am a member of FIRE and also I like the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. But there is one WCF and many, many bodies that all claim to hold to this one WCF.

How can greater unity be achieved.

Also, the SL and C..was it a political or an ecclesiasitcal docuement, or is my baptist background tainting my interpretation.

Thanks again for the overview.


----------



## Pergamum

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> First, if you associate modern baptists with the anabaptists of the early reformation, you are doing modern baptists a great disservice. There are some similarites (such as a latent dislike of the Bible's plain teaching on civil righteousness), but I would not say modern baptists are as consistent or "radical" as the anabaptists Zwingli had executed.
> 
> Second, man DOES NOT have any pretense to a right to worship God "according to the dictates of his own conscience". What if my conscience dictates that I should marry several women, or that I should practice child sacrifice, or that I should smoke marijuana while worshipping "God"? What if my conscience believes that murder is justifiable for higher ends, or that adultery is some times a good idea? Should the magistrate protect such a right?
> 
> Man is commanded to worship God according to the dictates of God's Word, and in no other way. This is the radical failure of the Baptist culture in America (ala Roger Williams). Once man makes a claim that his conscience is lord, and not that Jehovah is Lord, he opens the door for pluralism.
> 
> If the colonists are to blame for a civil penalty being imposed on an ecclesiastical offense, what shall we say against Moses, who (in God's name) commanded idolaters, sabbath breakers, adulterers, blasphemers and other notorious and high-handed sinners to be executed? Was that a mistake? Do the 10 Commandments no longer apply to one of the most basic institutions of life: the civil realm?
> 
> Anabaptist theology cannot have a consistent understanding of civil law, except in total lawlessness: pluralism. Every man having the right to do what is right "in his own eyes." This is the same thing as every man "worshipping God according to the dictates of his own conscience." It is lawless, and this is why the Puritans rejected it. NOTE, I am not saying that you, personally are lawless. What I am saying is that this idea is lawless, and I am bound to assume that you do not practice it yourself.
> 
> Hence the abiding example of the SL&C. It is an historic bulwark against tyranny, oppression, and false ideas about the civil realm and its relationship to the church.
> 
> To answer your question about how many churches would be required to subscribe to such a covenant: God is not concerned with numbers. He won't take a vote to see if such a covenant is lawful or valid. Basically the SL&C was merely the positive expression of duties already lying on the three kingdoms which took it, and on all men within them. Though its terms are not inspired, yet insofar as they agree with the teaching of Inspiration, ALL of such terms are still binding on all nations to this day.
> 
> Hope that helps to explain.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if not theocracy what is it?
> 
> I am FAR from the political left and yet I do not want to go back to the days of Zwingli drowning baptists or the days of Roger Williams when a man could suffer a civil punishment for an ecclesiastical offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious questions here:
> 
> What exactly would it look like if churches adopted this document?
> 
> And why would it apply anyhow since it seems only to concerns Scotland, Ireland and England I think.
> 
> What is the use of this document today exactly besides a quaint historical relic?
> 
> If we had to "convince the American churches" of the need to sign this, what would that do? And what is your definition of "the American Churches?" A small segment of micro-presbyterians or the "American Church" as a whole to include baptists, bible churches, and even some pentecostals? How broad of a cross-section of a country needs to approve such a document such as this before it goes into effect ot before God honors it?
Click to expand...



Thanks for your comments. 

I will back out of any theonomy arguments. 

I do, however, think it a healthy characteristic of most modern Western states that they allow for some tolerance in religion that surpasses some of the tolerance shown in some parts of colonial america. I do not think that civil fines should be doled out for ecclesiasitcal offenses such as was done by many ardent supporters of the unrevised WCF. 

Why was it deemed necessary to revise the WCF anyway in 1788? Perhaps because Presbyterians recognized that the writers were also children of their time and that greater civil tolerance was needed? Or because they fell awy from the glorious truths of the Reformation?

Your bringin up Moses is curious. You do see some differences in civil punishments as they were doled out by Moses and such as were doled out by the colonial Puritans don't you? You cannot pull Moses into this argument to support your case.

Even though our abidiing hermeneutical framework is one of continuity, even the WCF speaks of the state of Israel as now being over and some of those duties as having ceased with that Civil State and now only applying insofar as that tricky "general equity" phrase calls for.



Yes, you are right that modern baptists share some similarites and some dissimilarities with the ol' Anabaptists. But many of the drowned Anabaptists were peaceful groups. Cases such as Munster were not common and many evils were perpetrated against those anabaptists. How errant does a theology need to be before it is forcibly put down by the civil state?

When I read the NT, Jesus was largely uninterested in matters of state and civil laws. He turned aside brothers trying to tell him about inheritances and such. I do not see the focus on civil gov't in the NT such as I see among some (mostly micro-presbyterian) groups today who seem to focus more on civil gov't issues than they do on evangelism and the Great Comission.


Again, let's not slide into a theonomy debate. And don't accuse me of being willy nilly and believing in autonomous self-will. One need not be a theocrat to see that God's laws ought to influence society. We just need not cane Sabbath breakers or advocate situations like in 1691 when in the Massachusetts Bay Colony church attendance was compulsory by civil law, and church membership a qualification for voting and holding office. 


Let me ask you: Is it just a bunch of lies that early American Baptists and even those that agreed much with the 1689 met some persecution for their beliefs? Were American baptist persecuted in New England? And did this stem from a theocratci persuasion on the part of the colonists (mostly Presbyterian in early America)?


An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America

Protestant Persecution of Baptists in Early America


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum,

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I will try to steer clear of a theonomy debate, although I think it might be rather difficult. Let me see if I can respond to your queries below:




Pergamum said:


> Why was it deemed necessary to revise the WCF anyway in 1788? Perhaps because Presbyterians recognized that the writers were also children of their time and that greater civil tolerance was needed? Or because they fell awy from the glorious truths of the Reformation?




Good questions! As you are probably aware, the British targeted the "puritanical" and Preby churches, since they were the seedbed of the War for Independence. Documents such as the SL&C, the Puritan Justification for Taking up Arms, the Dutch Declaration of Independence of 1581, and the Huguenot Vindication for Resisting tyrants, as well as other historic statements of resistance theory were foundational in these churches. Therefore, the Brits burned these churches, slaughtered their pastors, etc. 

From the time of the War for Independence (OH, happy Independence Day!) onward, puritanism was in sharp decline. As witness the amending of the WCF after the war. So, yes, I think there was a hermeneutical shift from covenantalism to individualism. In many ways, this can be seen as a result of the "new school" thought of the Great Awakening.




Pergamum said:


> Your bringin up Moses is curious. You do see some differences in civil punishments as they were doled out by Moses and such as were doled out by the colonial Puritans don't you? You cannot pull Moses into this argument to support your case.




Indeed, I do see differences between the Mosaic penalties and those administered under certain colonial magistrates. However, the point I was making is that the argument against the treatment of Williams may be made against Moses. That's all.





Pergamum said:


> Even though our abidiing hermeneutical framework is one of continuity, even the WCF speaks of the state of Israel as now being over and some of those duties as having ceased with that Civil State and now only applying insofar as that tricky "general equity" phrase calls for.



Hey, I thought you didn't want a theonomy debate 





Pergamum said:


> Yes, you are right that modern baptists share some similarites and some dissimilarities with the ol' Anabaptists. But many of the drowned Anabaptists were peaceful groups. Cases such as Munster were not common and many evils were perpetrated against those anabaptists. How errant does a theology need to be before it is forcibly put down by the civil state?




Good question. Can't say that I could answer this with absolute certainty, but it appears to me that Scripture requires the magistrate to punish idolatry and propagating a false God. If I'm not mistaken, this was the charge made against the Anabaptists by Zwingli. Whether he was right or not, I am not competent to answer (having not studied this in detail), but the principal I would agree with.




Pergamum said:


> When I read the NT, Jesus was largely uninterested in matters of state and civil laws. He turned aside brothers trying to tell him about inheritances and such. I do not see the focus on civil gov't in the NT such as I see among some (mostly micro-presbyterian) groups today who seem to focus more on civil gov't issues than they do on evangelism and the Great Comission.




I believe that you are mistaken in your assessment of Jesus teaching. However, even if I grant you the point, this does not bear on this discussion. The role of the Messiah in being the savior of the world is not the same as the role of a magistrate. For instance, when a magistrate is attacked by an enemy, is he to turn the other cheek? Is he to allow himself to be captured, and offer no resistance? Jesus was not appointed as a civil magistrate:

Luke 12:13 And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Jesus was not a magistrate, and the magistrate is not to ask in all of his decisions, WWJD, unless he acts as a private person, in matters affecting only himself. Otherwise, when acting as a magistrate, he should ask "WWMD?" 

Again, it appears that you have a certain idea in mind, and therefore your appeal to the Great Commission as different from civil activity is, as I will show, somewhat misleading:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach *all nations*, baptizing *them* in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 *Teaching them* to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


The Greek grammar indicates rather clearly that the nations are to be made into Christ's disciples: panta ta enthnae. All of the nations of the earth. It is not make disciples from people among the nations, but make disciples of the nations themselves. Anything short of this is a disobedient form of evangelism.

It is my (perhaps naive opinion) that everyone is a theocrat. In other words, everyone's view of civil society is determined by the god or God that he worships. I would not call the position you are representing "willy nilly", but I would call it inconsistent. Either God is King, or someone else is. Either Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords (an overtly political term) or someone else is. Either the civil law of God determines what is good and evil, or it doesn't. The puritans understood this, and sought to implement it.



Pergamum said:


> Let me ask you: Is it just a bunch of lies that early American Baptists and even those that agreed much with the 1689 met some persecution for their beliefs? Were American baptist persecuted in New England? And did this stem from a theocratci persuasion on the part of the colonists (mostly Presbyterian in early America)?




No, I think you are right on. It is not a bunch of lies, but it did in fact take place that civil penalties were imposed on baptists in the colonies. This is not a fact that I am ashamed of, nor do I think it requires justification. If someone joins a colony that has an established form of religion, should he find it strange that he is required to follow the laws of the colony once he moves there? This line of reasoning is the same used by illegal immigrants in our day: I don't need to obey the laws of the land.

If I'm not mistaken, weren't some of the punishments imposed on the Baptists due to sabbath breaking?

If you have a chance, I would encourage you to read or listen to George Gillespie's "Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty" for a puritan's view of these things:

Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, by George Gillespie

SermonAudio.com - Wholesome Severity 1/2


This might help to shed a little bit of light on what the "general equity" clause in the WCF is getting at. Or, if you're interested, I have a booklet of quotations by the Divines, Scottish Commissioners and Reformers on these topics, which helps to explain this term "general equity" in more detail.

God bless, and happy theocratic resistance to tyranny day 

Adam


----------



## Hippo

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I read the NT, Jesus was largely uninterested in matters of state and civil laws. He turned aside brothers trying to tell him about inheritances and such. I do not see the focus on civil gov't in the NT such as I see among some (mostly micro-presbyterian) groups today who seem to focus more on civil gov't issues than they do on evangelism and the Great Comission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that you are mistaken in your assessment of Jesus teaching. However, even if I grant you the point, this does not bear on this discussion. The role of the Messiah in being the savior of the world is not the same as the role of a magistrate. For instance, when a magistrate is attacked by an enemy, is he to turn the other cheek? Is he to allow himself to be captured, and offer no resistance? Jesus was not appointed as a civil magistrate:
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedy with Pergamum's point here.

I also do not really agree with Adams very reasoned and logical response (in all other respects) to this point as the vast majority of us are not civil magistrates either. Therefore we are in the same position as Jesus or Paul in this respect. They lived under a horrible government that was hostile to the Gospel and the repeated message is to obey the law and build the Church.

If we were to see building a civil government based on biblical principles as an aim let alone a priority we would have been told to do so, but in the New Testament such a message can only be drawn at best by inference or in other places it is specifically denied.

I think that rule by God would be marvelous, the problem being that at this time all we could have would be rule by people thinking that they know what God wants. This has certain potential problems.


----------



## Christusregnat

Mike,

Thank you for your response!

I want to ask if you believe that the New Testament is at odds with, or contains a somewhat higher level of inspiration than the Old Testament.

If this is so, then I think we should discuss why you think this is so. If not, then I'm not sure I follow where you're going with this point.

If the Old Testament clearly establishes a form of civil government which was intended to be an example for all of the Gentiles nations, then why does all of that teaching need to be repeated in the NT? The NT does not need to repeat everything the OT says. In fact, it is my understanding that much of what we find difficult to understand in the NT is because we do not read it in the light of the OT (the book of Revelation, e.g.).

That said, I don't believe it's valid to argue from silence that Jesus intended to do away with theocracy, simply because He didn't teach very much on it. Now, I believe He did teach on it in some very pointed ways, which confirm its abiding validity. However, even if I grant the point that He said nothing for or against it, would He need to say anything about it in order for us to believe that it still binds all civil bodies? I would deny this. This is part of what it means to be "reformed", and especially part of what it means to be "puritan": we believe in continuity.

For a Puritan interpretation of Romans 13, you may consult Samuel Rutherford's _Lex Rex_, in which he demonstrates the right to resist a tyrant, rather than a blanket call to obey in every situation. The title clearly displays Rutherford's theocratic commitment to the supremacy of God's Law over man's supposed authority.

As for being ruled by men who think they "know what God wants", this is a very real danger. However, as this thread began, so I will continue. The driving motivation in the Solemn League and Covenant was so that it could be determined *what God wants*, rather than what man wants. The deliberations by the Westminster Assembly were seeking to ascertain the mind of God, not the will of man.

Also, I'm arguing that God has made known "what He wants" and does not leave us guessing. Scripture is filled with information about what God wants, and God promises to give wisdom to apply it, if we will obey His voice. Also, this is the blessing of checks and balances, established in Christendom to prevent tyrants from seizing unlawful power (such as the Magna Carta, and other historic declarations against tyranny). The Swiss and Americans, for instance, established three branches of government for just such a purpose. 

I'm not advocating rule by Muslim Imams, nor was Moses. Moses was talking about wise and godly men, chosen by the people to represent God's laws to the people, and to rule under God.

Christ says nothing against this, but rather reinforces the rules Moses laid down. Even if He had not done so, it would make no difference, as He did not need to. Scripture is God's Word (in fact, it is all Jesus' Word), and therefore, it still abides, whether written by Moses, David, Samuel, or Luke.

Cheers,

Adam






Hippo said:


> I agree wholeheartedy with Pergamum's point here.
> 
> I also do not really agree with Adams very reasoned and logical response (in all other respects) to this point as the vast majority of us are not civil magistrates either. Therefore we are in the same position as Jesus or Paul in this respect. They lived under a horrible government that was hostile to the Gospel and the repeated message is to obey the law and build the Church.
> 
> If we were to see building a civil government based on biblical principles as an aim let alone a priority we would have been told to do so, but in the New Testament such a message can only be drawn at best by inference or in other places it is specifically denied.
> 
> I think that rule by God would be marvelous, the problem being that at this time all we could have would be rule by people thinking that they know what God wants. This has certain potential problems.


----------



## Hippo

Christusregnat said:


> Mike,
> 
> Thank you for your response!
> 
> I want to ask if you believe that the New Testament is at odds with, or contains a somewhat higher level of inspiration than the Old Testament.
> 
> If this is so, then I think we should discuss why you think this is so. If not, then I'm not sure I follow where you're going with this point.



I agree with your approach in principle, as you suggest any other would necessitate some form of dispensationalism that is at odds with covenantal theology.

There is a real difference in context though with the Old Testament concerning political Israel, an aspect that largely disappears in the New Testament when the old promises turn from physical (land) to spiritual (salvation).

I think that Theonomic thought is important as it illustrates how serious sin is. Our reaction against theonomy often reveals our own lack of understanding as to what is in fact a just punishment for rebellion against the will of God and how terrible the judgment will be for sinful man.


----------



## Christusregnat

Mike,

I think that we are basically on the same page, with some difference, as you stated, in our understanding of the relationship between political Israel and spiritual Israel.

I guess the point of departure is that I consider the "commonwealth" aspect of Israel to be continuous into the New Covenant. I believe that the Commonwealth of Israel expired, but that, in my estimation, does not mean that God does away with the Holy Commonwealth: He merely extends the boarders to (one day) include all nations of the earth. This is one aspect of Puritanism that gets left behind, while other aspects are more heartily embraced.

You are right in discerning that the Reformed approach to civil law is based on a conviction of God's holiness, and an ardent desire to see Him lifted up and glorified. The point of a theonomic system of government is not to prove how wise men are, but how holy God is. His Name is to be hallowed on earth.

Godspeed, and sorry about the July 4th thing. I guess you guys don't recognize it as a "holiday" 

Adam





Hippo said:


> I agree with your approach in principle, as you suggest any other would necessitate some form of dispensationalism that is at odds with covenantal theology.
> 
> There is a real difference in context though with the Old Testament concerning political Israel, an aspect that largely disappears in the New Testament when the old promises turn from physical (land) to spiritual (salvation).
> 
> I think that Theonomic thought is important as it illustrates how serious sin is. Our reaction against theonomy often reveals our own lack of understanding as to what is in fact a just punishment for rebellion against the will of God and how terrible the judgment will be for sinful man.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks for the responses.


----------



## Christusregnat

Welcome! I like lively discussion with good questions; you've provided both!

Adam





Pergamum said:


> Thanks for the responses.


----------

