# Thoughts on the Solemn League and Covenant?



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 18, 2014)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this article about the binding nature of the Solemn League and Covenant?

The Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting | Reformed Books Online


----------



## MW (Jun 18, 2014)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Does anyone have any thoughts on this article about the binding nature of the Solemn League and Covenant?
> 
> The Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting | Reformed Books Online



That is very well presented and helps to clarify the historical details.

I note there is a link to a paper with my name on it. For clarification, I did not write that paper. Someone collated it from material I had presented. It has one particular point with which I do not agree. This is the footnote which casts doubt on the legality of the covenant on the basis that it was an ordinance of Parliament. The argument does not hold and would effectively side with those who maintained royalist absolutism.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 18, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> I note there is a link to a paper with my name on it. For clarification, I did not write that paper. Someone collated it from material I had presented. It has one particular point with which I do not agree. This is the footnote which casts doubt on the legality of the covenant on the basis that it was an ordinance of Parliament. The argument does not hold and would effectively side with those who maintained royalist absolutism.




Matthew,

Thank you for your feedback. I am glad it is of help.

I had wondered if the paper was actually yours or not, as the title was unclear and there was no source info. I will certainly change the info about the authorship, and I apologize for not being more careful.

Thank you for the clarification about the point about parliament. I will look over the article again and give an editorial qualification, or perhaps take it down, in the next day or two.


Thanks again for your thoughts. If you ever write something on the topic, let me know.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 18, 2014)

FYI, I added a point. The point I added is #17 about the majority of covenanting Reformed Presbyterians joining the Free Church in 1876.

What can I say, I love church unity


----------



## MW (Jun 19, 2014)

Travis Fentiman said:


> FYI, I added a point. The point I added is #17 about the majority of covenanting Reformed Presbyterians joining the Free Church in 1876.



Another excellent point, Travis.

No problem about the reference.

I have the material ready were it desirable to put it together into a paper. I'm not sure there is much call for it anymore.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jun 19, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> > FYI, I added a point. The point I added is #17 about the majority of covenanting Reformed Presbyterians joining the Free Church in 1876.
> ...



How is that Matthew as the Free Church of Scotland is not the _*Established*_ Church of Scotland or Revolution Church with which the Reformed Presbyterians joined & is a *Separatist* Organisation this would be contradictory would it not as one of Travis' points is;

*15)Thus, recognizing that the Revolution Church was the Church of Christ in the land, and that the S.L.&C. bound one to the one Church of Chirst, the three last living covenanter ministers of the 1680′s (Shields, Lining and Boyd) joined the Revolution Church in 1689. They recognized that to separate oneself from the Bride of Christ, Christ’s body, is schism. *




> I have the material ready were it desirable to put it together into a paper. I'm not sure there is much call for it anymore



Matthew that would be excellent if you could post it up here on the Pb blog, these things are always of historical importance, regards


----------



## MW (Jun 19, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> How is that Matthew as the Free Church of Scotland is not the _*Established*_ Church of Scotland or Revolution Church with which the Reformed Presbyterians joined & is a *Separatist* Organisation this would be contradictory would it not as one of Travis' points is;
> 
> *15)Thus, recognizing that the Revolution Church was the Church of Christ in the land, and that the S.L.&C. bound one to the one Church of Chirst, the three last living covenanter ministers of the 1680′s (Shields, Lining and Boyd) joined the Revolution Church in 1689. They recognized that to separate oneself from the Bride of Christ, Christ’s body, is schism. *



The Free Church did not separate from the Church of Scotland; the Free Church separated from the vitiated establishment which failed to recognise the spiritual freedom and independence of the church. Hence she called herself the Church of Scotland Free, and went out on the understanding that she would return were the civil magistrate to return and recognise the spiritual liberties and privileges of the church.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 19, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > How is that Matthew as the Free Church of Scotland is not the _*Established*_ Church of Scotland or Revolution Church with which the Reformed Presbyterians joined & is a *Separatist* Organisation this would be contradictory would it not as one of Travis' points is;
> ...




Little Nail, another way to say what Matthew said above, if explaining it in another way may help, the Free Church still holds to the full doctrine of an established church, but voluntarily chose to withdraw itself from the state establishment as it currently existed as it could no longer remain under the then erastian domination of the civil government.

The difference between 1689 and 1843 is that for whatever defects 1689 had, it was not constitutionally erastian, but the establishment principle, and in 1843 not only did the state break its constitutional terms according to the revolution settlement of 1689, but the church of Scotland also broke its constitutional terms in affirming erastianism and thus ceasing to be the church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland was legally continued by 1/4 of its men under the new name the Free Church, though with the exact same constitution. The new name was due only to the necessity of the circumstances.


Warm regards,
Travis


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jun 19, 2014)

Thanks for posting this useful and interesting material, Travis. 

Please give my greetings to my dear friend Rob McCurley and blessings on his and your work.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Staphlobob (Jun 19, 2014)

I too found the post very helpful. But as someone who's just beginning in his understanding of the National and SL&C, what is meant by the differences between the "spiritual and moral" aspects of the SL&C and its "historical" substance? 

How does the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) view its relationship to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution? I will say that I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of them, due to my adherence to Jesus Christ as the only Lord. But I'm not sure yet. 

Thanks for your response.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 20, 2014)

Matthew,


I changed the authorship of the _Succinct Rebuttal_ on the site and also qualified it in my editorial comments (not in the footnote to my article which didn't seem completely appropriate, but in the other two places on the site where the _Succinct Rebuttal_ is linked). I agree with your assessment about the necessity of the ratification of treaties of the King being a Royal Absolutist claim contrary to the claims and view of the largely puritan Long Parliament.

I hope the changes are sufficient. If you do not believe they are, let me know.


Also, for everyone's interest, if it is interesting, I added a point to the article to give a nice overall round number of 20 points. I added point #15, about Durham's Treatise on Scandal and some of Samuel Rutherford's last words, which words I think are some of the most significant in church history for us to hear, especially in light of the said topic. 


Warm regards,
Travis


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 20, 2014)

Kevin,

In regards to your first question: the National Covenant of 1638 is filled with lots of historical details that no longer exist today and could never be fulfilled today, and it would be foolish to swear to it. The Solemn League and Covenant, in comparison, is much more general with less historical details, and thus the greater claims by some people for it.

*
Historical Circumstances and details of the SLC:*

"...the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and safety of the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland..." [there are no three kingdoms today, they are one united kingdom, and there is no king today. See point #7 of my article]

"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..."

"...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..."


*Moral and Spiritual Principles of the SLC:*

"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..."

"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 doctrine, worship, discipline, and government..."

"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..."

" we profess and declare, before GOD and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sins... 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..."

etc.


The basic premise of my article, that the spiritual and moral obligations continue while the expired historical do not was the general, normal, consensus view of the Scottish reformation ever since 1560. Tons of covenants, private, social, civil, and ecclesiastical were sworn and were being sworn every few years (see David Hay Flemings work in his selected shorter writings documenting all this). The covenanters always thought that the early lesser covenants were spiritually subsumed by the larger more enlarged covenants that came later.

While the SLC was the largest and most general of all the covenants, and the last really big, major one in Scottish church history, to claim that all the historical details of it, that no longer exist, still bind today, is to deny the earlier and more fundamental premise that all the reformers were agreed on, that the historical details cease with the expiration thereof, while the moral and spiritual principles continue.

That this principle, of the morality continuing while the historical circumstances do not, was in fact the consensus view of everyone in Scotland in those times, you can see just about any scottish history book I linked underneath my article.


Hope this is of help, though brief.


Warm regards,
Travis


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 20, 2014)

Kevin,

With regard to your second question about the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I wish I had time to answer it in detail.

For the Biblical view of church-state relations, see the teaching of the 1646 Westminster Confession, 23.3

Chapter 23


For an exposition and defense that this, the Establishment Principle, the universal view of the Reformation and Post-Reformation, is the Biblical view of church-state relations see the page on my website devoted to it (which is not done yet):

Church-State Relations | Reformed Books Online


The best article length work demonstrating that the Establishment Principle is the scriptural teaching is Thomas M'Crie's Chapter 7, "Brief View of the Evidence..." of his larger book, Statement of the Difference.

After that, if you desire to look into it more, read William Cunningham's articles on it also linked on the site.


Warm regards,
Travis


----------



## Staphlobob (Jun 20, 2014)

Travis, thank you for your time and energy. I think I understand your answer to my first question, and will be looking at "Church-State Relations."

Thanks again for everything.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 20, 2014)

To beat a dead horse a little bit more (since hundreds of thousands of people think its still alive), I updated several sections of my article, most notably section 7:



(7) The historical details and circumstances of the S.L.&C. no longer exist, and thus are not binding today. 

The Adopting Act of the 1643 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which bound the church to the S.L.&C., reads, “…and for establishing his majesty’s throne to all ages and generations.” “The majesty’s throne” in the 1640′s, amidst political turmoil and other competitors, meant specifically the then current reigning Stuart Dynasty. The S.L.&C. itself includes the obligation to promote “…the advancement of… the honour and happiness of the king’s majesty and his posterity…” in the opening paragraph and “to preserve and defend the king’s majesty’s person and authority,” in the third section.

By means of the Glorious Revolution of 1689, William of the Dutch House of Orange was made a joint-sovereign with his wife Mary of the Stuarts, and was invested with sole authority to act for both of them. When Mary died in 1694 it left William of the Dutch House of Orange (not the House of Stuart) sole King of England. In 1689, no longer could the S.L.&C. be sworn to upon its historical terms.³ ...


The Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting | Reformed Books Online


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 21, 2014)

Thank you for this article, Travis. I learned a lot from it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 21, 2014)

We need a sarcasm icon surely. Maybe dozens would be an overstatement?


Travis Fentiman said:


> since hundreds of thousands of people think its still alive


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 21, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> We need a sarcasm icon surely. Maybe dozens would be an overstatement?
> 
> 
> Travis Fentiman said:
> ...



Chris, you are indeed correct with respect to Steelites. However, my article strikes at the root: The Glorious Revolution of 1689, and all those that stayed out of it since then, numbering all the Reformed Presbyterians in the world, including the: 

RPCNA (being the big one)
ARP
RPCS
RPNA
WPCUS
etc.

and every other denomination with "Reformed Presbyterian" in the name




Warm regards,
Travis


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 21, 2014)

Chris,

Well, I was completely wrong. I thought the RPCNA had way more people than they do. I found a site that says they only have 7,000.


----------



## Logan (Jun 21, 2014)

For clarification, which "dead horse" does the RPCNA still consider alive?


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 22, 2014)

Logan said:


> For clarification, which "dead horse" does the RPCNA still consider alive?




Brother Logan, I mean no cause for offense, as I hold my friends in the RPCNA to be very dear.


But to articulate on the dead horse I mentioned. There are a wide variety of colors and stripes of Reformed Presbyterians, all of which hold to some degree of the following:

1 - Having stayed out of (separated from) the Church of Scotland, post-1689
2 - Swearing to the original 1643 Solemn League and Covenant, or some later version of it
3 - Holding to the doctrine of a successive, re-swearing to the SLC for all office bearers throughout history, and perhaps even church members
4 - Holding that swearing to the SLC is a term of communion, and thus justifies separation from other churches that don't swear to it.


My article argues that all of these are Biblically and historically wrong, and that the overwhelming majority of church history recognized it. 

Seeing that any legitimate initial ground for separation from 1689 or the 1700's no longer remains, for instance in the Free Church (continuing) and even other similar churches, there is no grounds for the separate existence for RP denominations, and they should join by back with their faithful home church. 

By the way, I believe these matters are incredibly small between brothers in Christ that agree on 99.9% of everything else, which is one reason why I think differing on .1% is not legitimate grounds for separation.

As for the modern RPCNA, as my wife pointed out to me, they are not hard-line RPs in theory or practice, as the extreme covenanters they came from in the 1680's and early 1700's, which I think is a wonderful thing, and therefore not everything said in the article can be applied to them directly.

That said, regarding the .1% that we differ on, I hope you will take careful consideration of the points I make in the article.


Warm regards,
Travis


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 22, 2014)

From discussions I have had some Pastors in RPCNA do not believe that America nor any other Nation outside of Great Britain is bound to the SLC. The SLC is a Covenant, that was made before God, that the English Magistrate and the Church of Great Britain bound themselves to. It is still binding upon them. The USA is not a Covenanted Nation unfortunately. It is not constituted under Messiah the Prince although He will hold her accountable for her actions and unbelief. 

That is my understanding of the situation.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 22, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The SLC is a Covenant, that was made before God, that the English Magistrate and the Church of Great Britain bound themselves to. It is still binding upon them.



Mr. Snyder, the SLC was sworn by the English, Scottish, and Irish magistrates, and the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The magistrates are no longer the same (they are not only different persons, but they are different establishments), and the churches have a new relationship to the new magistrates. Travis makes this all clear in his article.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 22, 2014)

The English viewed the SL&C as a civil league rather than a covenant (easier to be broken according to Sir Henry Vane who insisted on League in the title and other language was changed to make it read as each side favored as far as the aims (Scotland seeing Presbyterianism, and England, 'whatever'). Thus equivocation was built into the document from the beginning. This and the fact civil fines were levied if you did not take it simply made nations of hypocrites who easily abandoned the covenant/league when the political tides changed. When the Usurper took over, the document whether league or covenant was a dead letter.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 22, 2014)

TylerRay said:


> Mr. Snyder, the SLC was sworn by the English, Scottish, and Irish magistrates, and the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The magistrates are no longer the same (they are not only different persons, but they are different establishments), and the churches have a new relationship to the new magistrates.



Just as a thought exercise, not just for Tyler who I quote; was the divided kingdom of Judah and Israel still in covenant with God even though the nation as constituted under Moses was no longer an distinct entity? Was the covenant, in terms of it's geographical promises and provisions for example only and soley connected with ethic/regulatory/national identity of the unified children of Israel, or did it continue even though that unified entity divided into two states/kingdoms, with creation of a new border, alternative capital cities, opposing armies etc.? Is covenantal responsibility delineated by borders, or geography, ethnicity, regimes or what? What about changed magistrates; was Judah and/or Israel under covenant only under good kings who walked in God's ways and not so when their kings had repudiated the covenant? Or did covenant liabiiity continue on regardless?

Similarly are the NC and SL&C no longer to be observed just because the political/nation names have changed, or some (and only some0 of the boundaries have changed, and merely because Charles and every subsequent monarch and parliament have ignored them? What or rather who had the original signatories in mind when they specificed the three nations (as they were bound to do in keeping with the context that presented itself to them)? Was Wales included or not, given that it is not mentioned specifically? If so how so? On what basis?

In reference to Chris's point about 'a nation of hypocrites' without doubt this was a problem, and in practical and historical terms probably a major one (Vos in 'The Scottish Covenanters' notes this very weakeness), however regardless of that, no one twisted parliament's arm behind its back for instance, and a covenant made with God is a serious matter, though a man repudiate it, and even took it dishonestly. If he took it intelligently surely he is bound by it? A man cannot get a divorce, or void a building contract or such other agreements, (well I think he can't even in our corrupt days), just by saying he never meant it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 22, 2014)

I can vaguely remember a Covenant made between Israel and a foreign Nation that was broken before David's time and King David still considered it a valid covenant that the Nation of Israel was responsible for and had to repent for. Does anyone have any memory of such? I can't recall it.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 22, 2014)

JP Wallace said:


> Was Wales included or not, given that it is not mentioned specifically? If so how so? On what basis?



According to the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535-1542, Wales was under the dominion of the Parliament of England. What was the law for England was the law for Wales.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 22, 2014)

JP Wallace said:


> Just as a thought exercise, not just for Tyler who I quote; was the divided kingdom of Judah and Israel still in covenant with God even though the nation as constituted under Moses was no longer an distinct entity? Was the covenant, in terms of it's geographical promises and provisions for example only and soley connected with ethic/regulatory/national identity of the unified children of Israel, or did it continue even though that unified entity divided into two states/kingdoms, with creation of a new border, alternative capital cities, opposing armies etc.? Is covenantal responsibility delineated by borders, or geography, ethnicity, regimes or what? What about changed magistrates; was Judah and/or Israel under covenant only under good kings who walked in God's ways and not so when their kings had repudiated the covenant? Or did covenant liabiiity continue on regardless?



God's special dealings with the nation of Israel was a part of the administration of the Covenant of Grace, and is quite different than human social covenanting (though some of that happened in Israel, too). No matter the disobedience of the Nation, or of their king or kings under the mosaic administration, their divinely given constitution stood. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 22, 2014)

Paul,


Thank you for the very helpful thought experiment. While there are differences between the Covenant of Grace and social covenants (which is often forgotten in these discussions), I think your point is made, as there is much that holds for both.

I agree with you, as noted in my article, that the moral and spiritual obligations continue though the historical circumstances expire, and your thought experiment is an excellent example of that. I am going to revise my article and make that even more clear from scripture that the moral obligations transcend the expired details, and one cannot get out of the moral requirements of a covenant just by changing historical or political details. God recognizes the morality or immorality of it all the same.

Regarding the question by someone else above of a social covenant transcending historical circumstances, take Josh 9:18,19 with the Gibeonites, compared with the Saul breaking that covenant in 2 Sam. 21:1-1. Tons of political and historical circumstances and constitutions changes in that time, and God still looked on the morality of it for successive generations.

Regarding Chris's point above about the SLC being rescinded in 1661 by Charles II. My take on it is that it rescinded it for England, but I am not persuaded that it was thus rescinded for the Church of Scotland. Though it does change things if one party to the covenant breaks the covenant.

As far as England, the covenant itself in two places mentions that it is for posterity. So it was definitely supposed to morally obligate posterity, and should not be easily broken if that were the legal terms of English law. More importantly it was in God's name, which seems to me to give a little more weight to it than in whatever way rescinding "leagues" was legally permitted.

Thus it seems to me that Eze. 17:18,19 applies to them: "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. 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."

England is under the penalty of taking Gods name in vain by breaking the SLC. Perhaps that discipline has been carried out and such no longer applies to England, but it is not a great precedent to have in one's past.

As for the Church of Scotland, they never rescinded the SLC, and though England dropped out as a party, it seems to me there is some remaining moral obligation that transcends expired historical circumstances. If nothing else, no other party dropped out of the National Covenant, and it would seem the moral obligation would continue, that the whole nation covenanted to be the people of the true God.


Just some thoughts,

Warm regards,
Travis


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 22, 2014)

I was referring to Cromwell.


Travis Fentiman said:


> Regarding Chris's point above about the SLC being rescinded in 1661 by Charles II. My take on it is that it rescinded it for England, but I am not persuaded that it was thus rescinded for the Church of Scotland. Though it does change things if one party to the covenant breaks the covenant.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jun 22, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I can vaguely remember a Covenant made between Israel and a foreign Nation that was broken before David's time and King David still considered it a valid covenant that the Nation of Israel was responsible for and had to repent for. Does anyone have any memory of such? I can't recall it.



I believe that was the Covenant the Children of Israel, in _Joshua's_ time made with the Gibeonites.Joshua 9 - The Gibeonite Deception

Saul was killing them in his misguided zeal & The Lord put a famine on the land after his death as a punishment for
transgressing that covenant, which David appeased by hanging Saul's sons, thus showing that the covenant made
several centuries previous was still *Binding & in Effect* just Like The Solemn League & Covenant is today
still binding & in effect on the U.K. & her dependencies , like my country Australia, which is still under the Crown. 

you see there was a Covenant made several centuries previous which was still in effect.
Saul could not nullify it by the extermination of one of the parties, nor was it annulled by a change of Government, Israel went from the rule of Judges to a monarchy, nor was it invalidated by a change in the Ruling House, house of Saul to the House of David. 
The Covenant with the Gibeonites could not be voided, rescinded or abolished by any of these circumstances, so if the Ruling House of Stuart were changed to another Ruling House, how does this invalidate * The Solemn League & Covenant * ? 

the covenants, the covenants shall yet be Scotland's Reviving - Guthrie

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 23, 2014)

TylerRay said:


> God's special dealings with the nation of Israel was a part of the administration of the Covenant of Grace, and is quite different than human social covenanting (though some of that happened in Israel, too). No matter the disobedience of the Nation, or of their king or kings under the mosaic administration, their divinely given constitution stood. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."



Yes there are differences Tyler, however, in principle, geographical, political, regime changes do not, make null and void all or every statute, or covenant etc. This was what you had suggested in your first comment - see 22 and 23 where you respond to Martin. Rather the biblical evidence is that there are other controlling factors and that such covenants percolate through time, see Travis's comments in 29.

Re: Chris's 'Usurper' - of course, Cromwell is known as such, it was late for me.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 24, 2014)

For those interested, I have thoroughly revised and added to the article, making it as air-tight as an argument can possible be, quoting more constitutional documents than anyone could possibly desire. 

The thing is practically a journal article now, but for those who prefer not to get bogged down in the details, there is also a link at the top of the page to an abbreviated and much shorter version of the article.


The Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting | Reformed Books Online


Warm regards,
Travis


----------



## Logan (Jul 7, 2014)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > For clarification, which "dead horse" does the RPCNA still consider alive?
> ...



Having inquired of people within the RPCNA much more knowledgeable than I. I am still confused as to what your list refers to, but it seems odd to me to include the RPCNA with the RPNA, let alone the ARP, unless you are just saying that is the historical background or roots. But I know no one within the RPCNA today that holds that the SL&C is still binding in all its aspects, nor does it require officers to swear to it, nor does it require subscription for communion. In fact, we have been singled out by the Steelites as being unfaithful to the SL&C. 

So once again, I really don't know what this "dead horse" is that the RPCNA still considers alive, nor what the "0.1%" is that we differ on. Forgive me if I'm just being dense and misunderstanding.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 7, 2014)

Logan, 

Logan you are correct that the RPCNA does not have officers swear to the SLC or hold it as a term of communion. However, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe officers in the RPCNA still swear in some manner or form to a Testimony, a historical relation of much of this history that affirms the reswearing of the covenants and lot of other things? If not, I will be glad to find out.


----------



## Logan (Jul 7, 2014)

I am unaware of anything in the Testimony regarding reswearing of covenants, though the Testimony (in the introduction) does state that in 22.9 that



> Covenanting in the New Testament takes the form of confessing Christ and His Lordship. In view of the continued emphasis of the covenantal relationship of God to men in the New Testament, it is appropriate for churches and nations to covenant to be the Lord’s and to serve Him. The statements or documents produced in these acts of covenant response are dependent upon the Covenant of Grace. They are statements of responsibility arising from the application of the Word of God to the times in which they are made. Such covenants have continuing validity in so far as they give true expression to the Word of God for the times and situations in which believers live. Isa. 45:23 with Rom. 14:11 and Phil. 2:11; Jer. 31:31 with Heb. 8:6-13; Ex. 19:5-6 with 1 Pet. 2:9-10.




The Directory for Worship in section 4.8 has the following:



> Covenanting with God is a solemn act of worship in which individuals,
> churches, or nations declare their acceptance of Him as their God and pledge
> allegiance and obedience to Him. Public covenanting is an appropriate response
> to the Covenant of Grace. The “Covenant of Communicant Membership”
> ...



Now, there is a covenant from 1871 that Synod subscribed to, in preamble of which they state "we, in obedience to the command of God, comformably to the practice of the godly in former times and recognizing all that is moral in the Covenants of our worthy religious progenitors of the Second Reformation, do hereby give ourselves in covenant to God, to His
Church, and to one another."

Subscription to this covenant is not a requirement for communion, as far as I am aware, let alone the SL&C. To the best of my knowledge, covenanting is approved of, but not required. Certainly not specific covenants.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 9, 2014)

Thank you Logan, I am glad to hear of this. All of the above I agree with. Thank you for your time and effort in sharing all of that.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 9, 2014)

Logan, do you have a link to the RPCNA's testimony so that I can read it over?


----------



## markkoller (Jul 9, 2014)

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/downloads/constitution2010.pdf


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 14, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This and the fact civil fines were levied if you did not take it simply made nations of hypocrites who easily abandoned the covenant/league when the political tides changed.




Chris, if it is of interest, here is George Gillespie defending the original Confession 22.3 that lawful authorities may impose oaths on their subjects. Gillespie specifically defends the instance of Scotland and England doing this on their populaces:

Gillespie on Whether Lawful Authorities can Impose Oaths | Reformed Books Online


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 14, 2014)

I do have Gillespie's Works Travis. The question of the lawfulness of imposing the oath does not change the reality of the result.


----------

