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

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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

WCF 22.3: "Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform."

The Original WCF has the clause cited by Matthew:

WCF 22.3: "Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority."

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

Peace,
Alan

 

[TylerRay]

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

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

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

Are y'all getting married???

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sola Gratia]

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, when a whole nation is filled with only Christians then everyone will be baptized.

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

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

How so Sarah?

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

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

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

 

[Rom]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[crixus]

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

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

 

[Rom]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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