Thoughts on the Solemn League and Covenant?

Discussion in 'Church Order' started by Travis Fentiman, Jun 18, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. One Little Nail

    One Little Nail Puritan Board Sophomore

    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    The Covenant with the Gibeonites could not be voided, rescinded or abolished by any of these circumstances, so if the Ruling House of Stuart were changed to another Ruling House, how does this invalidate The Solemn League &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
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2014
  2. JP Wallace

    JP Wallace Puritan Board Sophomore

    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.
     
  3. Travis Fentiman

    Travis Fentiman Puritan Board Freshman

    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
     
  4. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  5. Travis Fentiman

    Travis Fentiman Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  6. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    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


    The Directory for Worship in section 4.8 has the following:

    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.
     
  7. Travis Fentiman

    Travis Fentiman Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  8. Travis Fentiman

    Travis Fentiman Puritan Board Freshman

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

    Travis Fentiman Puritan Board Freshman


    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
     
  10. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    I do have Gillespie's Works Travis. The question of the lawfulness of imposing the oath does not change the reality of the result.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page