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

[Pilgrim Standard]

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

All I ask is, when was this practice abrogated?

 

[OPC'n]

You just promised God something you can't fulfill.

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

All I ask is, when was this practice abrogated?

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

 

[ADKing]

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

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

 

[Peairtach]

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

Very very highly recommended.

Post thoughts after listening to it if you wish.

Scotland: A Covenanted Land? - SermonAudio.com

Excellent

 

[Afterthought]

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

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

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

 

[OPC'n]

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.

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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

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

Peace,
Alan

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

 

[Unoriginalname]

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

 

[HaMetumtam]

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

"THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT,

FOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

 

[ADKing]

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

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

Peace,
Alan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

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

All I ask is, when was this practice abrogated?

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

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

 

[JennyG]

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

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

 

[Loopie]

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

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

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

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

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[God has]not covenanted with the whole nation, but with His church,

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

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

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

 

[Peairtach]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[Peairtach]

Eric

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

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

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

Cromwell was a Puritan but not a Covenanter.

This book sets his record in Ireland straight:

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

All I ask is, when was this practice abrogated?

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

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

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

 

[Peairtach]

Eric

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

 

[Peairtach]

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

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

Reformation History

 

[JennyG]

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

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

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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