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

[MW]

I am sorry to see a glorious work of God come under criticism on this board. The issue of applicability to the modern era is a valid question. But there should be no question about the fact that God worked through the covenanting period to bring about a much needed reformation with all its standards and blessed consequences that we still enjoy today. Please read the title page of your Confession, Catechisms, and Directories. It is doubtful whether there would be a Presbyterian church without the covenants. It is certain that it would not have been of such quality as it has been.

I am a Freechurchman. I cannot agree with our dear brethren, the Reformed Presbyterians, on this issue. I find it inconsistent with covenanting principles to make the covenanting documents a point of separation in the church. Please, dear brethren, take some time to read Thomas Boston's sermon against Schism, to which Chris Coldwell has provided a link on the first page of this thread.

Rev. Stewart has stated many important and valuable truths. There are also some historical inaccuracies which somewhat confuse the issue of applicability in the present. The most fundamental inaccuracy pertains to his statements on the relationship of the British crown to the covenants. Various factors are often overlooked on this subject. E.g., Scotland and England were two different kingdoms although they were ruled by the same king. The relationship of the king differed towards each kingdom according to the laws of each realm. The authority of Parliament was not what it is today. The union of the 18th century created a new state of affairs. No determination on the subject of applicability can be properly made until these and similar factors are properly understood and appreciated.

On the issue of covenanting, it is obvious that one's view of the civil magistrate's duty to God is fundamental. The fact is, our modern nations are bound to the principle of "constitutional freedoms" as a result of the commitment to covenanting. That is correct. We would not have the freedom to discuss this subject without the prior history of covenanting. I would go so far as to say that the constitutions under which we live and move are themselves religious covenants. A little thought on the history and nature of constitutionalism will validate this point. We are all covenanted people, one way or another. The question for us becomes, What is the religious quality of the covenanted society in which we live.

 

[Afterthought]

^Thank you for those historical details. I know I personally was not aware of them. (And good to see you are well enough to be able to make a couple of posts!)

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

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I never assumed nor intended to make it seem I assumed you had said that. To rephrase the question so it is clearer, I was asking "For those who get married, where are they commanded to make vows?" Having spent some time mulling it over, it seems that the question needs to be tightened some still. Namely, a marriage is a covenant by its nature--a covenant between men and men. However, does that necessarily imply that making these vows are commanded? I thought a vow was a promise to God, while an oath called upon God to witness, but I could be mixing things up.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Matthew:

I am just glad to see you back on this board, though we may have some slight disagreements (I like your nuances, which I found to be absent from Pastor Stewart's talk). It would take quite a bit of space for me to go through the whole talk bit by bit, noting agreements and disagreements. I do not disagree that there are aspects of covenanting present in explicit constitutionalism (such as we came to have in America in contrast to the implicit constitutionalism based on the whole of the laws and traditions of Britain). There are points of continuity and discontinuity, however. And though I think that such covenanting played a role in the glorious work of God that you rightly mention, I am not prepared to say that God would not have done the glorious work that He did without it. To assert such unqualifiedly seems to me to edge up against the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Our own errors historically are always involved in many wonderful providential developments.

Having said that, covenanting has to be justified on its own terms and I think that there are serious problems with a nation outside of Israel of old making a covenant with God when God has made no such covenant with the nation as a political entity; with His church within that nation, yes, but that's something altogether different from the nation doing it without God's initiation of such. That is not what the U.S. Constitution is, even in its Southern variety that eliminated the "no religious test" clause and recognized the reign of God as Creator. One can realize in a compact that the basis of law is divine without the kind of action, far more specific, involved in Scottish covenanting. I believe that the civil magistrate has a proper answerability to God and an obligation that civil law properly reflect divine law, as we speak of the second use of it. This is all still not covenanting in the Scottish sense. There is a robust Reformed and Presbyterian approach to all this that does not see the warrant or necessity for covenanting.

Again, I appreciate what you are saying here and pointing, as has Chris, to Boston's sermon. It seems to me that Pastor Stewart's position is exclusivistic, arguing that covenanting is the way that we are to understand these things and to think otherwise is to depart from God's way. That becomes, of necessity, divisive, though not a single Reformed confession requires or teaches it, even Westminster's original establishmentarian form. I would want to be careful to distinguish establishmentarianism simpliciter and covenanting.

I don't take it that you were referring to me at any rate in lamenting the denigrating of a work of God, but I wanted to make a few more things clear. Above all, I am deeply thankful to see you here!

Peace,
Alan

 

[py3ak]

Ben, I'm not arguing a position: I'm just trying to explain what questions, in my view, it is essential for a pro-covenanting viewpoint to address. The question is of how contemporary nations are related to Christ's church and his universal dominion: and I don't think that question is settled by a quick appeal to Asa. I'm not saying you have to be Israel to have a national covenant - I'm saying it's important to think through what implications the uniqueness of Israel may have.
Is Portugal today related to the Lord as OT Israel was? Is Portugal today related to the Lord as OT Philistia was? Is the NT relationship of any nation comparable to OT Israel?
Take a different test case: what if Egypt, in the times of Josiah, had wished to make a covenant with the Lord? Would this have involved them being incorporated into Israel much as the Gibeonites were? Or could they have kept an independent existence? Would the sundry judicial laws given to Israel as a body politic have bound the Egyptians in detail, and not merely in their general equity? What guidelines can be given for national covenanting?
As I understand it, covenanting is not the only way that nations can acknowledge the kingship of Christ. The debate doesn't have to be between secularism/establishmentarianism. Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon made no covenant. So you could say that there are two questions. First, is national covenanting warranted? Marriage clearly is; individual promises of particular devotion (with due qualification) clearly are; but is it equally clear that a body politic as such has authorization from God's word, or a promise of help to fulfill what is offered? Second, is national covenanting required?

I haven't said that there is sin in making such a covenant: I have only asked if we know for sure that nations in general are competent parties to have a covenant with God.

 

[MW]

Alan,

Thankyou for your gracious response and kind thoughts. My post was more a reply in general to the thread than to any individual in particular. The subject of covenanting is bound to be approached according to prior theological commitments, and foremost in that commitment will be one's view of the religious duty of nations. It seems to me to be a fruitless task to advance a discussion on "national covenanting" where there is no shared commitment on "national obligation" in general. If one can allow the possibility of a "Christian nation" under the specific category of the visibility and catholicity of the church, which was the status quo of the covenanting period, then one should have no difficulty with the idea of national religious oaths, since, ecclesiastically, the baptismal vow already functions in that way, and civilly, all solemn admissions and engagements to office would inevitably be of a religious nature.

Concerning my statement of God's works in history, I was speaking more in terms of "special providence" than "general providence" (WCF 5.7). We acknowledge a moral identity and descent so far as our presbyterian and confessional convictions are concerned. The covenanting movement was essential to the "special providence" which has created our identity. It has bequeathed to us our privileges and laid upon us our most solemn obligations. Our sense of duty to our tradition is tied up with the covenants. It is impossible to reject them or disparage them without at the same time undermining our moral connection to our spiritual heritage.

Ecclesiastically, there is a direct historical link between the obligation of the covenants and the vows of office-bearers in Presbyterianism. The national covenant was the confession to which ministers subscribed prior to 1638. It was this subscription which maintained a constitutional and protesting minority in the Church of Scotland up to 1638, and this formed the ground out of which subsequent second reformation attainments sprung up. After the creation of the Westminster Confession and relative documents subscription to the covenant remained the means of avowal until after the Revolution settlement.

Regarding covenanting and constitutionalism, my library is all boxed up, so it will be impossible to refer to the various articles and books which have made this point. I can't expect anyone to take it on my say-so, and I don't have the energy to do any original research online, so I am content to leave it where it stands -- as a mere suggestion worthy of study.

Many blessings!

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Pastor Winzer I am filled with Joy to see you on the board again!

Ben, I'm not arguing a position: I'm just trying to explain what questions, in my view, it is essential for a pro-covenanting viewpoint to address. The question is of how contemporary nations are related to Christ's church and his universal dominion: and I don't think that question is settled by a quick appeal to Asa. I'm not saying you have to be Israel to have a national covenant - I'm saying it's important to think through what implications the uniqueness of Israel may have.

I am just trying to understand what difference there is in the relationship between God & Israel, and God and Nations today that affects their ability to covenant on any level. It is rather confusing. If I have a misunderstanding here, then I very well may have a misunderstanding of the relationship between myself and God.

Rev. Strange stated that People or Persons have the right to covenant, but not nations. Where does it stop and how do we know? Can a State have a State Covenant, or a Region, or a Neighborhood likewise? How about a Family? Do you see what I am trying to understand? This is an issue of the relationship of bodies of people with God.

Is Portugal today related to the Lord as OT Israel was? Is Portugal today related to the Lord as OT Philistia was? Is the NT relationship of any nation comparable to OT Israel?
Take a different test case: what if Egypt, in the times of Josiah, had wished to make a covenant with the Lord? Would this have involved them being incorporated into Israel much as the Gibeonites were? Or could they have kept an independent existence? Would the sundry judicial laws given to Israel as a body politic have bound the Egyptians in detail, and not merely in their general equity? What guidelines can be given for national covenanting?

Well this is why I appealed to Asa. He was King not of Israel, but of Judah. People from Israel left Israel, to come to become part of Judah under the covenant I am referencing. Hence I thought it rather foundational. Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of that relationship too. It's rather frightening to think one has massive misconceptions unknown to oneself as to their relationship with God in some aspect.

As I understand it, covenanting is not the only way that nations can acknowledge the kingship of Christ. The debate doesn't have to be between secularism/establishmentarianism. Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon made no covenant. So you could say that there are two questions. First, is national covenanting warranted? Marriage clearly is; individual promises of particular devotion (with due qualification) clearly are; but is it equally clear that a body politic as such has authorization from God's word, or a promise of help to fulfill what is offered?

That's where I am. It seems to be warranted to me. I may be employing too much simplicity in my interpretation I suppose.

Second, is national covenanting required?

I have not seen this represented in scripture. I have no Idea even what the mechanics behind this would be. To think of another making a covenant I am bound to has its own issues. But this is not what I am trying to understand at this point.

I do believe that the lack of the acknowledgement of Christ as King has it's own curse, very well represented in the US and its supposed neutrality today.

I haven't said that there is sin in making such a covenant: I have only asked if we know for sure that nations in general are competent parties to have a covenant with God.

What would it be then for a country to make a Covenant with God unjustly? Is it just an invalidation of confused people from the start?

Again I appreciate your patience. This is more about relationships and understanding of scripture for me.

 

[Zach]

Welcome back, Pastor Winzer! We've missed your wise and insightful contributions to the Board.

 

[OPC'n]

I talked with my pastor about the notion of writing up a national covenant with God and he disagreed with that notion. He gave me an article to read on this subject. Apparently, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all disagreed that nations should have national covenants with God. Here is the link for those interested in reading it. It's short so not a hard read.

 

[JennyG]

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.

There's no way I would fall out with you on this, Sarah, when the truth is that not only do I value your input, I'm also extremely foggy on the whole question. You may well be right. ...as so often, I come to the PB to learn.
The very idea of a national Covenant, especially where my beloved homeland is concerned, absolutely thrills me to the core, but I realise that's not exactly an argument (though I agree with what armourbearer says about the long felt effects of our covenanting history).

 

[MW]

Apparently, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all disagreed that nations should have national covenants with God.

The Schmalkaldic League of 1530 and the Genevan oath of 1537 demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thank you Rev. Winzer. I grow tired of the Escondido 2K crowd acting like the Institutes is the only thing Calvin ever wrote (and even then speaking as if what he says there agrees with their formulation). The idea his doctrine of the two kingdoms is even in the same galaxy as the Escondido brand is beyond laughable.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

Apparently, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all disagreed that nations should have national covenants with God.

The Schmalkaldic League of 1530 and the Genevan oath of 1537 demonstrate otherwise.

Simply put! It is a unique dance that it performed when modern R2K proponents attempt to rewrite Christians of yesteryear into their image with some very selective proof-texting. Ask Servetus how R2K Calvin was. Augustine I will not argue, nor do I care to. But, the notion of R2K is a very new phenomenon and will find little if any historical representation within the Reformed camp beyond very modern times, Covenanting notwithstanding. While the American standards have written out the Establishment language, that has only been but a few years ago. I still find it difficult to understand WLC 191 outside of Establishment, and some degree of a National Religion:

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.

The Confessors taught that this is what Christians pray for in the second petition. Why would we pray for a godless or a supposed "morally neutral" agent making use of "natural law" to "countenance and maintain" the Church? Are we praying for Christ to only rule in the Church or in "all the world?" I know few who are faithfully teaching 191 and many who are teaching the opposite. While one may argue this is not fully "Covenanting," they will find the impossible task of explaining how this is R2K language.

 

[OPC'n]

Apparently, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin all disagreed that nations should have national covenants with God.

The Schmalkaldic League of 1530 and the Genevan oath of 1537 demonstrate otherwise.

I read the history of Schmalkaldic League and that was about the Lutherans trying to separate themselves from the Catholic Church. They drew up their beliefs and presented them to King Charles. Long story short they had battles over this where they were fighting for the freedom to practice Lutherism (is that a word? lol). Basically, they were fighting for religious freedom and they had to write up their beliefs on paper to present to the king. This, however, doesn't equal writing up a national covenant with God. Some ppl still stayed within the Catholic Church and would have never entered into such a covenant if there had been one written up. If you know of more information that shows they wrote up a national covenant to God I would be interested in reading it. I couldn't find anything about Genevan oath of 1537 so I can't speak to that.

However, here are a few quotes from the link I provided.

"Like Augustine, Luther emphasized the distinction between “things heavenly” and “things earthly,” righteousness before God and righteousness before fellow humans. On one hand, the Reformers were rejecting Rome’s confusion of Christ’s kingdom, which is extended by the proclamation of the Word, and earthly kingdoms. On the other hand, they were also opposing the Anabaptist movement, which regarded the earthly city as simply evil and unworthy of Christian involvement."

"Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says that we must recognize that we are “under a two-fold government… so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature.” Just as the body and spirit are distinct without being intrinsically opposed, “Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. …Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men.” These two kingdoms are “distinct,” yet “they are not at variance” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.1–2)."

There's more info in that article about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin not believing in national covenants if you would like to read it. It's pretty short so it wouldn't take too long to read.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

"Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says that we must recognize that we are “under a two-fold government… so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature.” Just as the body and spirit are distinct without being intrinsically opposed, “Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. …Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men.” These two kingdoms are “distinct,” yet “they are not at variance” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.1–2)."

To be honest Sarah this sounds like someone who might not understand the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. I don't know where the quote comes from and I am suspect to even try to interpret this small portion. God can and does use both distinct categories that have temporal situations in both the Church and state for His eternal Kingdom. Just because some things are temporal in both institutions does not make them void of having everlasting effectual purpose under His Mediatorial Authority which he is said to have received based upon His person and Work. There are things temporal in the Church as well as in the Civil realm. There are things that Christ's rule makes effectual for Everlasting Purpose in both. Though these offices differ as a Deason and or Elder they both are under His authority. And they may be temporal. Philippians 2 expresses that He received a name above every name based upon what He did and that everyone should bow on Earth even. This is a present situation. We are to pray that the Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven (even though we are awaiting the consummation of all things) and we are to make the same proclamation Paul made in Acts 17 that God is not winking at sin any longer. Commands every man everywhere to repent. That includes those who are in the Civil realm. They are to rule under His authority or face judgment. In fact the command that is given is in reference to the 1st and 2nd Commandment, if not tied to all ten. So, in fact, God is requiring all men to understand that they are all under some Covenantal responsibility to Him. So for a Nation to recognize it is not a bad thing. It really is a blessing for a Nation to realize it has a Covenantal responsibility before God.(Pro 14:34) Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Lets discuss the Psalms, Nations, and men later on but right now let us discuss the following noted situation between God, Israel, and the seriousness of even a misguided Covenant that was entered into. I think it might be eye opening. I want to point out the following passages to let you know that God takes Covenanting serious. Even if it seems misguided. At the same time I want you to realize that God was not cut off guard by it and that some would tend to sound like Openess Theologians to me by discounting or questioning what man has done and what God has performed through history. I want you to examine a situation. Then lets talk more about it.

(Jos 9:15) And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.

(2Sa 21:1) Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

(2Sa 21:2) And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)

(2Sa 21:3) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?

(2Sa 21:4) And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you.

 

[OPC'n]

"Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says that we must recognize that we are “under a two-fold government… so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature.” Just as the body and spirit are distinct without being intrinsically opposed, “Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. …Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men.” These two kingdoms are “distinct,” yet “they are not at variance” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.1–2)."

To be honest Sarah this sounds like someone who might not understand the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. I don't know where the quote comes from and I am suspect to even try to interpret this small portion. God can and does use both distinct categories that have temporal situations in both the Church and state for His eternal Kingdom. Just because some things are temporal in both institutions does not make them void of having everlasting effectual purpose under His Mediatorial Authority which he is said to have received based upon His person and Work. There are things temporal in the Church as well as in the Civil realm. There are things that Christ's rule makes effectual for Everlasting Purpose in both. Though these offices differ as a Deason and or Elder they both are under His authority. And they may be temporal. Philippians 2 expresses that He received a name above every name based upon what He did and that everyone should bow on Earth even. This is a present situation. We are to pray that the Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven (even though we are awaiting the consummation of all things) and we are to make the same proclamation Paul made in Acts 17 that God is not winking at sin any longer. Commands every man everywhere to repent. That includes those who are in the Civil realm. They are to rule under His authority or face judgment. In fact the command that is given is in reference to the 1st and 2nd Commandment, if not tied to all ten. So, in fact, God is requiring all men to understand that they are all have some Covenantal responsibility to Him. So for a Nation to recognize it is not a bad thing. It really is a blessing for a Nation to realize it has a Covenantal responsibility before God. Lets discuss the Psalms, Nations, and men later but right now let us discuss this situation between God and the seriousness of even a misguided Covenant that was entered into. I think it might be eye opening.

.

I want to point out the following passages to let you know that God takes Covenanting serious. Even if it seems misguided. At the same time I want you to realize that God was not cut off guard by it and that some would tend to sound like Openess Theologians to me by discounting or questioning what man has done and what God has performed through history. I want you to examine a situation. Then lets talk more about it.

(Jos 9:15) And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.

(2Sa 21:1) Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

(2Sa 21:2) And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)

(2Sa 21:3) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?

(2Sa 21:4) And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you.

That quote came from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. In my opinion, Calvin understood more than most ppl so I have to say he does understand Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. I gave the reference for the quote which you can look up and read the whole context. I have the hardcover book and also have the kindle version which you can get very cheaply if you don't have it.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I see the article Sarah. I will respond to it tomorrow morning. A Tale of Two Kingdoms:: Westminster Seminary California

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

"Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says

This is what I am referring to Sarah. I didn't read the words "contrived empire" of Christendom. What is meant by it? I think I understood the Calvin quote. I appreciate the language of two fold government. Even what Calvin calls distinctions. I especially appreciate the thought about the Jewish vanity that the Kingdom of God is found under the Civil. It is not. The Civil is under the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ and the Civil is not adverse to it according to Calvin. It is to help maintain the outward observance and promote the freedom's found in Christ that are external.

There are some assumptions in the article that I am finding hard to swallow. The article seems to have some straw men in it. They probably aren't intentional but are scriptural situations that are set up as examples to promote an ideology. (ie. the situation with Daniel) BTW, I am not sure that the School this Professor speaks from is totally in line with him. I am interested in knowing. But I am not sure of that so maybe I need to say that. After all the area has had its name attached to the situation now. At the same time the author of the article you reference is done by a major spokesman for the views expressed and the School seems to endorse them with media endorsements and name attachment.

The question was whether there were many “missionaries” left in an empire that had weakened the faith precisely to the extent that it had fused it with civil religion.

Could this be precisely why Rome fell? Could it be the same reason why Israel ended up in Babylon? They forsook God. It could be the same situation that Daniel was in.

Consequently, each city has its own polity, serving distinct ends through distinct means. Although some of its citizens are converted to citizenship in the city of God, the earthly city is always Babylon.

This is assumption..... The City can be in Covenant with God and in a relational status with him through its Elders, Leaders, and Countrymen. Yes, it can also forsake God and suffer thus leading to where Daniel ended up. BTW, Babylon is synonymous with being an unchaste whore. I would caution against calling every city Babylon. God doesn't do that in the scriptures. Covenanting is found in the scriptures. Calling every city Babylon isn't.

Like Daniel, believers pray for the city, work in the city, contribute to the city’s general welfare, and even fight in its armies. However, they never forget that they are exiles and pilgrims. Babylon is never the promised land.

Daniel was in a period of chastisement and exile because of sin. This is not a good illustration.

The kingdom of God advances through the proclamation of the Gospel, not through the properly coercive powers of the state,

At the same time we are to pray They Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven. The Kingdom of the Gospel has a lot to do with the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ which is a doctrine that is not understood in this present age. And it is so sad.



Concering the above statement, I am flabber gassed to think that the Reformed faith is being accused of such since we understand that Conversion comes from God. The Doctrine of Civil and law are discussed in great depth in our confessions. Even in the Belgic Confession question 36. In the Hand of Messiah the Prince God can use the state in the promotion of Law, discipline, and submission to Christ to guide men inwardly to this life Changing Gospel. Yes, the Gospel changes Society and helps the citizens of the area repent and promote Godliness. Ever read about book burning?

Anyways, I pray that others will see this for those God is calling to faith and for Society to come to know God. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul.

A King and His Kingdom - Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc



[video=youtube;aiZMwGNLA4g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiZMwGNLA4g&feature=g-user-u[/video]

Covenanting is recognition of Messiah the Prince and a submission to Christ. That is what it is about. Christ and His Kingdom.

BTW, Calvin also states this....

But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity. All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of God that while we aspire to true piety we are pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of his humanity.

http://www.puritanboard.com/institutes/4_20.htm#4.20.1

If you don't mind Sarah, can we discuss what I was directing toward in the Joshua passage and the 2 Samuel passages? It was about Covenanting. In Philippians 2 the scriptures express that Christ received a name above every name based upon what He did and that everyone should bow on Earth even. This is a present situation. We are to pray that the Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven (even though we are awaiting the consummation of all things) and we are to make the same proclamation Paul made in Acts 17 that God is not winking at sin any longer. God Ccmmands every man everywhere to repent. That includes those who are in the Civil realm. They are to rule under His authority or face judgment. In fact the command that is given is in reference to the 1st and 2nd Commandment, if not tied to all ten. So, in fact, God is requiring all men to understand that they are all under some Covenantal responsibility to Him. So for a Nation to recognize it is not a bad thing. It really is a blessing for a Nation to realize it has a Covenantal responsibility before God.(Pro 14:34) Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

So since every man has some covenantal responsibility to God due to the Law of God and God's requirement of obedience to that Law according to Acts 17 it seems that there is a Covenantal responsibility in the situation.

(Act 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

(Act 17:25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;


(Act 17:26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;


(Act 17:27) That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:


(Act 17:28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.


(Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.


(Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:


(Act 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

In light of the above I would like to discuss the following passages as I noted in the above post. Is Covenanting a bad thing or is there some scriptural inference for it. Is there a biblical precedent and how far does God allow us to participate with Him in our seeking his face? Can it possibly even extend to a geographical civil situation that recognizes responsibility to God and His Covenant of Grace? I sincerely believe it is so. And it isn't a liberal ideology that this comes from as some people set out to claim.

(Jos 9:15) And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.

(2Sa 21:1) Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

(2Sa 21:2) And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)

(2Sa 21:3) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?

(2Sa 21:4) And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you.

BTW, I sense that we are in an age of reaction. That is part of the problem here. When an abuse is recognized or an aberration is noticed the reaction to it is throwing out or in too much sometimes.

 

[Peairtach]

Benjamin

I am just trying to understand what difference there is in the relationship between God & Israel, and God and Nations today that affects their ability to covenant on any level. It is rather confusing. If I have a misunderstanding here, then I very well may have a misunderstanding of the relationship between myself and God.

Israel corresponds to the Church, not to any entity like the state or nation of Scotland.

We would have a different discussion if the Scottish Church (the Israel of God in Scotland) qua the Scottish Church had covenanted with God in the 17th century.

The State/Kingdom and King of Israel doesn't correspond in any simplistic way to modern nation states so that merely citing what one did with God's approval means that the same can or should be done with God's approval by Great Britain or the United States.

The priestly, prophetic and royal aspects of OT Israel are firstly fulfilled in the NT Church.

Then there is a wider and general equity correspondence between Israel and modern (Christian) nation states.

I say that as someone who is sympathetic to what the Rev. Stewart is saying, but would have to study it further.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Maybe I am incorrect but Covenanting is just recognizing the authority of Christ and submitting to it. We are to pray for this as God wills our prayers. God desires that Kings and Authorities repent and Follow Him in the Covenant. It is submitting to His Law. Christ does Mediate over this. And he asks for us to intercede.

(1Ti 2:1) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

(1Ti 2:2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.


(1Ti 2:3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;


(1Ti 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


(1Ti 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


(1Ti 2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

 

[HaMetumtam]

Maybe a definition is needed for 'covenant' It seems the word has more than one use depending on context and maybe the disagreement is due to equivocation rather than anything else ?

I know next to nothing regarding this topic but from reading the SLC itself it seems to be a pledge to protect and promote Gospel truth rather than placing the nation and individuals who have no interest in God under obligation.

Definition of covenant
Definition of the SLC

But as stated before i know very little.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Maybe I am incorrect but Covenanting is just recognizing the authority of Christ and submitting to it. We are to pray for this as God wills our prayers. God desires that Kings and Authorities repent and Follow Him in the Covenant. It is submitting to His Law. Christ does Mediate over this. And he asks for us to intercede.

(1Ti 2:1) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

(1Ti 2:2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.


(1Ti 2:3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;


(1Ti 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


(1Ti 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


(1Ti 2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

It seems there are multiple definitions of Covenanting being debated on this thread. We are all over the map here.


So the primary question to start with is:
"What is covenanting?" as a verb.

Is "covenanting" (specifically as a verb):
1) Simply making a one sided Oath to God by a person, persons or persons collectively in an institution? oathing, if you will
2) A contractual obligation between two or more parties in which the initiating party covenanting places or renews terms upon the other party.

If 1) is so, then certainly all constitutions are products of covenanting since they are inherently religious in nature because they deal primarily with moral foundations, what is right & what is wrong, what is permitted and what is not.

If 2) is so, then there are multitudes of problems that arise with the idea of National covenanting today.

None of this is to debate the necessity of covenanting, but is to understand the nature of covenanting and to determine if the authority exists for any individual, family or group has the right to engage in covenanting. So what is covenanting?

We can't very well continue a debate on a word if it seems we define it differently.


---edit---
Oh! I see JJ Slater beat me to the punch on this one.

 

[HaMetumtam]

I think defining terms is so important it needs to be said twice.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well, first off someone needs to know that there are historical factors that played up to the issue of Covenanting. In general they were corporate agreements to solidify conviction and practice. In the 1580's King James VI was Covenanted with the Scots. He later saw his power base failing and he fell back into Anglicizing the Church and Erastian rule ejected the Godly from their pulpits. In 1618 the Articles of Perth were forced upon the Church which basically was a step back into Popish Ceremonies and Erastianism. But the Scots had a Confession that had been drawn up in the mid 1500's that was dear to many men. When King Charles I succeeded his father he and Archbishop Laud forced the Book of Prayer upon the Scots. It rankled ole Jenny Geddes and she is credited with throwing her stool at the Dean as he started to read from it declaring she wouldn't tolerate such nonsense. It was 1637 and the Popish Ceremonies along with Erastianism was being crammed down their throats again. So the Noblemen got together considering the Scots Confession and drew up a Covenant that was signed by men all across the country. Some signed it with their blood. The initial signing took place at Greyfriars Kirk in 1638. It led to the Bishops wars which the King couldn't win.

In principle The National Covenant was an agreement that these men would band together for Christ's Crown and Covenant and fight for the Crown Rights of Christ's Authority. They held strongly to opposing a return of Popish Ceremonies and claimed that the original 1582 agreement was to be held up by the King and their Country. They would support the King as long as they weren't forced into idolatry. They were just defending themselves from being forced into false Religion. In the early 1640's the King of England was at war again with the Irish Catholics and needed the Covenanters to support him and a Covenant between the Parliament and the Covenanters was drawn up. That is the Solemn League and Covenant.

So really in principle, Sarah, this is the same thing as the Lutherans did in the Schmalkaldic League of 1530.

There is a reason why I posted the passage above. Please can we discuss the passage now? I believe it applies.

(Jos 9:15) And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.


(2Sa 21:1) Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

(2Sa 21:2) And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)

(2Sa 21:3) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?

(2Sa 21:4) And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you.

 

[Peairtach]

Were the Gibeonites Pagans?

 

[MW]

I read the history of Schmalkaldic League and that was about the Lutherans trying to separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

It was a civil league for the maintenance of religious principles which included the use of defensive arms. The national covenant of Scotland was the same in nature.

I couldn't find anything about Genevan oath of 1537 so I can't speak to that.

Thomas Fuller, Abel redevivus, vol. 1, p. 320: "The first thing which he [John Calvin] attempted, after his admission into this city, was a more exact reformation in the church; and for that cause he drew a compendium of Christian religion and form of doctrine, unto which he laboured to have the inhabitants to subscribe, and to bind themselves by an oath to abjure the superstitious doctrine of Rome, and to defend the same with their lives. This motion was refused by many at the first; yet not long after, (God so disposing,) even in the year 1537, the senate and people of Geneva took their oaths for the defence of the same."

There's more info in that article about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin not believing in national covenants if you would like to read it. It's pretty short so it wouldn't take too long to read.

I couldn't find a reference to covenanting in the article. I did see a false parallel created between Augustine's two cities and the two kingdoms of Calvin. Augustine's two cities were antithetical. The two kingdoms in Calvin's thought were to maintain a mutual relationship. Furthermore, Augustine and Calvin supported the concept of the civil power being the keeper of both tables of the law, and of inflicting civil penalties for crimes against the true religion.

 

[OPC'n]

I read the history of Schmalkaldic League and that was about the Lutherans trying to separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

It was a civil league for the maintenance of religious principles which included the use of defensive arms. The national covenant of Scotland was the same in nature.

I couldn't find anything about Genevan oath of 1537 so I can't speak to that.

Thomas Fuller, Abel redevivus, vol. 1, p. 320: "The first thing which he [John Calvin] attempted, after his admission into this city, was a more exact reformation in the church; and for that cause he drew a compendium of Christian religion and form of doctrine, unto which he laboured to have the inhabitants to subscribe, and to bind themselves by an oath to abjure the superstitious doctrine of Rome, and to defend the same with their lives. This motion was refused by many at the first; yet not long after, (God so disposing,) even in the year 1537, the senate and people of Geneva took their oaths for the defence of the same."

There's more info in that article about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin not believing in national covenants if you would like to read it. It's pretty short so it wouldn't take too long to read.

I couldn't find a reference to covenanting in the article. I did see a false parallel created between Augustine's two cities and the two kingdoms of Calvin. Augustine's two cities were antithetical. The two kingdoms in Calvin's thought were to maintain a mutual relationship. Furthermore, Augustine and Calvin supported the concept of the civil power being the keeper of both tables of the law, and of inflicting civil penalties for crimes against the true religion.

From what I have read so far which isn't much, I have to disagree with you. However, I'll do more research about what Augustine, Luther, and Calvin thought about binding whole nations (ppl who were not of the elect included) into a covenant with God. I don't believe they would ever do such a thing since it's no where in Scripture to do so, but I'll do some research on it.

My problem with the OP link to that sermon is this: God tells us not to be unevenly yoked. I don't believe he gave that command bc he ran out of brilliant commands to give to us or bc he wanted to "keep" something we might want away from us to make us "suffer". I believe that he gave us that command bc like him he wants us to be a pure church. God never intended that we yoke ourselves to ppl we know are not Christians and he never intended that we yoke (as if we ever could) ppl who are not of the elect to him.

 

[MW]

From what I have read so far which isn't much, I have to disagree with you. However, I'll do more research about what Augustine, Luther, and Calvin thought about binding whole nations (ppl who were not of the elect included) into a covenant with God. I don't believe they would ever do such a thing since it's no where in Scripture to do so, but I'll do some research on it.

Please do research the subject further.

Concerning your claim that "it's no where in Scripture," what do you think of our Saviour's saying that the scribes and Pharisees ought to have performed judgment, mercy, and faith, notwithstanding the fact that he had cast a woe upon them as unbelievers? What do you make of the Confession of Faith when it teaches (16.7) that the neglect of unregenerate men to do good works is "more sinful, and displeasing unto God?" or when it teaches (22.3) that it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority?" I am sorry to see that many today have lost sight of the moral obligation of man as man, be he regenerate or unregenerate. The doctrine of depravity and grace which is currently being taught and propagated is out of accord with the scriptural teaching; it turns the grace of God into lasciviousness.

 

[OPC'n]

From what I have read so far which isn't much, I have to disagree with you. However, I'll do more research about what Augustine, Luther, and Calvin thought about binding whole nations (ppl who were not of the elect included) into a covenant with God. I don't believe they would ever do such a thing since it's no where in Scripture to do so, but I'll do some research on it.

Please do research the subject further.

Concerning your claim that "it's no where in Scripture," what do you think of our Saviour's saying that the scribes and Pharisees ought to have performed judgment, mercy, and faith, notwithstanding the fact that he had cast a woe upon them as unbelievers? What do you make of the Confession of Faith when it teaches (16.7) that the neglect of unregenerate men to do good works is "more sinful, and displeasing unto God?" or when it teaches (22.3) that it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority?" I am sorry to see that many today have lost sight of the moral obligation of man as man, be he regenerate or unregenerate. The doctrine of depravity and grace which is currently being taught and propagated is out of accord with the scriptural teaching; it turns the grace of God into lasciviousness.

The word "ought to" is significant here, bc, here were men who were of the true covenantal nation, who were the leaders of that covenantal nation, and yet, Christ saw how they truly didn't belong in his kingdom. And so, instead of reaffirming their place within that covenant, he throws them out as unbelievers going to hell.

I would like to quote the whole of 16.7

"Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and other: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God"

This is very true. God's law isn't only for his chosen ppl. If it were, then those who are not chosen wouldn't be held accountable according to the law, and there would be no sin, and therefore, no punishment for them bc the law would not pertain to them. It would only pertain to the elect, and the elect would be justified by Christi's works. But we know that's an absurd thought! 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. However, I fail to see how you are connecting this with bringing whole nations into a covenant with God. What we should be doing is spreading the Gospel to everyone, and allowing God to bring his elect into the salvational covenant with him.

Quoting 22.3 fully
" 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."

This is a great statement and reflects what Scriptures says about letting your yeses be yeses and no's be no's. So we must never do anything of which we are not fully persuaded as being the truth. Scripture doesn't teach us to bind whole nations to God in a covenant (the Scriptures you gave earlier do not tell us to do that....just not seeing it) so we shouldn't. But more persuasively does the next sentence concrete my belief in that it states, "neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just". Binding oneself to ppl who clearly are not Christians would be committing a sin. It goes back to the Scripture for us not to be unevenly yoked. 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.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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.

 

[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?

Regarding Calvin, are you assuming that Genevan magistracy was running a "principled pluralism" in Geneva when they (with Calvin's consent/counsel) put to death Servetus? Are you aware his two crimes? You may argue that what the Genevan league that Calvin contributed to (as referenced Pastor Winzer) is not covenanting, but you will have a hard time explaining to me how they were acting together for a city of "common grace" that Horton argues for.

As far as the "common grace" kingdom that Horton is trying to propose here, is that not an "unequal yoking" in your eyes? He is saying that we are bound together under a "common grace" (Christ died so that His grace could be given to the elect and the non-elect, and so that we can live in "relative peace and justice?" His proof text is Matt 5:43-48? Part of His redemption, hence His grace, is given to the elect and the non-elect? Grace is quite UNcommon in this respect.) To quote the link you gave:

"In this era of common grace, God “sends rain on the just and on the unjust” and calls us to imitate His clemency (Matt. 5:43–48). So Christians have two callings: the high calling in Christ to belong to His body and the calling to the world as citizens, parents, children, friends, coworkers, and neighbors. Because God is still faithful to His creation, there is the possibility of an earthly city with its relative peace and justice...Consequently, each city has its own polity, serving distinct ends through distinct means. (not rewarding good and punishing evil as taught in Scripture? Romans 13:2-4??) Although some of its citizens are converted to citizenship in the city of God, the earthly city is always Babylon. Like Daniel, believers pray for the city, work in the city, contribute to the city’s general welfare, and even fight in its armies. However, they never forget that they are exiles and pilgrims. Babylon is never the promised land....The good things that we do with non-Christian citizens to preserve and enlarge society really are good, but they are not ultimate goods. The earthly city will never be transformed into the city of God this side of Christ’s return in glory. A Christian would then approach politics not with the question as to how the world can best be saved, but how it can best be served in this time between the times." (emphasis mine)

Isn't that just what you are protesting, Sarah? Unequal yoking? That is just what Horton is advocating. He says unequal yoking is ok because of "common grace."

Mind you, you will never find the Confessors using such language. They never assume or teach anything like this.

In fact he stands in direct contrast with them as he fears and warns:

"Of course, Christians have an obligation both to proclaim the heavenly and everlasting freedom of the Gospel and the earthly and temporal freedom from injustice. But they are different. When we confuse them, we take the kingdom into our own hands, transforming it from a kingdom of grace into a kingdom of ...power." (emphasis mine)

To quote the Confessors on the other hand, they teach the expansion of Christ "kingdom of power" in all the world, not just the church:

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)

What do you say they are teaching here?