Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Question for Covenanters
- "So is this then primarily an eccleastical covenant based on the
Westminster Standards, and not a Biblical covenant?"I'm not sure what particular distintion you're trying to make, but I'll try to answer for you.If you mean by "not a Biblical covenant" that the words of the Solemn League and Covenant are not found in Scripture, then this is true. But if you mean by "not a Biblical covenant" that the contents thereof, and the basis thereof, is contrary to, or foreign to, Scripture, than this is not true. The concept of public social covenanting is found throughout Scripture (2 Kings 11:17; 2 Chron. 15:9,10; 2 Chron. 30:6; Jer. 50:4,5) and is based on the Covenant of Grace. If you do not visit the groups website, but rather participate via email, you may not have seen this quote, "The church on the footing of the covenant of grace enters, as often the church did in Israel, and as did the churches of Macedonia in the apostolic age, into solemn public covenant with Christ, to whom she swears allegiance as her King, Lord and Husband. This is public, ecclesiastical covenanting. On account of this entering into covenant with God, in the National Covenant of Scotland, and in the Solemn League and Covenant, and for adhering to them down to our own times, Reformed Presbyterians have been called Covenanters." (James R. Willson, 1838). Is the Covenant based on the Westminster Standards, as you ask? No, they are based on Scripture, and it was the SL&C which provided the context for the framing of the Westminster Standards, and not the framing of the Westminster Standards which led to the Solemn League and Covenant.Did you read the Covenants in question? It might be helpful to do so before pursuing further discussion, in my opinion.gmw.
- "By the way, I am a US citizen, and do not believe I am bound to the
Only the federal government was originally bound by the
Constitution. Today it is treated as if it also binds all state,
county, and munincipal governments as well. It still does not bind
individuals. Otherwise you'd be required to tolerate free speech and
the free excercise of religion in your own house! The Constitution
is not a covenant that binds individuals, but a foundational law that
binds the government.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
christ_saves_sinners <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Thomas Rocheare
> <tertullianus_2000@y...> wrote:
> > Various honest covenanter questions:
> > 1) Can the SL&C contain error? If it can, who has the
> > authority to recognize that error, and revise the
> > covenant, releasing those bound by that covenant from
> > continued adherence to those aspects now recognized as
> > false?
> > 2) Can the President of the USA, and/or the Congress
> > of the USA, bind Americans today and their posterity
> > with a new covenant? If not, why not?
> I agreed with all "gwm" said, and would like to add, has not the US
> already bound its citizens and their posterity to a Covenant? We
> bound, according to the US magistrate, to uphold the USConstitution
> and Bill of Rights. In other words, they seem to think so. If youthe
> are a US citizen, do you believe you are bound to the US
> Constitution? If not, why not?
> By the way, I am a US citizen, and do not believe I am bound to the
> US Constitution. It is an unlawful Constitution, not recognizing
> Christ as King, nor the promotion and protection of His religion,
> and it underminds a better covenant, namely the SL&C. If the US
> decided to start all over, and so the "new" Constitution was
> contained a lesser degree of quality and quantity, people would
> think that to be absurd. So do I believe it absurd for the US to
> ignore their covenant obligations by writing something to a lesser
> degree of quality and quantity. This does not make me unbound to
> lawful perpetual promises my fathers recognized were required of
> them in the Scriptures.
> Thanks for the sincere questions,
> -Shawn Anderson
> Albany CRPC