Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Question for Covenanters

Expand Messages
  • loozinga@juno.com
    gmw; On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:37:27 -0400 gmw ... OK so basically it s based on OT shadows having to do with the temporal nation
    Message 1 of 31 , Jul 3, 2003
      gmw;

      On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:37:27 -0400 "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>
      writes:
      > "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.

      OK so basically it's based on OT shadows having to do with the temporal
      nation of physical Israel. I looked up the passages [I saw nothing spoken
      of a covenant in the 2Chron 30 passage] and saw that that is what they
      are talking about.

      2Kg 11:17 � And Jehoiada made a covenant between the LORD and the king
      and the people, that they should be the LORD'S people; between the king
      also and the people.

      It appears that this 'covenant' was;
      1. Made by man;
      2. Included unsaved people; unless we presume that everyone including the
      king were all saved.

      My question here would be; how can such a thing be based on the Covenant
      of Grace? The COG is made by God and not man and involves all the elect
      and them only? And secondly, if it is based on the COG then why restrict
      the view of the 'covenanters' to "National Covenant of Scotland, and in
      the Solemn League and Covenant"? Wouldn't it apply to all Christians?

      Jer 50:5 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.

      Here my question is... if this is a *perpetual covenant* where is it
      found today, and... Isn't this again speaking of National Israel? If so
      then is there is such a thing today I would think it would be confined to
      Jews only. But in fact if we look at vs 4...
      4 In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the children of
      Israel
      shall come, they and the children of Judah together, going and weeping:
      they shall go, and seek the LORD their God.

      it would seem that this was restricted to *Israel and Judah in those
      days*. I would think that if we wanted to extend such a passage to other
      people in another time period we should have to find some scriptural
      warrent for doing so; no?

      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).

      OK so then it -is- essentially an eccleastical covenant; albeit based on
      passages from Scripture from the OT that had to do with types and
      shadows. My question here would be; where would such a practice be found
      in the New Testament? If this covenant is based upon OT Israel and is of
      types and shadows it would seem proper to view such a thing as having
      been done away in Christ with the advent of His New Covenant, unless of
      course we find NT evidence that such a thing is still in continuation. I
      don't find such in the NT. Could you point that out to me if it is there.
      Thanks.

      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.

      OK I see where they are 'based on Scripture' but so far only OT
      Scripture. I know "all Scripture is profitable..." etc. and I am not
      trying to denegrate the OT. It certainly is a wonderful part of God's
      revelation to us. But I think we need to be careful rooting any view on
      the OT alone without at least some supporting evidence from the New;
      especially since you do say the whole thing is 'based on the covenant of
      Grace'. The COG is completely unique from all other 'covenants' and is
      centered on the glory of God in the salvation of the elect. So again I am
      looking for NT passages that talk about this eccleastical covenant.

      >
      > Did you read the Covenants in question? It might be helpful to do
      > so before pursuing further discussion, in my opinion.
      >
      > gmw.

      I'll try to get to it but I don't think my questions so far are all that
      complicated where I would need to.

      Jozinky


      ________________________________________________________________
      The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
      Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
      Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
    • Dan Fraas
      By the way, I am a US citizen, and do not believe I am bound to the US Constitution. Shawn, Only the federal government was originally bound by the
      Message 31 of 31 , Jul 11, 2003
        "By the way, I am a US citizen, and do not believe I am bound to the
        US Constitution."

        Shawn,

        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.

        Riley
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
        christ_saves_sinners <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Roche
        > <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
        are
        > bound, according to the US magistrate, to uphold the US
        Constitution
        > and Bill of Rights. In other words, they seem to think so. If you
        > 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
        the
        > lawful perpetual promises my fathers recognized were required of
        > them in the Scriptures.
        >
        > Thanks for the sincere questions,
        >
        > -Shawn Anderson
        > Albany CRPC
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.