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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Question for Covenanters

Expand Messages
  • weeping_calvinist
    Perhaps someone else would like to take this up with you. As for myself, I don t have much fight in me anymore, so I will answer but briefly. I deny that
    Message 1 of 31 , Jul 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Perhaps someone else would like to take this up with you. As for
      myself, I don't have much fight in me anymore, so I will answer but
      briefly.

      I deny that making covenants and keeping the covenants that already
      are made is a "shadow." Rather, as all Reformed Catechisms teach,
      making and keeping oaths, vows, covenants are related to the Third
      Commandment. Even if a covenant is merely "made by man" it doesn't
      mean you can change it or make it null (Gal. 3:15). What kind of
      chaos in business, political, family, and religious life would that
      lead to? "I realize that I covenanted to be your husband, but since
      that I am a mere man, the covenant I swore is null and void."

      That a covenant includes "unsaved people" should not shock anyone who
      has an understanding of Covenant Theology -- the visible Church also
      includes "unsaved people" who partake of the signs and seals of the
      Covenant of Grace -- though the signs and seals be not effectual to
      them.

      > 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?

      No, it is not speaking of National Israel (as Calvin notes, "the
      passage clearly shows that this prophecy cannot be otherwise
      explained than of Christ's spiritual kingdom"), and it is found in
      your baptism, and in Churches and Nations who, like the
      Macedonians, "gave themselves to the Lord" (2 Cor. 8:5) and who will
      be the Lord's (Rev. 11:12). Our view of the National Covenant and
      the Solemn League and Covenant is that they bind you to no more than
      what the Word of God already requires of you, and thus the Henderson
      quote that Brother Doom supplied, that you are bound to this Covenant
      (that is, to the matter thereof), by your baptism. You are already
      required, as a Christian, to uphold and defend the True Religion of
      Christ, to defend your brothers and your king, to resist Popery and
      other enemies of the Faith. These are the what the articles of the
      Covenant outline. But that it was sworn, it further binds, as an
      oath to tell the truth in court does not mean that you were not
      otherwise bound to tell the truth, but rather that you are now made
      not only a liar but a perjuror if you do not tell the truth.

      > no?

      That would be correct -- No.

      > > Did you read the Covenants in question?

      > 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.

      I disagree. You would throw off a Covenant without knowing the
      content thereof, which is foolishness.

      gmw.
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        "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.