Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Question for Covenanters
- View SourceSome helpful links explaining the Covenants (National and Solemn
League), along with some answers to common objections to them:
The Exhortation of the Westminster Assembly to Swear the Covenant:
Observations on the Public Covenants by Archibald Mason:
HEPHZIBAH BEULAH (on the Covenants and their binding nature) by J.W.
Samuel Rutherfurd's Testimony to the Covenanted Reformation:
Samuel B. Wylie's Discourse on Covenant Obligations:
Alexander Hislop on the Scriptural Principles of the Solemn League
Sections on Covenanting from William Robert's Catechism:
The Permanence of Covenant Obligation:
Many of the questions/objections brought up by Jozinsky have been
dealt with long ago, in the works linked to above. Please take the
time to read through at least some of it if you are serious about
inquiring into the nature and obligations of the Covenants of our
Reformed and Presbyterian forefathers.
"It was reported that yesterday the people who had not yet made their
oath to the reformation were asked to do so, street by street; whilst
many came, many others did not do so. No one came from the German
quarter. It was decided that they should be commanded to leave the
city if they did not wish to swear to the reformation" (Register of
the Council of 24 in Geneva, 12 November 1537).
- View Source"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