Thoughts on the Solemn League and Covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can vaguely remember a Covenant made between Israel and a foreign Nation that was broken before David's time and King David still considered it a valid covenant that the Nation of Israel was responsible for and had to repent for. Does anyone have any memory of such? I can't recall it.

I believe that was the Covenant the Children of Israel, in Joshua's time made with the Gibeonites.Joshua 9 - The Gibeonite Deception

Saul was killing them in his misguided zeal & The Lord put a famine on the land after his death as a punishment for
transgressing that covenant, which David appeased by hanging Saul's sons, thus showing that the covenant made
several centuries previous was still Binding & in Effect just Like The Solemn League & Covenant is today
still binding & in effect on the U.K. & her dependencies , like my country Australia, which is still under the Crown.

you see there was a Covenant made several centuries previous which was still in effect.
Saul could not nullify it by the extermination of one of the parties, nor was it annulled by a change of Government, Israel went from the rule of Judges to a monarchy, nor was it invalidated by a change in the Ruling House, house of Saul to the House of David.
The Covenant with the Gibeonites could not be voided, rescinded or abolished by any of these circumstances, so if the Ruling House of Stuart were changed to another Ruling House, how does this invalidate The Solemn League & Covenant ?

the covenants, the covenants shall yet be Scotland's Reviving - Guthrie
 
Last edited:
God's special dealings with the nation of Israel was a part of the administration of the Covenant of Grace, and is quite different than human social covenanting (though some of that happened in Israel, too). No matter the disobedience of the Nation, or of their king or kings under the mosaic administration, their divinely given constitution stood. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

Yes there are differences Tyler, however, in principle, geographical, political, regime changes do not, make null and void all or every statute, or covenant etc. This was what you had suggested in your first comment - see 22 and 23 where you respond to Martin. Rather the biblical evidence is that there are other controlling factors and that such covenants percolate through time, see Travis's comments in 29.

Re: Chris's 'Usurper' - of course, Cromwell is known as such, it was late for me.
 
For those interested, I have thoroughly revised and added to the article, making it as air-tight as an argument can possible be, quoting more constitutional documents than anyone could possibly desire.

The thing is practically a journal article now, but for those who prefer not to get bogged down in the details, there is also a link at the top of the page to an abbreviated and much shorter version of the article.


The Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting | Reformed Books Online


Warm regards,
Travis
 
For clarification, which "dead horse" does the RPCNA still consider alive?


Brother Logan, I mean no cause for offense, as I hold my friends in the RPCNA to be very dear.


But to articulate on the dead horse I mentioned. There are a wide variety of colors and stripes of Reformed Presbyterians, all of which hold to some degree of the following:

1 - Having stayed out of (separated from) the Church of Scotland, post-1689
2 - Swearing to the original 1643 Solemn League and Covenant, or some later version of it
3 - Holding to the doctrine of a successive, re-swearing to the SLC for all office bearers throughout history, and perhaps even church members
4 - Holding that swearing to the SLC is a term of communion, and thus justifies separation from other churches that don't swear to it.


My article argues that all of these are Biblically and historically wrong, and that the overwhelming majority of church history recognized it.

Seeing that any legitimate initial ground for separation from 1689 or the 1700's no longer remains, for instance in the Free Church (continuing) and even other similar churches, there is no grounds for the separate existence for RP denominations, and they should join by back with their faithful home church.

By the way, I believe these matters are incredibly small between brothers in Christ that agree on 99.9% of everything else, which is one reason why I think differing on .1% is not legitimate grounds for separation.

As for the modern RPCNA, as my wife pointed out to me, they are not hard-line RPs in theory or practice, as the extreme covenanters they came from in the 1680's and early 1700's, which I think is a wonderful thing, and therefore not everything said in the article can be applied to them directly.

That said, regarding the .1% that we differ on, I hope you will take careful consideration of the points I make in the article.


Warm regards,
Travis

Having inquired of people within the RPCNA much more knowledgeable than I. I am still confused as to what your list refers to, but it seems odd to me to include the RPCNA with the RPNA, let alone the ARP, unless you are just saying that is the historical background or roots. But I know no one within the RPCNA today that holds that the SL&C is still binding in all its aspects, nor does it require officers to swear to it, nor does it require subscription for communion. In fact, we have been singled out by the Steelites as being unfaithful to the SL&C.

So once again, I really don't know what this "dead horse" is that the RPCNA still considers alive, nor what the "0.1%" is that we differ on. Forgive me if I'm just being dense and misunderstanding.
 
Logan,

Logan you are correct that the RPCNA does not have officers swear to the SLC or hold it as a term of communion. However, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe officers in the RPCNA still swear in some manner or form to a Testimony, a historical relation of much of this history that affirms the reswearing of the covenants and lot of other things? If not, I will be glad to find out.
 
I am unaware of anything in the Testimony regarding reswearing of covenants, though the Testimony (in the introduction) does state that in 22.9 that

Covenanting in the New Testament takes the form of confessing Christ and His Lordship. In view of the continued emphasis of the covenantal relationship of God to men in the New Testament, it is appropriate for churches and nations to covenant to be the Lord’s and to serve Him. The statements or documents produced in these acts of covenant response are dependent upon the Covenant of Grace. They are statements of responsibility arising from the application of the Word of God to the times in which they are made. Such covenants have continuing validity in so far as they give true expression to the Word of God for the times and situations in which believers live. Isa. 45:23 with Rom. 14:11 and Phil. 2:11; Jer. 31:31 with Heb. 8:6-13; Ex. 19:5-6 with 1 Pet. 2:9-10.


The Directory for Worship in section 4.8 has the following:

Covenanting with God is a solemn act of worship in which individuals,
churches, or nations declare their acceptance of Him as their God and pledge
allegiance and obedience to Him. Public covenanting is an appropriate response
to the Covenant of Grace. The “Covenant of Communicant Membership”
is to be accepted by individuals who profess faith in Christ and unite
with the Church. Ordinarily, such individuals are to give public assent to this
covenant in the presence of the congregation. When circumstances warrant,
churches and nations also may produce statements of responsibility arising
from the application of the Word of God to the times in which they are made.
Such covenants have continuing validity in so far as they give true expression
to the Word of God for the times and situations in which believers live.
(For a fuller discussion of vows and covenanting see Testimony, chapter 22,
especially paragraphs 8 and 9.) Examples of such covenants are the Scottish
National Covenant of 1638, the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643, and the
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America’s Covenant of 1871.

Now, there is a covenant from 1871 that Synod subscribed to, in preamble of which they state "we, in obedience to the command of God, comformably to the practice of the godly in former times and recognizing all that is moral in the Covenants of our worthy religious progenitors of the Second Reformation, do hereby give ourselves in covenant to God, to His
Church, and to one another."

Subscription to this covenant is not a requirement for communion, as far as I am aware, let alone the SL&C. To the best of my knowledge, covenanting is approved of, but not required. Certainly not specific covenants.
 
Thank you Logan, I am glad to hear of this. All of the above I agree with. Thank you for your time and effort in sharing all of that.
 
This and the fact civil fines were levied if you did not take it simply made nations of hypocrites who easily abandoned the covenant/league when the political tides changed.


Chris, if it is of interest, here is George Gillespie defending the original Confession 22.3 that lawful authorities may impose oaths on their subjects. Gillespie specifically defends the instance of Scotland and England doing this on their populaces:

Gillespie on Whether Lawful Authorities can Impose Oaths | Reformed Books Online
 
I do have Gillespie's Works Travis. The question of the lawfulness of imposing the oath does not change the reality of the result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top