Responding to a typical objection to covenanter theocracy

One objection that DG Hart has continually raised to the old-school Prebyterian theocrats (those who believe that Gillespie and Rutherford were in the right) is this, “Oh, you mean you want a Hillary Clinton passing the laws about what the church should do?”

Admittedly, it’s a ghastly thought (I almost wrote ghoulish; freudian slip and what-not), but we need to consider several things:

  1. The Left is doing that anyway (tax exempt status qualifications, anybody?)
  2. The Covenanters believe in one other thing that Hart and the 2K guys don’t like to think about: The Solemn League and Covenant.  This bound the magistrate to the Reformed faith and when this covenant was broken, armed force was justified.

So what do I say to the strongest response to Covenanter Theocracy?  Simple.  I just respond, “And…?”  When the SL & C is properly understood and applied, then this objection evaporates.


5 comments on “Responding to a typical objection to covenanter theocracy

  1. Amen. I think a lot of the problems come from the fact that none of these E2K guys, or even the mushy middle, have any knowledge of the arguments made by the Covenanters. Your comment on the Solemn League and Covenant is spot on.

  2. That should say “primary knowledge” as in they haven’t actually read the primary source documents. Also it shows why the Christian Reconstruction movement has had the negative effect of unfairly coloring them against Covenanter position, which if one took five seconds to examine it they would see a large difference between the two, not only exegetically but more importantly ecclesiastically.

  3. pilgrimswife says:

    It should also be pointed out that magistrates were limited to men (Ex. 18, etc). So their argument is a logical fallacy (Appeal to emotion,& Appeal to fear).

  4. pilgrimswife says:

    One other point, they (Covenanters) did also justify (rightly) armed forces as well against unlawful magistrate irregardless of the Solemn League and Covenant based on the Scriptural understanding and definition of magistrates,.

  5. The theological debate should be about what God requires of the civil magistrate. Pragmatic concerns like those expressed by Hart do not factor in to Christian doctrine. God speaks and we must listen, even the civil magistrate. The notion that if we obey god, it will make it easier for an anti-Christian to take over the reigns is merely a political consideration. It has no place in theological debate. God in his providence has, I believe, had a purpose and spared us from many evils by undoing the establishments in many countries, and that he has providentially used secular democracies for many good purposes. But providence is not precept. When we are discussing the law of God and how it applies to the civil magistrate, we are talking about precept.

Comments are closed.