I do have some critical questions, not necessarily of the original Covenanters, but of those who take up the mantle today, but it is interesting to watch modern, respectable Reformed interact with claims by the Covenanters. Normally, someone would post the Covenanters’ political theory, and a bourgeoisie Reformed would cry over Protestant Inquisitions or something. There is a thread on Puritanboard on whether the fact that Rome’s miracle-claims negate the Reformed continuationist. To put it in perspective, I am not really a continuationist. I think the arguments for cessationism are horribly bad and fallacious, but beyond that I really don’t care.
Still, I posed the question, “What about the miracles of the Scottish Covenanters?” The responses were hilarious. Some them outright denied them. That’s one option, I suppose, but those kind of moves began to build up massive levels of cognitive dissonance. Others took a better route, “Yeah, well that might be true, but what about Rome?” To which I replied, “Who cares? Paul says Antichrist will work signs and wonders.”
See the problem with openly distancing and disagreeing with the Covenanters, at least for Anglo-American Presbyterians, is that you run the risk of theological bastardization.