Hyatt cites a couple more examples of early settlements declaring a covenant with God. He admits however that such covenant documents were central to the Church of England at that time. It is simply how the church was organized. Here comes the not so deep theological question though. Does the fact that John Winthrop or the folks on the Mayflower, who were considered outcasts from the church, declared a covenant with God mean that they were actually in covenant with God? Of course not. Now, for those individuals, they may certainly have believed it. They may certainly live their lives accordingly, although I am not sure the executed Quakers would agree they did. The snake oil part of this argument is that because John Winthrop agreed to covenant with God that somehow God is now culpable to be in covenant with the country that would eventually become America and even up to this day. That is the dominionist argument though. That because some people, escaping religious persecution, declared covenant that everyone today is under the same covenant. Just take a look at the key verses, taught by Jesus Himself. It used to be said do not swear falsely but now Jesus says do not take an oath at all, either by heaven or earth. A covenant is an agreement, or an oath. Essentially the deep theology for today is do not tell God what you swear you are going to do what He commands - just do it.
"These early immigrants saw Israel in the Old Testament as a pattern for their social covenant with God. Like Israel, they believed that if they, as a people, kept their part of the covenant, which was to walk uprightly and make His name known, they would be blessed. If, on the other hand, they lost their sense of purpose and began to live selfish and sinful lives, they would suffer God's wrath because of their rejection of the covenant. During the voyage to New England, Winthrop warned, "Now if the Lord shall please to bear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He verified this Covenant and sealed our commission ... but if we fail to perform the terms of the Covenant, we shall perish out the land we are crossing the sea to possess" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year That Defined America, 32)." - Eddie Hyatt
Enter replacement theology. This is where people wrongly assert that the church or even worse, this country, has replaced Israel. Absolute rubbish. God made His covenant with Israel. The church is grafted in. Moreover, they failed to learn the principle lesson from the Old Testament - no one can keep the law! That is why God needed to send His Son in the first place! What Winthrop did on the voyage over is essentially a pagan belief. It is similar to what we do today when seeking charismatic "confirmation." IF situation "A" occurs then God must have not only ordained it but is now somehow beholden to it. This is simply not how God works beloved. His Word already contains all of His revelation and promises. Making a deal to keep that word in exchange for something not in His word? Yeah that is not going to work.
"This social sense of responsibility to God is the reason the Puritans tended to hold one another accountable. They believed that since communities and nations cannot be rewarded in the next world, they must necessarily be rewarded in this one, according to their deeds. The sin of one or a few could, therefore, bring down God's judgment on the entire community. This is also the reason that laws were passed outlawing adultery, fornication, profanity, drunkenness and Sabbath breaking." - Eddie Hyatt
Huh? I can't believe Eddie actually wrote this. So the Puritans believed that since nations cannot be rewarded in the next world they must be rewarded in this one? Says no biblical text anywhere. It rains on the just and the unjust in this world. Again, they are basing this on the Old Testament and stories like the sin of Achan. That is historical narrative however and not designed to be applied to our lives. Notice here however are the underpinnings for what the NAR dominionist of today would become. The notion of temporal blessings for a nation is not found anywhere in scripture but is central to the NAR. The notion that those pesky sinners ruin everything for the rest of us God-fearing folks is a core doctrine of dominionism. I have said it before though - behavior modification does not save anyone. Convincing sinners to sin less does not change their status as sinners. Get back to the Gospel for it alone can save someone.
'Although New England was where the writing of constitutions was profoundly developed, all the colonies were founded on similar social compacts with God. When the Jamestown settlers disembarked at Cape Henry, Virginia, their first act was to erect a seven-foot cross they had brought from England. They then gathered around the cross for a prayer service in which they dedicated the land of their new home to God. In his dedicatory prayer, their chaplain, Rev. Robert Hunt, declared, "From these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World but to the entire world."' - Eddie Hyatt
Yes there is no doubt that the people who settled here were religious Eddie. That is the only fact you present but it does not translate into the heresy you spew. You see the Gospel is not the only thing that went forth from those shores. Genocide also went forth so that we might conquer the new world which would lead to the concept of Manifest Destiny in the 1800s. Look, America was and is the best experiment in the history of pagan nations but it remains a pagan nation. The very colony that Winthrop presided over would eventually be the same place that the Salem Witch Trials would emanate from. So I would hold off on the canonization for now.
'There are amazing similarities between the Virginia Charter, the Mayflower Compact and other founding documents of New England. This led Perry Miller to suggest that Virginia and New England were not that different. He pointed out that both communities were children of the Reformation, "and what we consider distinctively Puritan was really the spirit of the times."
There is thus no question that these early social compacts, or covenants, were precursors to the founding documents of the United States of America. Gary Amos and Richard Gardiner are correct to say, "The early New England constitutions were covenants. These covenants clearly foreshadowed the United States Constitution" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 33).
1
1
1
