Heidelminicast: Sub-Christian Nationalism (9)

Call or text the Heidelphone anytime at (760) 618-1563. Leave a message or email us a voice memo from your phone and we may use it in a future podcast. Record it and email it to heidelcast@heidelblog.net. If you benefit from the Heidelcast please leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts so that others can find it. Please do not forget to make the coffer clink (see the donate button below).


Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027

The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. Dr. Clark, I listened to this episode with the intention of sharing it and the entire series with others. However, I took offense at your comment regarding the Covenanters. I’ve been studying their history for 20 years and while we might look back and find fault with them, let’s not forget that they spilled their blood like water over Scotland for the Covenant and Crown Rights of Jesus Christ. How could theologians like George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford and even John Knox be found wrong? Much less those men of the Covenant like Richard Cameron and James Renwick? I agree none of us are perfect, but I plan to look these men in the face in glory with a clear conscience knowing I respected and honored them and the Scottish Covenanters who followed them.

    • Angela,

      My comments are no sleight toward my brothers and sisters in the RPCNA. If you ask them, you will find that I am one of their biggest cheerleaders. Indeed, I gave serious thought and prayer to joining them but there were two obstacles I could not overcome. I am convinced that Scripture requires us, in stated worship services (as distinct from chapel devotions etc), to reply to God’s Word with God’s Word. I doubt, however, that Scripture requires us to reply to him only with the Psalms. I would submit happily, however, should the URCs decide to sing Psalms only. Second, the biblical and historical case for the National Covenant and the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ is quite weak. The former is an error insofar as it fails to distinguish the unique place that national Israel had in the history of redemption. The latter, was rejected by Perkins, Rutherford, and Gillespie quite pointedly as “popish.” Christ rules all things, including the state, in his general providence. He is Mediator over the church specially.

      Even the RPCNA has given up on the national covenant. So, the only issue that remains on that score is their doctrine of the Mediatorial Kingship, and I’m with Perkins, Rutherford, and Gillespie on that. See these for references:

      1. Rutherford On The Mediatorial Kingship Of Christ
      2. Perkins On The Mediatorial Kingship Of Christ
      3. Variety Of Reformed Views On Mediatorial Kingship
      • Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate you and will check out the references you listed. May the good Lord bless you as you seek to serve Him.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.