Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14892RE: [Covenanted Reformation] A (maybe stupid) question

Expand Messages
  • gus gianello
    Jul 4 6:42 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      having been a former reconstructionist, who knew Jim Jordan, Ray Sutton, has read almost all of both, including North, Rushdoony DeMar, Grant, etc., I can say firmly, that Reconstructionist do think its ok to lie in certain circumstances.  In fact so did the Puritans, who called it "holy deception" and justified the practice in the context of saving innocent life during war.
      The typical Reconstructionist argument would be, "what would you do as a Dutch Christian, if a Jew was hiding in your attic, and an Nazi officer asked you, "are you hiding any Jews?"
      Hope this helps.
      Gus Gianello
      -----Original Message-----
      From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gmw
      Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:39 PM
      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] A (maybe stupid) question

      As usual, the theonomy/reconstruc tion topic is a lively one.

      I have a question about reconstructionists. I was once in a room with
      some people who were talking about a particular reconstructionist (I
      don't want to say the name, as I do not want to cause slander should
      this end up not being true). One guy said that this particular
      reconstructionist said it would be ok to lie about something if it
      would help them get into public office so that the work of
      reconstruction could begin. My question is, can anyone well-read
      confirm this story? Or is it just hogwash (I hope)? There aren't
      reconstructionists that think it's ok to lie, are there?


    • Show all 3 messages in this topic