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

Re: Another question for the Christian Reconstructionists

Expand Messages
  • peter_dawkins1963
    Funny isn t it? For some Reconstructionists are legalists, while for others they re antinomians. Peter Dawkins
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 2 1:00 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Funny isn't it? For some Reconstructionists are legalists, while for
      others they're antinomians.'

      Peter Dawkins


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ricardo"
      <ricardo.puente@...> wrote:
      >
      > I don't usually post to this list, but since theonomy and Christian
      > Reconstructionism are being discussed, I wanted to pose a question to
      > the Christian Reconstructionists on the list: What do you think of
      > the following article, titled "The Antinomian Streak in the
      > Reconstructionist Movement"?
      >
      > http://snipurl.com/slnm
      >
      > (in case your inbox cuts the original url -
      > http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/antinomr.htm - in half like
      > mine does.)
      >
      > I will leave it to better men to discuss the merits - or lack thereof
      > - of the theonomic thesis as expressed by Bahnsen and others.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Ricardo
      >
    • Ricardo
      ... Yes, very ironic. But what did you think of the content? Sincerely, Ricardo
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 2 4:06 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "peter_dawkins1963"
        <jcalvin1555@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Funny isn't it? For some Reconstructionists are legalists, while for
        > others they're antinomians.'
        >
        > Peter Dawkins

        Yes, very ironic. But what did you think of the content?

        Sincerely,
        Ricardo
      • Kevin Guillory
        ... Not much. In Christ, Kevin
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 2 4:13 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Ricardo wrote:
          > Yes, very ironic. But what did you think of the content?
          >
          Not much.

          In Christ,
          Kevin
        • j calvin
          Like Kevin, not much. To accuse Reconstructionists of being antinominians is just as ludicrous as accusing them of being legalists. Peter Dawkins ... Yes, very
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 2 6:32 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Like Kevin, not much. To accuse Reconstructionists of being antinominians is just as ludicrous as accusing them of being legalists.
             
            Peter Dawkins

            Ricardo <ricardo.puente@...> wrote:
            --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "peter_dawkins1963"
            <jcalvin1555@ ...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Funny isn't it? For some Reconstructionists are legalists, while for
            > others they're antinomians. '
            >
            > Peter Dawkins

            Yes, very ironic. But what did you think of the content?

            Sincerely,
            Ricardo



            Do you Yahoo!?
            Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

          • Kevin Guillory
            ... Though I m not a professing theonomist, the article was nonetheless a travesty of scholarship. While the quotes were clipped and out of context, the
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 3 3:18 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              j calvin wrote:
              > Like Kevin, not much. To accuse Reconstructionists of being
              > antinominians is just as ludicrous as accusing them of being legalists.
              Though I'm not a professing theonomist, the article was nonetheless
              a travesty of scholarship. While the quotes were clipped and out of
              context, the author never went on to make the crucial distinction
              between ecclesiastical and theological establishmentarianism.

              In Christ,
              Kevin
            • Ricardo
              ... legalists. ... Kevin, Can you define what you mean by ecclesiastical establishmentarianism and by theological establishmentarianism for me? Thanks,
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 3 4:58 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Guillory
                <globachio@...> wrote:
                >
                > j calvin wrote:
                > > Like Kevin, not much. To accuse Reconstructionists of being
                > > antinominians is just as ludicrous as accusing them of being
                legalists.
                > Though I'm not a professing theonomist, the article was nonetheless
                > a travesty of scholarship. While the quotes were clipped and out of
                > context, the author never went on to make the crucial distinction
                > between ecclesiastical and theological establishmentarianism.
                >
                > In Christ,
                > Kevin


                Kevin,

                Can you define what you mean by "ecclesiastical establishmentarianism"
                and by "theological establishmentarianism" for me?

                Thanks,
                Ricardo
              • Fred blahous
                Yes, I am curious as to what is meant by this distinction. Has there ever been a consitutional establishment of a church without receiving a confessional
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 3 7:48 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, I am curious as to what is meant by this distinction. Has there
                  ever been a consitutional establishment of a church without
                  receiving a confessional standard in the constitution, requiring the
                  whole nation to subscribe the whole doctrine? If so, where?

                  All the best,
                  Fred.

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ricardo"
                  <ricardo.puente@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Guillory
                  > <globachio@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > j calvin wrote:
                  > > > Like Kevin, not much. To accuse Reconstructionists of being
                  > > > antinominians is just as ludicrous as accusing them of being
                  > legalists.
                  > > Though I'm not a professing theonomist, the article was
                  nonetheless
                  > > a travesty of scholarship. While the quotes were clipped and
                  out of
                  > > context, the author never went on to make the crucial
                  distinction
                  > > between ecclesiastical and theological establishmentarianism.
                  > >
                  > > In Christ,
                  > > Kevin
                  >
                  >
                  > Kevin,
                  >
                  > Can you define what you mean by "ecclesiastical
                  establishmentarianism"
                  > and by "theological establishmentarianism" for me?
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  > Ricardo
                  >
                • Kevin Guillory
                  ... The terms were first used by, I think, Kevin Clauson. I think a cutting edge for theonomists is the issue of practicality. That is, what would a theonomic
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 4 3:30 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ricardo wrote:
                    > Can you define what you mean by "ecclesiastical establishmentarianism"
                    > and by "theological establishmentarianism" for me?
                    >
                    The terms were first used by, I think, Kevin Clauson.
                    I think a cutting edge for theonomists is the issue of
                    practicality. That is, what would a theonomic society look like? What
                    would be its structure? What would be the relationship between the
                    church and the state? It's from these kinds of questions that the terms
                    arise.
                    Ecclesiastical establishmentarianism was what Rome once did to
                    Europe prior to the Reformation. Or the Mormons are doing to large
                    parts of Utah. Perhaps we could even say its what Calvin did to
                    Geneva. Basically it indicates the domination of one particular church
                    "denomination" to the exclusion of all others.
                    On the other hand, theological establishmentarianism is the
                    theonomic concept that a particular theological trend dominates. Hence
                    one could envision a theonomic society that would be inclusive of
                    Reformed Baptists, Covenanters, Presbyterians, etc. It's a more broadly
                    inclusive political and social structure.
                    Yet because it's a theonomic society it would have to take steps to
                    deal with idolatry and heresy (e.g. Rome, Mormons, JWs, Arminians).
                    The question still remains: How would a theonomic society deal with
                    these groups? Outlaw them altogether? Or perhaps reduce their civil &
                    political rights?

                    In Christ,
                    Kevin
                  • Parnell McCarter
                    What you call ecclesiastical establishmentarianism is what the Westminster Standards implicitly (and rightly) call for. - Parnell McCarter
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 4 6:03 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      What you call "ecclesiastical establishmentarianism" is what the Westminster Standards implicitly (and rightly) call for.
                       
                      - Parnell McCarter
                       
                    • Fred blahous
                      G day Kevin, National Establishment is also what James and Charles did to Papists in the three kingdoms. And what public schools do today. Then there is
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 5 9:36 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        G'day Kevin,

                        National Establishment is also what James and Charles "did to"
                        Papists in the three kingdoms. And what public schools do today.
                        Then there is driver ed. I don't see that it is a particularly
                        onerous burden being applied in compulsory attendence laws aimed at
                        non or malignant Presbyterians, under Ecclesiastical Establishments.

                        All the best,
                        Fred.

                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Guillory
                        <globachio@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Ricardo wrote:
                        > > Can you define what you mean by "ecclesiastical
                        establishmentarianism"
                        > > and by "theological establishmentarianism" for me?
                        > >
                        > The terms were first used by, I think, Kevin Clauson.
                        > I think a cutting edge for theonomists is the issue of
                        > practicality. That is, what would a theonomic society look like?
                        What
                        > would be its structure? What would be the relationship between
                        the
                        > church and the state? It's from these kinds of questions that the
                        terms
                        > arise.
                        > Ecclesiastical establishmentarianism was what Rome once did to
                        > Europe prior to the Reformation. Or the Mormons are doing to
                        large
                        > parts of Utah. Perhaps we could even say its what Calvin did to
                        > Geneva. Basically it indicates the domination of one particular
                        church
                        > "denomination" to the exclusion of all others.
                        > On the other hand, theological establishmentarianism is the
                        > theonomic concept that a particular theological trend dominates.
                        Hence
                        > one could envision a theonomic society that would be inclusive of
                        > Reformed Baptists, Covenanters, Presbyterians, etc. It's a more
                        broadly
                        > inclusive political and social structure.
                        > Yet because it's a theonomic society it would have to take
                        steps to
                        > deal with idolatry and heresy (e.g. Rome, Mormons, JWs,
                        Arminians).
                        > The question still remains: How would a theonomic society deal
                        with
                        > these groups? Outlaw them altogether? Or perhaps reduce their
                        civil &
                        > political rights?
                        >
                        > In Christ,
                        > Kevin
                        >
                      • Ricardo
                        ... broadly ... Kevin, I m having a little trouble understanding why you didn t think much of the article titled The Antinomian Streak in the
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 18 5:34 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Guillory
                          <globachio@...> wrote:
                          > On the other hand, theological establishmentarianism is the
                          > theonomic concept that a particular theological trend dominates. Hence
                          > one could envision a theonomic society that would be inclusive of
                          > Reformed Baptists, Covenanters, Presbyterians, etc. It's a more
                          broadly
                          > inclusive political and social structure.
                          > Yet because it's a theonomic society it would have to take steps to
                          > deal with idolatry and heresy (e.g. Rome, Mormons, JWs, Arminians).
                          > The question still remains: How would a theonomic society deal with
                          > these groups? Outlaw them altogether? Or perhaps reduce their civil &
                          > political rights?
                          >
                          > In Christ,
                          > Kevin


                          Kevin,

                          I'm having a little trouble understanding why you didn't think much of
                          the article titled "The Antinomian Streak in the Reconstructionist
                          Movement", especially since you seem to agree that Arminians and
                          Papists are heretics (judging by your statement above.)

                          And yet that is precisely one of the criticisms that the author has
                          levelled at Reconstructionists: their desire to unite with
                          Charismatics, Papists, etc.

                          Here is a quote from the article:

                          [quote]
                          In a related vein, Pastor Joe Morecraft described his vision for a
                          reconstructed America. Speaking to Bill Moyers, on the t.v. program,
                          "God and Politics," Morecraft made the following statement:
                          "Everybody's going to benefit. Whether they're Christians, whether
                          they're Protestant Christians or Catholic Christians or Jews or
                          whatever they be, everybody will benefit from having a Christian
                          culture. Where Christian principles reign supreme, where people in
                          places of leadership recognize the supremacy of God, there will be
                          more freedom, more prosperity, more security for every law-abiding
                          American." ("God and Politics: On Earth as It Is in Heaven," P.B.S.,
                          23 December 1987.)

                          Is this the millennial kingdom? Are we, indeed, headed for a society
                          where truth and error dwell side by side in wondrous harmony and
                          prosperity? By "Catholic Christians," does he mean those in the Romish
                          communion ­ persons who, by scriptural definitions, are classed as
                          lawless idolators? If so, then what is meant by the term "law-abiding"?
                          [end quote]

                          Also, in the inclusivistic theonomic society that you called
                          "theological establishmentarianism", will the Regulative Principle be
                          a matter of adiaphora? What about Sabbath keeping? Or what about
                          images of Christ - will they be tolerated or unlawful?

                          More to the point, do you agree with the author on these points, or do
                          you agree with the Reconstructionists mentioned in the article on
                          these matters?

                          Sincerely,
                          Ricardo

                          PS Please forgive me for the delay in responding.
                        • Kevin Guillory
                          Ricardo wrote: Just a point of clarity. I m neither a Theonomist nor a Reconstructionist. The verbatim you quoted was merely my regurgitation of a
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jul 19 3:39 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ricardo wrote:

                            Just a point of clarity. I'm neither a Theonomist nor a
                            Reconstructionist. The verbatim you quoted was merely my regurgitation
                            of a Theonomist's comments.
                            > I'm having a little trouble understanding why you didn't think much of
                            > the article titled "The Antinomian Streak in the Reconstructionist
                            > Movement", especially since you seem to agree that Arminians and
                            > Papists are heretics (judging by your statement above.)
                            >
                            Just the title is ridiculous, indicating an overwhelmingly
                            subjectivist bent to Reconstructionism. Kind of like saying "Shakespear
                            was a mysognistic bourgoisie intent on crushing the proletariat -
                            especially those with an X chromosome."
                            Then too, as far as Joe Morecraft is concerned - whose sermons I
                            thoroughly enjoy - was speaking as an individual, not as an official
                            representative of Reconstructionism. And was he quoted in context? Was
                            he talking establishmentarianism? Or exclusivism?
                            I'd also have to ask, do Reconstructionists allow for the
                            possibility of a Reformed society prior to any post-millennial
                            parousia? I have a Covenanter friend who eschews Theonomy precisely
                            because it seems to envision *only* a post-millennial society. He
                            considers himself instead to be a Reconstructionist which (he claims)
                            will allow for an exclusivist Reformed society - here and now - prior to
                            any worldwide revival.
                            Oh yeah ... I don't think Papists are heretical as that designation
                            can be applied only to those who have some semblance of authentic
                            Christianity about them. The papists are merely a satanic cult that
                            dimly tries to ape Christianity.

                            In Christ,
                            KEvin
                          • Ricardo
                            ... I did not wish to imply that you were. ... So the title is ridiculous, but is the rest of the critique accurate [ie is the author correct in taking SOME
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jul 20 4:57 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Guillory
                              <globachio@...> wrote:

                              > Just a point of clarity. I'm neither a Theonomist nor a
                              > Reconstructionist.

                              I did not wish to imply that you were.

                              > Just the title is ridiculous, indicating an overwhelmingly
                              > subjectivist bent to Reconstructionism.

                              So the title is ridiculous, but is the rest of the critique accurate
                              [ie is the author correct in taking SOME Reconstructionists to task
                              for advocating Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, toleration of a false
                              religion, etc.?

                              > Then too, as far as Joe Morecraft is concerned - whose sermons I
                              > thoroughly enjoy - was speaking as an individual, not as an official
                              > representative of Reconstructionism.

                              I didn't realize there are 'official' representatives of
                              Reconstruction. Who might these men/organizations be? Is pastor
                              Morecraft outside of this 'official' group/organization or is he, as a
                              member, merely not authorized to speak 'officially' for
                              Reconstructionist movement?

                              I do, however, heartily commend Pastor Morecraft and the RPCUS for
                              being among the first to recognize and warn others about the Federal
                              Vision heresy.

                              > And was he quoted in context? Was
                              > he talking establishmentarianism? Or exclusivism?

                              Incidently, since Protestants follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, where
                              exactly do you find the distinction between "Ecclessiastical
                              establishmentarianism" and "Theological establishmentarianism" in the
                              Scriptures?

                              > I'd also have to ask, do Reconstructionists allow for the
                              > possibility of a Reformed society prior to any post-millennial
                              > parousia? I have a Covenanter friend who eschews Theonomy precisely
                              > because it seems to envision *only* a post-millennial society. He
                              > considers himself instead to be a Reconstructionist which (he claims)
                              > will allow for an exclusivist Reformed society - here and now -
                              prior to
                              > any worldwide revival.

                              My concern isn't with the escatological outworkings of
                              Reconstructionism, but rather with the anti-confessional teachings of
                              SOME Reconstructionists, and the silence of the majority of
                              Reconstructionists concerning these teachers.

                              > Oh yeah ... I don't think Papists are heretical as that designation
                              > can be applied only to those who have some semblance of authentic
                              > Christianity about them. The papists are merely a satanic cult that
                              > dimly tries to ape Christianity.

                              While I also agree that the papists are a "satanic cult that dimly"
                              try "to ape Christianity", it seems that at least the Free
                              Presbyterian Church of Scotland consider their doctrines heretical.

                              Here's a quote from the Free Presbyterian Bookroom website:

                              "Come Out From Among Them
                              John Calvin, hardback
                              Calvin writes against the `Nicodemites', a class of would-be
                              Protestants who claim that it is lawful to attend the outward
                              ordinances of Roman Catholicism so long as they do not inwardly
                              receive the **heretical doctrines of Rome**. Calvin's response is
                              forceful. Through a series of tracts, letters and sermons the reformer
                              consistently maintains that proper worship is an essential part of the
                              believer's duty to God."

                              https://fpbookroom.org/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_C___D_166.html

                              This is not a major point of contention; if you wish to refrain from
                              labeling romanists heretics, by all means, go ahead. ;-)

                              Sincerely,
                              Ricardo

                              PS In my previous post, I should have clarified that I meant "some
                              Reconstructionists" when I stated:

                              "And yet that is precisely one of the criticisms that the author has
                              levelled at Reconstructionists: their desire to unite with
                              Charismatics, Papists, etc."

                              I believe Rev. Brian Schwertley would identify himself as a
                              Reconstructionists, but it seems clear to me that he wants to remain
                              within a confessional framework. (Although he is a postmillenialist,
                              I don't know whether he is in the Historicist camp or in the Preterist
                              camp. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with his position can
                              comment.)
                            • Kevin Guillory
                              Ricardo wrote: Incidently, since Protestants follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, where exactly do you find the distinction between Ecclessiastical
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jul 20 5:22 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ricardo wrote:
                                Incidently, since Protestants follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, where
                                exactly do you find the distinction between "Ecclessiastical
                                establishmentarianism" and "Theological establishmentarianism" in the
                                Scriptures? 
                                  

                                    The same place we find "Trinity."  It's merely shorthand.
                                    As for the rest of the critique, before I can take something seriously it should begin with a reasonable title.  For instance, should I want to read something on logic and plane geometry I would certainly not pick up anything entitled "The 4 Sides of a Circle."  I would immediately take the author to be a fool.  Along those same lines one may also expose his subjective bias in a title.  E.g., "The Sub-Human Characteristics of all Muslims."  I would not read that either.
                                    OTOH, if there are some Theonomists who seem to advocate the tolerance of heretics and apostates ... shame on them!  But I cannot claim to believe such a thing from any work that I have not read - and refuse to do so.

                                In Christ,
                                Kevin
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.