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

Re: Another question for the Christian Reconstructionists

Expand Messages
  • Ricardo
    ... Yes, very ironic. But what did you think of the content? Sincerely, Ricardo
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 2, 2006
      --- 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 2 of 15 , Jul 2, 2006
        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 3 of 15 , Jul 2, 2006
          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 4 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
            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 5 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
              --- 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 6 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
                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 7 of 15 , Jul 4, 2006
                  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 8 of 15 , Jul 4, 2006
                    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 9 of 15 , Jul 5, 2006
                      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 10 of 15 , Jul 18, 2006
                        --- 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 11 of 15 , Jul 19, 2006
                          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 12 of 15 , Jul 20, 2006
                            --- 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 13 of 15 , Jul 20, 2006
                              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.