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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Another question for the Christian Reconstructionists

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Guillory
    ... Not much. In Christ, Kevin
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.