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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.