In reply to:[color:"blue"]Is this [Neo-Calvinism] a viable alternative to Reconstruction?? NO WAY!!!
At Last we agree on something, Joe! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Have you read this article? I think it gives a Fair treatment of Reconstructionism.
Except the part where Ligon critiques Bahnsen in the latter half of the article based only on brief citations from Bahnsen's By This Standard book. Here, Duncan falsely claims that Theonomy does not give a distinction between the moral law and the civil law and that it teaches that there is only a "two fold division" between moral law and ceremonial law.
Further exceptions to the article would be the part where Duncan cites David Gordon's comments erroneously claiming that they are "absolutely correct". And the part where he uses the word "posivitist" in his description of Theonomy. And his discussion on the relationship between Eschatology and Theonomy. And his erroneous discussion on the relationship between Presuppositionalism and Theonomy. Also, his baseless and bare assertion that a Theonomist "is willing to label as antinomian (or latent antinomian) fellow Christians who do not share his particular views of the present-day application of the Mosaic code". These are among a few of several errors in Duncan's article.
However, some accurate statements of Duncan can be cited such as:
"Opponents of Reconstruction have generally failed to identify what is truly distinctive about its position, preferring (uncharitably) to caricature it rather than define it."
"Theonomy challenges the church to return to Reformational teaching on the grace of law, the role of the law as standard in the Christian life, and the consequent relevance of Old Testament law to Christian ethics."
"The Christian’s calling to be a transformer of society is what Rushdoony is accentuating, here and elsewhere. Now, of course, the idea of “transformation” is not unique to Reconstructionism. It is standard in Reformed theology as a quick review of the writings of Calvin, Knox, Dabney, Henry, Schaeffer and others will reveal. Every believer has been given the charge to be salt and light in society. Reformed theology has always taken those salt and light functions seriously."
"This point [the continuing validity of Mosaic penology] is clearly important in the Reconstructionist ideology. It has also occasioned some of the most vehement reactions of non-Theonomists. Abusive ad hominem and sensationalism have reigned in most responses to this issue.."
The best part of the article is in his citation from Gary DeMar:
"Reconstructionism is a distinctive blending of certain biblical doctrines. They are (1) personal regeneration, (2) the application of biblical law to all areas of life, and (3) the advance of the already-present kingdom in history through the preaching of the gospel and the empowering of the Holy Spirit."
If Duncan had cited more of DeMar, then the article would have been much better (and more accurate) than it is.
But like Pilgrim, I also appreciate Duncan's "irenic" tone. Though being irenic apparently is no guarantee of accuracy.
