The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Neo-Calvinism

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]So its beyond the "auburn" stuff . . .

---

Howard,

Actually the "Auburn stuff" may share some things with Dooyeweerdianism, but they are not necessarily related. Trying to keep up with all the "isms" isn't easy. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]

In His Grace,

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.

Colin

In reply to:

---

At Last we agree on something, Joe!

---

Colin, I believe that we agree on the general basics of the faith once delivered. I really do not mind those that hold to the Post-Mil view... I have many friends that are such.

Where we [img]https://the-highway.com/Smileys/censored.gif[/img] heads is over what I callextreme views: Neo-Calvinism is extreme. Reconstruction and Theonomy are extreme, as well. Balance is what I am after in my Christian life. Not balance at the sacrifice of truth, but the balance in/of/for the sake of the truth. I have seen way too much unbalance in many denominations; some Christian, some cultic:

A. The Charismatics see a demon behind every tree and think speaking in tongues is the greatest of all gifts.

B. Those that embrace Annihilationism (not believing in an eternal existence of hell) have exegeted a different gospel and have overlooked the fundamentals of the faith to deter others from the faith once delivered.

C. The Catholic Church has denied salvation by grace alone and embraced their unbiblical tenets of: baptismal regeneration ("The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.' God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..." ,The New Catholic Catechism 1994), the doctrine of the mass (by claiming that in the mass "the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated" and "the work of our redemption is carried out," Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), the doctrine of purgatory (claiming that "the doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed," Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), the doctrine of the papacy ( "For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation,'" Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences), the doctrine of Mary ("In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Saviour's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace"... Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation. ... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix," New Catholic Catechism), the doctrine of the saints ("Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin," New Catholic Catechism), the doctrine of forgiveness through the church ("There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. ... Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin," New Catholic Catechism), and the doctrine of indulgences ("An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. ... Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead," New Catholic Catechism), et. al.

D. The Jehovah Witnesses are renowned for their word twisting, turning, and torturing of the Holy Text and redefining them to mean something alien to what the Christian Church has taught for centuries. They have even re-written the true Bible, so their heretical views can be supported.

Likewise, Theonomists and Reconstructionists have gone to extremes as well pushing their theology as the only viable tenet of faith. Even you Colin in the Puritan thread (Who is Your Favorite) had to comment once again pushing ONE topic. While the Charismatics see a demon behind every tree, you see a political structure behind every verse in Scripture—that just are not there. I am saddened anytime I see this almost [cultic reverence for an idea at the sacrifice for the full-Truth once delivered.

These unbalances (and, of course, there are many more) maime many and do utmost harm to the integrity of the faith of uncertain souls. They undermine the very nature of the Scripture, changing them for the ploys of man's premise instead of the eternal promises of God. We have all heard of the Islamic Jihad which is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war. What I see in these extremes is a cultic-Jihad. Instead of a physical war they use a “war” and “terrorism” of unbiblical exegesis against the faith once delivered.

Thus, though we do agree on some issues in others we wholly do not. As Thomas Brooks once said, Take no truth upon trust; bring them to the balance of the sanctuary. As is meant in all my posts (and most assuredly by others here, save those that are given to gossip, backbiting, and schism...Prov 6:12-19), please understand that I say this not against you personally, but only some of your views. Please do not misunderstand otherwise. My prayer is:Lord, give me firmness without hardness, steadfastness without dogmatism, and love without weakness, so I may preach and teach your balanced truth.
Please interpret what I have said in this context. May God have mercy.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Where we [img]https://the-highway.com/Smileys/censored.gif[/img] heads is over what I call extreme views: Neo-Calvinism is extreme. Reconstruction and Theonomy are extreme, as well

---

Calling something "extreme" is not the same thing as calling it wrong. By Arminian standards, you are "extreme" in your calvinism. By Premillennial standards, you are "extreme" in your lack of literal interpretation. By Secular standards, you and me are "extreme" bible thumpers. Thus, the label "extreme" is merely a subjective judgement.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Balance is what I am after in my Christian life

---

And so am I and so are many other Theonomists. Being a non-Theonomist is no guarantee that you will avoid "extremism", as the many examples of non-theonomists in "A B C D" you have just cited above clearly show.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Theonomists and Reconstructionists have gone to extremes as well pushing their theology as the only viable tenet of faith.

---

Well do not 5 point Calvinists do the very same thing in regards to TULIP?

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Even you Colin in the Puritan thread (Who is Your Favorite) had to comment once again pushing ONE topic. While the Charismatics see a demon behind every tree, you see a political structure behind every verse in Scripture--that just are not there

---

.

I certainly do not see a "political structure behind every verse in Scripture". In fact, I rarely discuss politics even on this forum. Theonomy actually has little to do with politics per se, in comparison to Socialism which sees politics as the only answer to man's salvation.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]I am saddened anytime I see this almost cultic reverence for an idea at the sacrifice for the full-Truth once delivered

---

Is one's reverence for God's law a "cultic reverence"? Were the puritans also guilty of a "cultic reverence"? Are we not living in a society that has absolutely no reverence whatsoever for God's Moral law? Just recently, the Ontario Supreme Court legalised Same Sex marriages. Almost immediately, Gays and Lesbians obtained marriage licences and got married. The Federal Government is planning on Appealing this Ontario court decision. But even if they do so at a later date, the Gay couples who recently got married will still be legally married regardless of any future Appeal by the Federal Government.

"Cultic reverence"? How about cultic irreverance for God's Moral Law by some Critics of Theonomy, who BTW also happen to have Gays and Lesbians and the Ontario Supreme Court as among their political allies.

I'm of course not saying that you are personally guilty of this, but I am saying that Theonomy or having true reverence for God's Law is not the problem. Anti-Theonomy is the real problem, as revealed in the recent Ontario Court decision, among many other examples.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]These unbalances (and, of course, there are many more) maime many and do utmost harm to the integrity of the faith of uncertain souls. They undermine the very nature of the Scripture, changing them for the ploys of man's premise instead of the eternal promises of God. We have all heard of the Islamic Jihad which is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war. What I see in these extremes is a cultic-Jihad. Instead of a physical war they use a “war” and “terrorism” of unbiblical exegesis against the faith once delivered.

---

And you actually think this has anything to do with Theonomy as held by Reformed Christians? Funny how Ligon Duncan never mentioned it in his Critique that Pilgrim posted.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]please understand that I say this not against you personally, but only some of your views.

---

As I've said before Joe, you are free to disagree with Theonomy (and with me), but you are not free to falsely accuse it or misrepresent just because you don't like it or don't understand it. Ligon Duncan warned against making caricatures of it. This is all a part of having balanced Christian truth. I love balanced truth as much as you do, Joe. This is why I oppose real errors like Hyper-Calvinism and Hyper-Preterism and Hyper-Presbyterianism (AKA Steelites). And I also have some strong reservations against what is now called Hyper-Covenantalism. Furthermore, I also oppose the Caricaturized version of Theonomy that you presently oppose. But unlike the other errors I just mentioned, this latter one doesn't actually exist outside your own imagination.

But I certainly rejoice in your statement that: "I believe that we agree on the general basics of the faith once delivered".

Colin