Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane I guess my point was this:
If you agree with Van Til that the Bible speaks to all of life authoritatively (Defense of the Faith, page 7, and you agree with the central Van Tillian premise of no neutrality, then you sound very much like a Christian Reconstructionist. | Van Tillian epistemology (i.e. we can have no true knowledge of anything independent of God) leads us back to the Biblical blueprints for law, politics, education, welfare, economics etc. Therefore, one who truly embraces Van Tillian epistemology and combines it with a postmillennial faith, with be a Christian Reconstructionist. | Not if you happen to also believe that the Bible wasn't written to provide a blueprint for law, politics, education, welfare, economics, etc., but only to equip the man of God to do God's will in whatever sphere of life providence leads him into. But I do think it's true that if you combine VanTillian epistemology with a utopian faith and a somewhat romantic notion of American's Christian past that you willl more than likely be a Christian Reconstructionist. |
1: I am a premillennialist, so your utopian comment doesn't come close to touching my position.
2: Even if the bible's purpose wasn't to be a "blueprint" (I never said it was), it can still provide good guidance on matters of law, economics, monetary policy, sex, etc.
3: As to the "romantic American Christian past," that, too, is a non-starter (since Daniel isn't American). Anyway, we can argue quotations and sources on America's Christian past and I am comfortable of the truth of my position. But even assuming I am wrong (and I dont think I am), my original comment still stands.