A Gary North comment, is he loco?

[Anton Bruckner]

The hoped for revival of the 1700s became Arminian revivals for the early 1800s, leaving emotionally burned over districts, cults and the abolitionist movement as their devastating legacy. from Common Grace, Eschatology and Biblical Law.

How could Gary North with a straight face categorize the abolitionist movement in the same group as cults? and deem it a "devastating legacy". Has this guy ever diligently studied racism and slavery as to how it was rationalized because of economics whilst creating cognitive dissonance since it contradicted the Deists of their "Rights of Man"?

Does this guy read history with blinders on, or is the patriotism of the Christian Reconstructionist leading them to interpret history according to their own likes.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The hoped for revival of the 1700s became Arminian revivals for the early 1800s, leaving emotionally burned over districts, cults and the abolitionist movement as their devastating legacy. from Common Grace, Eschatology and Biblical Law.

How could Gary North with a straight face categorize the abolitionist movement in the same group as cults? and deem it a "devastating legacy". Has this guy ever diligently studied racism and slavery as to how it was rationalized because of economics whilst creating cognitive dissonance since it contradicted the Deists of their "Rights of Man"?

Does this guy read history with blinders on, or is the patriotism of the Christian Reconstructionist leading them to interpret history according to their own likes.

There is a difference between what is known as the abolition movement in general and people who wanted to end slavery. There were people who wanted to end slavery in the South while the abolition movement was a Northern phenomenon. There were serious theological issues in the movement one being the deification of the state. We still suffer due to these issues to this day.

North can be nuts, but here he is money.

CT

 

[caddy]

Heard Mark Noll on Moody Radio as I was coming home from work. Noll, as you know is now at Notre Dame, a move he says that shows that the Catholic Universitity is interested in Protestant history. Anyhow, he was discussing his book, "America's God". It was interesting to hear him speak of the great revivals of the 1730s and 40s and how they affected Calvinism in a negative way, with its emphasis on choice and decision making, which was amplified even more negatively with Finney's advent some 100 years later.

Anyhow, the Book is good, but IT AINT light reading...

 

[RamistThomist]

Many of the abolitionists were Unitarians who were not aiming to free the slaves but to destroy the Christian South. The radical republicans used slavery as an excuse to destroy the South. Lincoln despised black people and categorically denied wanting to free the slaves.

"The Battle Hymn of the Republic," for example, is not a Christian song. It is a Unitarian war anthem praising the slaughter of the South. It can't be Christian becase the author was a committed Unitarian. She saw the South as being slaughtered to atone for the South's sins. The Bible says Jesus atoned for our sins, but Howe can't affirm that because she doesn't believe in the deity of Christ or the substitutionary atonement.

There were those in Christendom who wanted to end slavery for Christian reasons (Wilberforce et al). There were those who wanted to reform slavery according to biblical guidelines (Dabney, which would have ended slavery).

Slavery--and I am moving away from history here into ethics--is not wrong in and of itself. Manstealing is (which, in the 18th century when Virginia wanted to end the slave trade, New England would not allow b/c new englanders were making so much money off of it) wrong. Slavery is not. And when i say slavery think "indentured servitude." And I would open it to all races. I know of a large number of white people in the town where I worked this summer that could do well in indentured servitude.

Now, to your comment RE North. How can you accuse him of blind patriotism when he is supporting a cause that was opposite to the U.S..? Further, the connections between the French Revolution and Lincoln's War are undeniable. After the war we ceased being a Union and became a Nation. We lost the rule of law, etc.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

that's where you guys err, the abolitionist movement wasn't made of simply of one stripe of people, this is why Gary North's comment is categorically outlandish and purely wrong.

Lincoln had his motives, other people had their motives, but when one reads the writings of Frederick Douglas, Highland Garnet, etc they can easily see that there were many in the camp who experienced slavery, and were simply seeking its abolition because of its evils.

 

[crhoades]

For a good read:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Six-Brown-Abolitionist-Movement/dp/0963838105/sr=8-2/qid=1162299417/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-8223862-3605619?ie=UTF8&s=books"]Amazon.com: The Secret Six : John Brown and the Abolitionist Movement: Books: Otto Scott[/ame]

 

[Blueridge Believer]

that's where you guys err, the abolitionist movement wasn't made of simply of one stripe of people, this is why Gary North's comment is categorically outlandish and purely wrong.

Lincoln had his motives, other people had their motives, but when one reads the writings of Frederick Douglas, Highland Garnet, etc they can easily see that there were many in the camp who experienced slavery, and were simply seeking its abolition because of its evils.

It is a historical fact that the abolitionist movement was primarily Unitarian. Lincoln was a Christ rejecting reprobate who was used in the hands of nothern industrialists to destroy the constitutional republic for private gain. We all lost in that war. We are all slaves, or serfs at the very least of the Roman empire on the Potomic. Notwithstanding, I would take issue with Gary about reconstructionism.
BTW, the folks up north had no love for the Black man at the time and passed laws all through the northern states to prevent thier migration there before and after the war. Ask yourself why Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the Union states when he made his famous emancipation proclamation. There were slaves in Delaware, Maryland, W.V., Kentucky and Missouri. Five states all in the union and under thier control.

 

[Kevin]

It is a historical fact that the abolitionist movement was primarily Unitarian. Lincoln was a Christ rejecting reprobate who was used in the hands of nothern industrialists to destroy the constitutional republic for private gain. We all lost in that war. We are all slaves, or serfs at the very least of the Roman empire on the Potomic. Notwithstanding, I would take issue with Gary about reconstructionism.
BTW, the folks up north had no love for the Black man at the time and passed laws all through the northern states to prevent thier migration there before and after the war. Ask yourself why Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the Union states when he made his famous emancipation proclamation. There were slaves in Delaware, Maryland, W.V., Kentucky and Missouri. Five states all in the union and under thier control.

What he said!

BTW Otto Scott was not a christian when he wrote 'the secret six'. He came to faith in Christ indirectly as a result of a review of the book by RJ Rushdoony.

 

[crhoades]

And on a jovial note...come on Slippery...you can find a better quote than that to make Gary North look loco!

 

[Blueridge Believer]

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=11504134153

In this series of 14 messages pastor John Weaver deals with the subject of the abolitionist movement in the first. He's a fine preacher as well as historian.
worth the listen.

Brief Sermon Overview:This is a series which traces the events from 1830 to the present day that have shaped our nation.

In the 1st of this 14 part series Pastor Weaver deals with the Abolition movement that fueled the flames of the War Between the States.

 

[KenPierce]

Brother James (see I would make a good Baptist!),

Though what you say is largely true (though many believe that Lincoln became a Christian shortly before his death), it does not follow therefore that abolition of slavery is wrong.

For instance, in Britain, the anti-slavery movement was largely Christian.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I read GN on common grace etc c. 1986, whenever the book came out. As I recall he he repudiated CVT's doctrine of common grace and eschatology. Seems to me that these things are essential to CVT's theology. It made me think that maybe reconstructionism wasn't as closely connected to CVT as some think. CVT was a Dutch Reformed theologian. He wrote at least two books on common grace and he was a convinced amillennialist and a devoted student of Geerhardus Vos. He was quite the redemptive-historical/Biblical theological preacher.

rsc

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Brother James (see I would make a good Baptist!),

Though what you say is largely true (though many believe that Lincoln became a Christian shortly before his death), it does not follow therefore that abolition of slavery is wrong.

For instance, in Britain, the anti-slavery movement was largely Christian.

Hello brother Ken! I have found no evidence that Lincoln ever made a confession of faith. I hope he did though for we know that the Lord is full of mercy and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. As far as Britian, the slavery issue was handled in a non violent way. Slavery was not the issue in our war and was only pretended to be so middle way through. It was money, money, money and natural resources all the way. let us not forget that slavery was forced upon the south by the British in 1619. We never liked it and Virginia was the first state to stop the traffic. I just find it odd that it was OK for Union states to have slaves but not the south.

 

[tewilder]

I read GN on common grace etc c. 1986, whenever the book came out. As I recall he he repudiated CVT's doctrine of common grace and eschatology. Seems to me that these things are essential to CVT's theology. It made me think that maybe reconstructionism wasn't as closely connected to CVT as some think. CVT was a Dutch Reformed theologian. He wrote at least two books on common grace and he was a convinced amillennialist and a devoted student of Geerhardus Vos. He was quite the redemptive-historical/Biblical theological preacher.

rsc

On the other hand, he wrote another bigger book dedicated to the proposition that Westminster Seminary had abandoned the legacy of Cornelius Van Til, and consequently had to get rid of Norman Shepherd as well.

http://s155777461.onlinehome.us/docs/213a_47e.htm

Westminster's Confession: The Abandonment of Van Til's Legacy

 

[caddy]

Help me here Blueridge reformer on your sources for this statement. Noll's Lincoln, despite not being one of the educated theological elite of the day, brought to the forefront the most profound theological reflections on the Civil War, far more developed than the majority of the theologically trained citizens of the day. It seems that he did not view America as the chosen land of chosen people. Like many people's views, Lincoln's developed over time-- from the 1830s with his association with utilitarianism in philosophy, to the deism of Paine in theology, and the universalism in his understanding of human salvation, to later in life where his views seemed closer to Protestant Orthodoxy. It seems his upbringing as a Calvinistic Baptist always left him somewhat leary and suspicious of Enlightenment notions of human self-determination. From all indications, Lincoln, did NOT make an evangelical profession of faith or cater to the religious conventions of his day, which lead us all to wonder about his fate. It also seems that he was very reserved and rarely displayed his thoughts concerning spiritual matters save for the rarest occasions, like those events that lead up to his decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln was a Christ rejecting reprobate who was used in the hands of nothern industrialists to destroy the constitutional republic for private gain.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Let me reccomend three books to you that will help you greatly with this subject:
"A defence of Virginia and the South" by Robert L. Dabney.
"When in the course of human events" by Charles Adams
"The real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

BTW, let me add this. Slavery is moot. BOTH sides had slaves all through the war so the North has no moral high ground here. With that said I have some strong criticism for Jefferson Davis. He sent ambassage to Pope Pius ix to try and gain recognition from an anti-Christ. Pius the ix even sent him a crown of thorns while he was being held in prison as well as a rosary from some nuns.
He also appointed papists and Jews to his cabinet. This alone is enough to bring judgment for a nation of people seeking to honor Christ. Lot's of folks here in the south try and deify Davis as well as the folks up north with Lincoln. I have my doubts about both men.
Cursed be the man that trusts in the arm of flesh.

 

[SRoper]

Wasn't the abolitionist movement a big part of the New School/Old School schism? How can it be said that it was primarily Unitarian when so many Presbyterians were involved as well?

Ask yourself why Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the Union states when he made his famous emancipation proclamation. There were slaves in Delaware, Maryland, W.V., Kentucky and Missouri. Five states all in the union and under thier control.

He didn't have the authority to do so -- the state governments were still functioning in the North. He only believed he had the power to free the slaves in the states that were in insurrection.

With that said I have some strong criticism for Jefferson Davis. He sent ambassage to Pope Pius ix to try and gain recognition from an anti-Christ.

Yeah I find it funny that the Vatican was the only state that could be said to have recognized the CSA as legitimate.

 

[Kevin]

Let me reccomend three books to you that will help you greatly with this subject:
"A defence of Virginia and the South" by Robert L. Dabney.
"When in the course of human events" by Charles Adams
"The real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

Ditto's on all three but esp. the revd. Dabney.

 

[Formerly At Enmity]

For what it is worth, Gary raised a great son! (I'm friends w him)

 

[Anton Bruckner]

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=11504134153

In this series of 14 messages pastor John Weaver deals with the subject of the abolitionist movement in the first. He's a fine preacher as well as historian.
worth the listen.

Brief Sermon Overview:This is a series which traces the events from 1830 to the present day that have shaped our nation.

In the 1st of this 14 part series Pastor Weaver deals with the Abolition movement that fueled the flames of the War Between the States.

James I listened to 1 1/2 sermons of those 14 messages, and my bones rattled. Those sermons were the most self justifying and self aggrandizing messages I've ever heard.

Weaver needs to learn a word, "EMPATHY". The man actually had the nerve to say that, "Slavery wasn't a problem" in sermon 1. Note to add (from whose point of view, the slaves or the free persons that were granted full citizenship and self respect under the new republic)

His second sermon where he aptly quoted Charles Hodge, in an effort to rationalize the second class status of African American slaves who were subjected to much ignominy, Weaver said, "Slavery was not a sin".

That's when I shut off the sermon.

I could give credence to the ungodliness of the unitarian abolitionist, but I do see God's sovereignity in using them to transform a nation by bringing a race of people out of bondage, likewise I also see God's sovereignity in using Martin Luther King jr, who denied innerancy, virgin birth etc to help rid the country of Jim Crow laws and help move the KKK into extinction.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I just find it odd that it was OK for Union states to have slaves but not the south.

good ole northern hypocrisy. The South had Jim Crow and the North actually had the audacity to go down to the south and teach them morals of reconciliation and love thy brother, all this, while the North themselves had rigid segregation where Blacks were kept in the "hoods". when the civil rights movement when to Chicago to change things the Liberal Whites quickly squashed it

 

[Blueridge Believer]

James I listened to 1 1/2 sermons of those 14 messages, and my bones rattled. Those sermons were the most self justifying and self aggrandizing messages I've ever heard.

Weaver needs to learn a word, "EMPATHY". The man actually had the nerve to say that, "Slavery wasn't a problem" in sermon 1. Note to add (from whose point of view, the slaves or the free persons that were granted full citizenship and self respect under the new republic)

His second sermon where he aptly quoted Charles Hodge, in an effort to rationalize the second class status of African American slaves who were subjected to much ignominy, Weaver said, "Slavery was not a sin".

That's when I shut off the sermon.

I could give credence to the ungodliness of the unitarian abolitionist, but I do see God's sovereignity in using them to transform a nation by bringing a race of people out of bondage, likewise I also see God's sovereignity in using Martin Luther King jr, who denied innerancy, virgin birth etc to help rid the country of Jim Crow laws and help move the KKK into extinction.

You ought to keep listening. Get beyond your pride and deluded thoughts that the union army were civil rights workers. Why don't you go get your Bible and find out if ALL slavery was a sin. Afterall, almost all of the fathers in the OT hd them, Christ never condemned it and Paul told servants to be content with thier postion and even sent one back to his master. Really study the subject from a scriptural viewpoint and not that of the 21rst century American. Have you ever read this passage in leviticus:
Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit [them for] a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour
Are you going to judge God? God who is the one who set up the institution of slavery here. Israel was alowed to buy slaves of the heathen around them and keep them FOREVER.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

First thing James consider the following ad hoc points on slavery.

1. In Exodus, the law was given that if any man steals another man and sells him he should be put to death. Do you know what happens to people that willingly purchase stolen property.

2. As Israel was the physical representation of the Church, she was to release her slaves during the years of jubilee, the heathen were to be kept in perpetuity as a symbol of everything being subjected unto the church. In the context of the colonization of the New World, all of that were abused. Did the slave owners release their christian slaves during any year of jubilee? No, it was race based and without any biblical regulations. To justify American slavery one has to justify racism.

3. Slaves in the Bible had rights. Slaves in the American context did not have rights.

4. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. That alone highlights the hypocrisy of a two tiered structure of the republic where one group were given the status of full citizens whereas others were consider beasts of burden, with all sorts of justification coming about because of their race.

5. Consider the following exhortation of Paul to Timothy 1 Timothy 1:10
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;. The Bible puts people that steal other people and sells them into slavery in the same category as whoremongers and homosexuals.

6. Slaves were used for breeding and sexual pleasures Violations of all commandments against adultery etc.

7. The fact that the American Revolution was justified over the unfair imposition of taxes without representation highlights how hypocritical it was for people in the same breathe to deny the same rights they fight for, in relation to another group. Again, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

8. The Exodus of the Israelites whereby the Israels were totally subjected to the arbitrary sway and the whims of Pharoah is most similar to the type of slavery in the New World. I don't think any prophet or apostle would every rationalize the rights of Pharoah to hold the Israelites slaves.

9. THe natural progression of the dominion mandate whereby people grow in the knowledge and wisdom of God, and as the Gospel liberates necessitates a natural evolution whereby the freedom of men from both external bondage as well as physical bondage is to be realized.

10. The Bible looks at slavery the same way it looks at divorce. It was for the wickedness of the heart of man that God permitted divorce and regulated it, likewise the same with slavery, but from the beginning it was not so

11. Paul exhorted servants for the sake of Christ, that they should be obedient to their masters. Quite similar with the line of Phillipians whereby Jesus being in the form of God considered it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation to the death of the cross........for the salvation of many. Jesus did not subject Himself to the death of the cross and to the hands of wicked men for some sado masochistic desire, likewise women are not to submit themselves to their husband for the sake of submission, likewise children are not to submit themselves to their parents for submission sakes, but for Christ's sake. Similarly with Joseph. Joseph submitted himself to Potiphar not because he didn't have a right to escape, go back to Palestine and hold his brothers accountable etc, but for the testimony of God he submitted himself to slavery so that the name of his God would not be blasphemed. Vengeance in mine.


As to my pride, let us keep this free of personal attacks.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Again, let me refer you to RL Dabneys work "In defence of Virginia and the South". You will find that servants in Virginia did have rights. Also, If you'll take the time to read Matthew Henry's comments as well as John Gill's on the passage of scripture in lev. 25 they might could shed some light on the passage for you. My only concern is for Biblical truth not someones imagination brought on by reading something from "uncle Toms cabin".
No offence intended here brother but you really should take the time to do further research on this subject and the causes and effects of the time.
There was sin on all sides. The south was no utopia. BUT, the north was the one who broke the covenant made between the states and that is historical fact. Both sides had slaves and economic issues were the driving cause of the conflict.
God bless and keep you.

 

[wsw201]

And on a jovial note...come on Slippery...you can find a better quote than that to make Gary North look loco!

His Y2K fiasco sealed it for me!!

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Again, let me refer you to RL Dabneys work "In defence of Virginia and the South". You will find that servants in Virginia did have rights. Also, If you'll take the time to read Matthew Henry's comments as well as John Gill's on the passage of scripture in lev. 25 they might could shed some light on the passage for you. My only concern is for Biblical truth not someones imagination brought on by reading something from "uncle Toms cabin".
No offence intended here brother but you really should take the time to do further research on this subject and the causes and effects of the time.
There was sin on all sides. The south was no utopia. BUT, the north was the one who broke the covenant made between the states and that is historical fact. Both sides had slaves and economic issues were the driving cause of the conflict.
God bless and keep you.

1. I've never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, too busy with history books, and reformed books.

2. If your concern is for Biblical Truth, at least acquiesce to what I wrote. I simply didn't babble the aboveforementioned points but they are scriptural. You are trying to invoke the notion that 1st century slavery as well as the Post Exodus slavery were mirrored in the slavery during the Colonial period of the New World. All of that are false.

3. If mistreating someone is a sin, it follows logically that the racist slavery was a sin. Up to now you cannot concede that point, whereas you are trying earnestly to string along anomalies of Blacks that were treated with some semblence of dignity to be the norm in America.

the world, replacing the old values of a warrior society with the new values of Christianity. Within St. Patrick’s lifetime, warriors cast aside their swords of battle, intertribal warfare decreased markedly, and the slave trade ended. A culture of battle and brute power was transformed by an ethic that sanctified manual labor, poverty, and service. A culture of illiteracy and ignorance became a culture of learning (Colson and Pearcey, 1999, p. 301).

4. The North was wrong, that I concede giving the fact that the South had a right to seceede from the Union. That is not my contention, my contention is Gary North's blanket statement making the "Abolitionist" movement a devastating legacy without in the least being EMPATHETIC to the underclass status of a whole nation of particular persons that were marginalized. Do you think the Negro Spirituals were about abstract tribulations suffered because of a constitutional crisis? hint. Here is what the Israelites in Babylon sang Psalm 137, " 8O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Do you think that when the Persians conquered Babylon, the Israelites cared about the rightness of the Persian's religious theology? No. Likewise do you think that those slaves that opted to join the armies of the union cared about the theology of certain abolitionists, the atheistism of others, the unitarian nature of Lincoln? No, they did not, they cared about freedom, and if God answered their prayers by bringing about the ungodly of the North (Yes, slaves actually prayed for freedom, and many saw the sovereignity and the mercy of God in the civil war as a means to this freedom), so be it.


Gary North's theological perspective is too constricted and he paints with a broad brush. He fails to put himself in the shoes of Christians of other classes, races and cultures, thereby grandiosely failing to see that that which is evil in an apparent sense can and is used by God to answer the prayers of His children that occupy other positions in society.

A more perfect example would be a Palestinian Christian. Now American Dispensationalists despise Palestinians and think that Israel, unbelieving Israel has a total right to Palestine. Now when God decides to use some evil force to vindicate His Palestinian children against unbelieving Israel, what will the American Dispensationalists say? I guess they will say like Gary North, "Devastating Legacy of the Abolitionists".

 

[Kevin]

Sorry Keon, but 'Scary Gary' is correct on this one!

Follow Blueridges advice & read Dabney before you say more things that you will feel silly about after.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

You and I have found some common ground here my friend. I never said the salvery was a good thing but that God did make allowance for it. I am 100% agreement with you on the Palestinian issue as well and believe that what is being done to them is an abomination.
BTW, I am not a big fan of Gary North. I do read his stuff from time to time but part company with him on theonomy and reconstructionism.
God has in times past sent nations into servitude for judgment. Makes one wonder what might be coming our way for our rejection of His Son and His law.
Thank you for your patience in this discussion for it is a sensitive issue and it is easy to misunderstand someones postion out of zeal for your own.
God bless and keep you my friend.
BTW, I see we also agree about this war as far as what I've read in other posts of yours.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Sorry Keon, but 'Scary Gary' is correct on this one!

Follow Blueridges advice & read Dabney before you say more things that you will feel silly about after.

I haven't gotten to Dabney as yet, but I will in the future. As for Gary, there are many things I agree with him on, and his essay, Common Grace, Eschatology and Biblical Law is brilliant and insightful, and it actually motives me to get off my laurels and work actively for the advancement of the Kingdom of God since Christ already secured the victory at the cross, but alas with the exception of that little sore that I quoted. But I will be able to bare with Gary North. We as Christians cannot cast aside our brothers. It is God testing our humility by putting the truth into the mouths of people that we disagree with. We have to take what is true, and give them the honor they deserve and continue to build.