RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Stop being coy and just tell us what you really think, brother.
Admittedly, I can't prove the possession charge. But Romney's religious affiliations are out in the open.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stop being coy and just tell us what you really think, brother.
Admittedly, I can't prove the possession charge. But Romney's religious affiliations are out in the open.
What are your thoughts on the article (to anyone who has read it)?Are we talking about Tim Keller's OpEd?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/christians-politics-belief.html
Are we talking about Tim Keller's OpEd?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/christians-politics-belief.html
Tom,Yeesh. That started out OK, but went a bit off pretty quickly.
It came across as incoherent.Yeesh. That started out OK, but went a bit off pretty quickly.
It came across as incoherent.
Inasmuch as it is a warning to the church not to align itself with Egypt to save itself from Assyria, I think it is ok.they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one
I ultimately believe RJ's agenda would be a distraction to the church as a whole. I prefer you fine men continue to fight the good fight of keeping political agendas out of the church (and preserving biblical truth), especially when it conflicts with the preservation of truth and mission of the gospel including the whole counsel of God. Thank You!Brother Joseph:
I don't wish to step on Brother Grant's toes, as it strikes me that perhaps my post ventures off-topic (along with others, to be sure!). Sorry, Grant!
At any rate, you're not responding to my claim that RJR's program does not teach that the civil law expired and in the reconstruction of all society amounts to the Israelization of the world. If you wish to respond to that elsewhere, I may engage (if I have time, though just now am about to leave to preach).
Peace,
Alan
I ultimately believe RJ's agenda would be a distraction to the church as a whole.
I agree with what you say here. But that is not the objections pastors and theologians have of him. They would agree with what you say here as do I. However Machen was essentially libertarian (not libertine) so OPC pastors cringe at a guy like RJ as he conveys (at least this is the perception) a belief in the church transforming the government, while the church needs to guard against the world transforming the church, which is happening via our seminaries, liberal ideologies and global-political infiltrators/benefactors.... Its too late to put the genie back in the bottle I fear....How? His very thesis—as well as Bahnsen’s and North’s and all of Chalcedon’s—is that Reconstruction starts in the home, not in the government, and then works it way out into broader society. However, the family is first and most important in this “agenda.” How would running the home according to God’s Law be a “distraction”?
I know, I know. I'm missing the point of the post.
I am not accurately answering your post, but I wanted to say, that although I can't lay my hands on the quote at this time, a prominent Westminster Seminary theologian once stated that we could not get rid of reconstruction or theonomy until we revise the proof-texts of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. You need to look there for support of the validity of the civil Law of Moses.
How? His very thesis—as well as Bahnsen’s and North’s and all of Chalcedon’s—is that Reconstruction starts in the home, not in the government, and then works it way out into broader society. However, the family is first and most important in this “agenda.” How would running the home according to God’s Law be a “distraction”?
Ed, I think that you are referring to Meredith Kline's Westminster Theological Journal review article of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which was entitled, "Comments on an Old-New Error.
Ed, I think that you are referring to Meredith Kline's Westminster Theological Journal review article of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which was entitled, "Comments on an Old-New Error."
I'm not against Recon in theory and principle but with the amount of mainstream resistance it would be hard to navigate without taking our eye off the true prize.... Our public square has been hijacked, probably not as bad as the perception, but inroads and allies may come at too steep a price.... Who knows? I'm game for a counter culture Great Awakening of our time....
I think you may be misunderstanding Reconstruction/Theonomy, brother. Reconstruction is not about taking over the government and ramming Christian laws into place by fiat. No, it is about starting with the family—teaching the spouse and children the Law-Word of the Lord. And, through the family, changing communities, then towns, then counties, then states, then entire countries. You might think the task is "futile" because you are not thinking in this scheme. If it all depended upon revolution, then yes, it may be futile. However, as the Theonomists have always said, it is "regeneration, not revolution."
In other words, we do not influence society through "taking our eyes off the prize," but through precisely keeping our eyes on it! I remember in a lecture I was listening to from Dr. Bahnsen, someone objected to Theonomic ethics and Reconstruction with the same line of argument presented here: it is impossible because secular society has overwhelmed us! Bahnsen replied thusly: "Exactly. Therefore, let Christians have more and more babies!" That was his answer. Again, it is not through revolution that these things take place, but through regeneration.
At this point one may need to consider creating another thread... as the light of the original OP is growing strangely dim.Exactly, which is why we need to continously snuff out Peter Enns types, PCA churches that sponsor Revoice, and social justice warriors in our midst.... What Reconstructionists propose are that we continue to let our light shine and take our values and worldview to every public sphere...including our vocation. That is not new or unique to this movement obviously.... That is Reformed 101.
Are you sure you are not simplifying what RJ taught.... ?
The few high profile examples leave me more concerned than inspired by mans ability to endure the heat rather than get incinerated
Texas ruling elder Andrew White obviously did not get the memo....And here's my concern. The pastors and denominations are dropping the ball on their end. How could RJ's vision bear fruit when churches and their members are comfortably going apostate? Where's the discipline?
https://christiannews.net/2018/02/0...r-texas-governor-says-he-supports-roe-v-wade/
Are you sure you are not simplifying what RJ taught.... ?
Sorry, I think I'm done...At this point one may need to consider creating another thread... as the light of the original OP is growing strangely dim.
gotchaI am speaking in general terms about Theonomy, not so much explicitly about what Rushdoony taught. I don't think anyone here denies that Rushdoony had issues confessionally. I am speaking more of the broader Theonomic thesis.
I search high and low for the quote but could not find it. Now I am wondering if the quote was by someone responding to Kline's article.
Thanks for the lead.
Brother, no need to apolgize.... I was just really struggling to connect the direction to the main subject.Sorry, I think I'm done...
I search high and low for the quote but could not find it. Now I am wondering if the quote was by someone responding to Kline's article.
Thanks for the lead.
What are your thoughts on the article (to anyone who has read it)?
If you fear the Lord, you won't be a racist, period... If you are a racist, you don't fear the Lord. This isn't that hard....
Really? Is it that easy to figure out who the true Christians are?
Moderation:
let's get back on track to the topic of voting and not have this thread devolve into a race discussion or social justice discussion. Open new threads for those.