# Christian Reconstructionism



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

What is Christian reconstructionism?


----------



## crhoades (Apr 20, 2005)

Christian Reconstruction: What it is, What it is not by Gary North and Gary Demar

Here is a book written by Christian Reconstructionists that define it pretty well. It's free and on the web and worth a scan.

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Christian Reconstruction: What it is, What it is not by Gary North and Gary Demar
> 
> Here is a book written by Christian Reconstructionists that define it pretty well. It's free and on the web and worth a scan.


Thanks, Chris.

Does the link work for you? I can't seem to make the connection.

Bob


----------



## JohnV (Apr 20, 2005)

There are verious forms, Bob. The one that I have been dealing with in my personal affiliation in my church is one that very few will allign themselves with anymore. I think its errors have been exposed sufficiently, or soon will be. 

There are some who hold to CR who do not identify themselves with this at all, and I hope that they too sternly oppose it, since it betrays their views. And it is not represented on this Board at all. So I think we can rule it out as a consideration, for purposes of advancing and sharpening our own views. So there are two questions here, not one. What is CR on this Board? And, what is CR outside of this Board? The second is a lot broader, because we can at least count on integrity, fellowship, and mutual respect on this Board, something not that is not an unquestioned ethic in some other venues.

As for what CR is, I'll let a CR-ist answer that. I don't think you are asking for a debate, you want to know what it stands for. And the best one to answer that is someone who holds to it. And who better than an honoured member of this Board?


----------



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

Chris,
Never mind. I found an extra "i" in the URL and was able to make the connection.
Bob


----------



## crhoades (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



Fixed it. Sorry bout that.

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 20, 2005)

That's an interesting dedication to Van Til. Is it supposed to be a compliment?


----------



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> As for what CR is, I'll let a CR-ist answer that. I don't think you are asking for a debate, you want to know what it stands for.


Yeah, I'm just curious what it is and what makes it 'controversial'


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 20, 2005)

In some ways it is/was controversial because all of the leaders all had strong personalities and unity was difficult (that happens in every movement, group, whatever). It is also important to note theological changes within CR: Jim Jordan renounced being one after producing some good literature, David Chilton went too far in preterism, Steve Wilkins and Joe Morecraft no longer work together due to AAPC. Andrew Sandlin renounced CR and openly mocks any who hold to the position.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> In some ways it is/was controversial because all of the leaders all had strong personalities and unity was difficult (that happens in every movement, group, whatever). It is also important to note theological changes within CR: Jim Jordan renounced being one after producing some good literature, David Chilton went too far in preterism, Steve Wilkins and Joe Morecraft no longer work together due to AAPC. Andrew Sandlin renounced CR and openly mocks any who hold to the position.


After reading part of that book, it makes sense that it'd be controversial outside of the "movement" (if I can call it that), considering the dispensational climate of our times. I'd be very surprised if there weren't friction between them.

Just curious. In a nutshell, how does the existential world view differ from the presuppositional worldview. The part I read mentioned both, but only described the presuppositional since that's what they hold to. (it may very well be covered in the rest of the book somewhere - I focused on the FAQ section which gave a concise description.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 20, 2005)

A critique of Reconstructionism:

http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/products.asp?partno=MAST40

JH


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 20, 2005)

Existentialism, depending on who you ask, holds to absurdity as the conclusion of the quest for meaning.

The presuppositionalist does not exactlyu disagree: We hold that the unbeliever's life is indeed absurd apart from Christ.


----------



## openairboy (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> That's an interesting dedication to Van Til. Is it supposed to be a compliment?



Yes, I think it is intended to be a compliment. Part of the argument for CR is, now that all other epistemologies have been destroyed (inlcuding all the psychological, economic, political, etc. fruit of these vaious positions), what are we left with? The answer: an explicitly Christian view of economics, gov't, family, Church, etc.

So, while Van Til did not endorse CR, the proponents of CR are suggesting that it is the logical flow of his teachings.

openairboy


----------



## Scott (Apr 20, 2005)

"Yeah, I'm just curious what it is and what makes it 'controversial'"

The main thing is the belief that governments should apply the capital punishments of the Old Testament strictly. Examples include stoning to death for Sabbath breaking, cursing one's parents, etc. They also tend to hold a sort of regulative principle of government, so they disagree with quite of bit of what happens in governments.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Yeah, I'm just curious what it is and what makes it 'controversial'"
> 
> The main thing is the belief that governments should apply the capital punishments of the Old Testament strictly. Examples include stoning to death for Sabbath breaking, cursing one's parents, etc. They also tend to hold a sort of regulative principle of government, so they disagree with quite of bit of what happens in governments.


Thanks, Scott.

Say what you will, pro or con, a person would certainly need to walk by faith, not by sight, to believe that God will bring about this governmental change.


----------



## openairboy (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...



Bob, 

And you nailed something, maybe unknowingly, that is often thrown at the CR's. It is YHWH that will see this through via fulfillment of the Great Commission. It isn't by 'jihad' or the 'sword', but the simplicity of Christians living by faith, preaching the Gospel, and loving their neighbors. 

openairboy


----------

