# Andrew Sandlin: Calling a Spade a Spade



## fredtgreco (May 26, 2005)

There is an excellent article at Semper Reformanda Festung outlining the continual hypocrisy and deviations from Christianity (of any variety) by P. Andrew Sandlin.

http://www.semper-reformanda.org/journal/archives/cat_heretics.html#000057

EDIT:

While it not my proper venue to pass judgment on Mr. Sandlin, I would call upon whomever has jurisdiction over him (if there is anyone) to discipline him.

His statements on the sacraments are more than "inaccurate," they are false teaching. It really does not matter to me if in toss off comments Mr. Sandlin is "careful to affirm that he is not denying the orthodoxy" of others. This has absolutely no bearing on his own profession of the truth.

Such a "affirmation" is also virtually worthless in the light of the vitriolic and personally hateful attacks and statements that he has made about others.

But then again, I guess if you are a part of the great blog "in crowd" you can say whatever you want.

[Edited on 5/27/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

Though he no longer considers himself a Reconstructionist his vitriolic rhetoric and aggressive condescension bears all the marks of his former camp. Yes I just wrote that! I find that this is pretty standard for most adherents of this 'type' of Christianity and pretty much undermines anything that they have to say (in my mind). FV/NPP etc.  

I am absolutely sick of this nonsense, and I am tired of it. Sigh...


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2005)

I remember when he made fun of those "patriarchal" types, calling the home-school women "baby machines." Doug Phillips responded to that. End of debate. It was Phillips at his best.

Although he has written some good articles commending Rush's ministry, he never was comfortable around him. He never thought that Rush was "culturally welwevant" enough. When Rush died it became easy for Sandlin to insult him. Now he routinely mocks reconstructionists. 

I became Reformed way after the whole Reconstructionist-theonomy debate. For most of it I was not yet born, so I defer to the wisdom of my betters on this one. Just that the first Reformed people I met were Reconstructionists and they were the most gentle, humble people I have ever met. 

On the other hand, I don't judge my people on the basis of how an ex-recon train-wrecks himself.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2005)

I find it interesting that in endnote three the author connects the biblical Sandlin with Reconstructionism:



> 3. The death of R.J. Rushdoony and Sandlin subsequently failing to gain control of the Chalcedon Foundation is the line of demarcation, essentially separating the Biblically orthodox, Reformed Sandlin from the Sandlin of today.



Whatever Sandlin's faults, Reconstructionism cannot be considered his downfall.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 27, 2005)

Original post edited.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 27, 2005)

patriarchy...isn't that biblical? And hello...I believe God created women to bear children...though the men get to support them and have a role to play also.

from a proud baby machine (though admittedly, a tired one at the moment-due to pregnancy)

[Edited on 5-27-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## JohnV (May 27, 2005)

> 3. The death of R.J. Rushdoony and Sandlin subsequently failing to gain control of the Chalcedon Foundation is the line of demarcation, essentially separating the Biblically orthodox, Reformed Sandlin from the Sandlin of today.



Whatever Sandlin's faults, Reconstructionism cannot be considered his downfall. [/quote]



I see that more and more. As Reconstructionism matures as a concept, it is becoming more and more the central issue for Christians to think about. The question it calls, now that Sandlin is no longer it spokesman, is whether we are actually moral in our ethics, or culturally ethical in our morals. 

I still don't agree with some cornerstone points of it, but it has been the biggest issue in helping me develope my understanding of the grace that is given us. The more one understands his own sin (by looking at the law) the more one is thankful for the "power of sin" in the law being taken away. 

When I was reading Sandlin, I did not find that comfort at all.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2005)

Thanks, John. 



> is whether we are actually moral in our ethics, or culturally ethical in our morals.



That is going to keep me up for the next few weeks. Thanks!


----------



## JohnV (May 27, 2005)

Hey, Jacob, I'm being honest. I think, once we realize that this is bigger than the differences we bring into this personally, that this really addresses all the isms we're facing today, as a church. That's how its been for me. It is I who should thank you.


----------

