# Theonomist-Reconstructionist? (And FORC?)



## A2JC4life (Jul 21, 2009)

I wasn't sure where to put this; hopefully this is an acceptable location.

Can someone explain to me in a nutshell what Theonomist-Reconstructionist is? (It is in the description of a nearby church and I don't know if we agree with it or not.)

Also, what can anyone tell me about the FORC?

Thanks!


----------



## Southern Twang (Jul 21, 2009)

Found this:

*Theonomy* (Greek for "God's Law") includes the concept that "God’s revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being nonarbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations)."

Thus, each of the 613 laws given to Moses and recorded in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures) are binding on people of all nations, cultures, and religions forever, except for those laws which have been specifically rescinded or modified by further revelation.

*Christian Reconstruction* followers believe "that every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed in terms of the Bible."

That should about cover it, though there are different shades to some degree.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 21, 2009)

Southern Twang said:


> Found this:
> 
> *Christian Reconstruction* followers believe "that every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed in terms of the Bible."



Thanks! I still don't understand what this means, though. Can you clarify further?


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 21, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> Southern Twang said:
> 
> 
> > Found this:
> ...



(I realize in advance that someone will probably jump on me for this explanation...)

Reconstructionism is a recent phenomenon which seeks to "reconstruct" civil society upon the basis of the Mosaic law codes.


----------



## Southern Twang (Jul 21, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> Southern Twang said:
> 
> 
> > Found this:
> ...



Everything should be Christian. That is, everything should be put under the authority of God's Word. Education should be Christian, businesses should be Christian, governments should be Christian, and so on and so forth. This is the general outline.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 11:26:49 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> A2JC4life said:
> 
> 
> > Southern Twang said:
> ...



Paul,

I don't want to "jump" on you, but your comment is inflammatory. The Theonomic Reconstructionists clearly would point back to at least Martin Bucer (as Morecraft has stated) and maybe even further back. 

I merely want the bias to stay out of this thread.


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 21, 2009)

Southern Twang said:


> Paul,
> 
> I don't want to "jump" on you, but your comment is inflammatory. The Theonomic Reconstructionists clearly would point back to at least Martin Bucer (as Morecraft has stated) and maybe even further back.
> 
> I merely want the bias to stay out of this thread.



I think a fair reading of Bucer will find his ideas to be slightly different from the modern Theonomist, though he closer to that direction than our Reformed Orthodoxy allows. For instance, even when he affirms the validity of the penal sanctions, he does so in a manner different from the modern crowd, and he is much more open about the freedom of civil laws (based upon general equity, constantly "reducing" them to the two main heads of the law) than the modern Theonomist.

Either way, I humbly fail to see the inflammatory nature of my post. It should be candidly admitted that Theonomy (or Theonomic-Reconstructionism) is not the historic Reformed position; and, though there have been theologians throughout history who have affirmed similar ideas to the Bahnsen/Rushdooney crowd, its current widespread popularity is a modern phenomenon.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't know if this is just what an unreliable Wikipedia article is saying, but four necessary (if not sufficient) prerequisites of being a Reconstructionist are adherence to (1) Calvinism, (2) Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics, (3) postmillennialism, and (4) Theonomy.

I think once you have these four, assuming you are living in accordance with your beliefs, then you will attempt to reconstruct every aspect of society.


----------



## Southern Twang (Jul 21, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Southern Twang said:
> 
> 
> > Paul,
> ...



Paul,


You might want to take lessons from Joshua, seeing as he is a non-Theonomist yet gives a definition without any controversial language. I thought Rachel wanted a definition and not opinions. Though you think your opinion is fact, it is to many Theonomists wrong. 

You are correct that modern expressions of theonomy aren't exactly like that of earlier theologians, but I don't think you would deny theological progress. Meaning we might not have learned all that needs to be known about the Word of God, thus "new" things learned aren't necessarily bad. The modern expression of Theonomy has just put two and two together.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jul 21, 2009)

The Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) was formed in the late 80's, made up of individuals and congregations from Anabaptist, Baptist, and Charismatic backgrounds, who were discovering Reformed and Covenant theology through their reading of some of the Constructionists and Theonomists, yet did not fit neatly into an existing Reformed body. Initially, they adopted the Heidelberg Catechism as their confessional statement, and took a modified Continental Reformed polity for their governance. 

Federation of Reformed Churches (HM)


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 21, 2009)

Southern Twang said:


> Paul,
> 
> You might want to take lessons from Joshua, seeing as he is a non-Theonomist yet gives a definition without any controversial language. I thought Rachel wanted a definition and not opinions. Though you think your opinion is fact, it is to many Theonomists wrong.
> 
> You are correct that modern expressions of theonomy aren't exactly like that of earlier theologians, but I don't think you would deny theological progress. Meaning we might not have learned all that needs to be known about the Word of God, thus "new" things learned aren't necessarily bad. The modern expression of Theonomy has just put two and two together.



Just curious, which part of my statement do you disagree with? You just appealed to theological development wherein modern theologians have "put two and two together" producing something new, so it can't be the "modern phenomenon" segment. What did I say that was either opinion or controversial?


----------



## Southern Twang (Jul 21, 2009)

Paul,

These two words: recent phenomenon.

Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction are not recent, and most certainly not a phenomenon. 

When I talked about putting two and two together, I meant that the elements of Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction have always been present in the Christian faith, just never concisely put together.

These things are certainly debatable and I wish you would have kept them out of this thread.

You even gave yourself away with the "someone will probably jump on me".


----------



## Confessor (Jul 21, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Southern Twang said:
> 
> 
> > Paul,
> ...



I might be wrong, but I think your statement that it's a modern phenomenon (which, if it were, would discredit it), when Theonomists believe it to be for the most part historic is what he's referring to.

I (and I believe Dewey would agree with me) doubt that you have any bad intentions. It's just that statements like that -- even if they are true -- are contrary to what Theonomists believe and, if true, would discredit the movement.


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 21, 2009)

Southern Twang said:


> You even gave yourself away with the "someone will probably jump on me".



Ah, do not read too much into that statement -- this was merely a recognition that whenever one attempts to describe succinctly a movement, it seems to tend to displease more people than it pleases.



Southern Twang said:


> Paul,
> These things are certainly debatable and I wish you would have kept them out of this thread.



All right, then I will drop the matter in this thread.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 21, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> The Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) was formed in the late 80's, made up of individuals and congregations from Anabaptist, Baptist, and Charismatic backgrounds, who were discovering Reformed and Covenant theology through their reading of some of the Constructionists and Theonomists, yet did not fit neatly into an existing Reformed body. Initially, they adopted the Heidelberg Catechism as their confessional statement, and took a modified Continental Reformed polity for their governance.
> 
> Federation of Reformed Churches (HM)



The practice of paedocommunion is also a hallmark that kept them out of every other reformed body.


----------



## larryjf (Jul 21, 2009)

Theonomy believes that not only the moral law of the OT (as summarized in the 10 commandments) are still binding, but also the application of those laws as found in the civil case laws of Scripture given to Israel.

To a Theonomist, it's not just that homosexuality is a sin, but that modern civil punishment for breaking that moral command must be death, as prescribed to OT Israel.

They do leave room for a modernization of such case laws...for instance few Theonomists would say that you must put a fence on your roof, but they would insist that one must put a fence around your pool as a modernization of the case law.

I hope this helps


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 21, 2009)

> The practice of paedocommunion is also a hallmark that kept them out of every other reformed body.



I've seen this mentioned before, and it puzzles me. I had fairly close ties to reconstructionism in the 1980s, including hearing Mr. Rushdooney teach at Mr. Moorecraft's church in Atlanta, and I never understood paedocommunion to be an established part of the mix. It was mostly associated with a group out of Tyler, Texas. I _did_ hear people question an arbitrary age in the teen years regarding when a person could make a credible profession of faith, and younger children were sometimes permitted to go before session. (I'm talking 8 or 9 here, not infants.) Or does that still mean paedocommunion to most?


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 21, 2009)

jwithnell said:


> > The practice of paedocommunion is also a hallmark that kept them out of every other reformed body.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this mentioned before, and it puzzles me. I had fairly close ties to reconstructionism in the 1980s, including hearing Mr. Rushdooney teach at Mr. Moorecraft's church in Atlanta, and I never understood paedocommunion to be an established part of the mix. It was mostly associated with a group out of Tyler, Texas. I _did_ hear people question an arbitrary age in the teen years regarding when a person could make a credible profession of faith, and younger children were sometimes permitted to go before session. (I'm talking 8 or 9 here, not infants.) Or does that still mean paedocommunion to most?



I think the paedocommunion quote was referring to the Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) not Theonmists. In fact I believe most Theonomists would reject paedocommunion.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 21, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > > The practice of paedocommunion is also a hallmark that kept them out of every other reformed body.
> ...



Most of the first theonomists I ever knew adopted paedocommunion - in subsequent years, I've met many more that do not, but lots of them followed Rushdooney in that conviction.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jul 21, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Reconstructionism is a recent phenomenon which seeks to "reconstruct" civil society upon the basis of the Mosaic law codes.



"'Generally, the movement's proponents hold that the civil laws of the Old Testament, theocratic Israel are normative for all societies in all times.' We believe it is more correct to insist that the whole Bible is normative. This implies that considering how to apply the Old Testament laws, we must also consider the implications of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the pouring out of the Spirit, and the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile. There are elements of continuity and discontinuity between covenants, and we cannot afford to ignore either. And, if we affirm that the Bible is God's inerrant Word, how can we in good conscience ignore its teachings in any area of life?" -- Gary DeMar, in a letter to Christianity Today, April 21, 1989.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 21, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> > jwithnell said:
> ...



I was not aware that Rushdoony practiced paedocommunion?


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 22, 2009)

Rachel, if you're looking at Covenant Christian, they are staunchly paedocommunion. We attended there a couple of times, as I was considering that position, but to tell you the truth, it was our experience there as much as any other thing that has turned me away from it. Not that they aren't nice folk, and the preaching was biblical, but something just didn't sit right with me. I've known OF some of the leaders there for more than a decade, one having been an elder at my old PCA Church before we started going there, but not personally. Did some work for another of the elders as well.

But if you're a credo-baptist, CC would definitely not be for you. If, however, you're a paedo-baptist, Eagle Heights PCA is experiencing some very positive changes right here in town, and we are in the process of transferring our membership back to the Church wherein Mindy was brought to salvation and where all 4 of my children were baptised. You might want to check them out.

BTW, I used to do some work for a Ramey who lived on the corner of Piccadilly and Morgan. Any relation?


----------



## TimV (Jul 22, 2009)

Lest it pop up again, Rushdoony would never have had anything to do with the FV. Here's what his son said about it.




> My father would be horrified at the Federal Vision/ New Perspective on Paul theology, which did not become prominent in Reformed circles until after his death. He may have quoted from Wright (I don't know offhand) but he often quoted from those with whom he had disagreements, so a mere use as a reference would not represent anything more than that reference.
> My father used very traditionally Reformed language and definitions, all of which these new ideas reject. See Systematic Theology, p. 660, the first sentence as an example). He often criticized shallow, inconsistent Reformed thought, but not traditional Reformed theology regarding the doctrine of justification.
> His entire work Institutes of Biblical Law is based on a careful distinction between justification (by grace received through faith) and sanctification (by obedience to the law). He says that plainly in the introduction. I think the core of the error of the new ideas is that they blur the line between justification and sanctification, really claiming that the Reformation got it wrong. My father did say that the Reformation did not definitively settle the means of sanctification, but he never deviated from the traditional definition of justification.
> My father said law was integral to God's salvation because it was His law and His salvation was covenantal, but he also pointed to the fact that the exodus took place before the giving of the law, showing that the law


presupposes grace.(see Biblical Law, Vol. III, p. 176).
Mark Rushdoony


----------

