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.
Thanks, Chris.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.
Originally posted by blhowes
Thanks, Chris.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.
Does the link work for you? I can't seem to make the connection.
Bob
Yeah, I'm just curious what it is and what makes it 'controversial'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.
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.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.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
That's an interesting dedication to Van Til. Is it supposed to be a compliment?
Thanks, Scott.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.
Originally posted by blhowes
Thanks, Scott.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.
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.