Baptist views on Theonomy and Reconstruction

[Nilloc]

Can there be such a thing as a Theonomic or Reconstructionist Baptist? I’ve never heard of a modern day Baptist who holds to either of the two, but I’ve heard Presbyterians say there are historic Baptists (like John Gill) who were of a Theonomic persuasion. Is that true?

 

[Phileoeklogos]

It would have to be one strange baptist, baptists generally have held to historic pre-mil, amil or dispensational positions none of which really support reconstructionism or theonomy, I have never seen much about either of those except from post-milers, and I've never heard of a post-mil baptist.


I haven't read everything Gill wrote but I have never heard anyone reference him and theonomy or reconstructionism in anyway, I would just about be shocked if he held to either, it just doesn't seem to fit Dr. G's style.

 

[JM]

There's a fella on PB who claims both, to be a Baptist and theonomist. I'll look around get back to you.

 

[Phileoeklogos]

Consistency probably isn't his middle name.

 

[Nilloc]

It would have to be one strange baptist, baptists generally have held to historic pre-mil, amil or dispensational positions none of which really support reconstructionism or theonomy, I have never seen much about either of those except from post-milers, and I've never heard of a post-mil baptist.

I thought being Postmill was only necessary to be a Reconstructionist, not a Theonomist?

There's a fella on PB who claims both, to be a Baptist and theonomist. I'll look around get back to you.

Funny that you say that since it was when I was lurking in an old Puritan Board thread that I read the claim that John Gill was a Theonomist.

 

[JM]

I found the reference to Gill by Mayflower/Ralph who didn't understand the subject. Gill was not a theonomist... Ralph has become Roman Catholic by the way. He's a nice fella who order a lot of books, liked to talk theology, but didn't understand the subjects he talked about. I believe he gave up trying to understand scripture and became Roman Catholic.

jm

 

[DD2008]

Theonomy is really one of those terms that many are not even going to agree on the meaning of, the same with reconstructionism.

I do not claim to be a theonomist, however, I do believe that the bible is the revelation from God and included in it is the blueprint for how we are to live our lives.

I don't claim to be a reconstructionist, however, I do believe that the New Testament gives us our ecclesiological formula.

 

[Marcus Constantine]

I stopped a while back saying that you couldn't believe in this and that at the same time- logic or thought doesn't dictate some people's beliefs at all.

To be a reconstructionist would make this hypothetical Baptist very poor in his hermeneutics and very different than any Baptists I've met. Like I said, though, nothing surprises me anymore!

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Theonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I have read these two pages I still don't get what the big conflict is?

 

[DD2008]

Theonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I have read these two pages I still don't get what the big conflict is?

No one does. I bet 98% of christians have no idea what either of those lables mean.

 

[MrJim]

No one does. I bet 98% of christians have no idea what either of those lables mean.

In my Calvinist days I seemed to come across Rushdoony & Bahnsen a lot . Even then it appeared a bit on the fringe.

 

[DD2008]

In my Calvinist days I seemed to come across Rushdoony & Bahnsen a lot . Even then it appeared a bit on the fringe.

I didn't know you aren't a calvinist.

 

[Phileoeklogos]

No one does. I bet 98% of christians have no idea what either of those lables mean.

It seems to me that 98% of the people that wear those labels have their own definition of what those labels mean, which really doesn't amount to alot of people anyhow.


The first person I ever interacted with in a christian internet forum was a reconstructionist, and a hyper calvinist and the rudest and downright meanest person I have ever ran across on the net, I wonder how she is getting along?

 

[MrJim]

I didn't know you aren't a calvinist.

For a decade back in the day I was a converted Sproul/Horton bona fide reformed baptist...still got a few years of old Modern Reformation magazines in the attic

...then the light came back one

 

[Nilloc]

Even then it appeared a bit on the fringe.

The first person I ever interacted with in a christian internet forum was a reconstructionist, and a hyper calvinist and the rudest and downright meanest person I have ever ran across on the net, I wonder how she is getting along?

On a somewhat similar note, I just listened to a sermon by a Theonomist pastor who said that any Christian who voted for a Democrat should either repent of their “sin” or be excommunicated. He went on to say that the Democratic Party is evil and that most in the Republican Party are evil too. Throughout the sermon, he constantly bashed Obama and the Democrats in general, and even expressed his dislike of Karl Marx in the closing prayer.

I find it extremely disturbing that a pastor would preach politics from the pulpit, especially when he did it so unashamedly. He said, without any doubt, that political views (or rather, his political view) should be taught in church.

I don't think all Theonomists would be that extreme, but if they're right, shouldn't politics be part of the Church's message?

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1227091622151

 

[MagusAlbertus]

We have a local church that runs radio adds that are highly political "God despises socialism like Obama care" I hear on the radio, at-least once an hour "come to church of the king"

 

[Phileoeklogos]

On a somewhat similar note, I just listened to a sermon by a Theonomist pastor who said that any Christian who voted for a Democrat should either repent of their “sin” or be excommunicated. He went on to say that the Democratic Party is evil and that most in the Republican Party are evil too. Throughout the sermon, he constantly bashed Obama and the Democrats in general, and even expressed his dislike of Karl Marx in the closing prayer.

I find it extremely disturbing that a pastor would preach politics from the pulpit, especially when he did it so unashamedly. He said, without any doubt, that political views (or rather, his political view) should be taught in church.

I don't think all Theonomists would be that extreme, but if they're right, shouldn't politics be part of the Church's message?

SermonAudio.com - Christian Economics and Poverty

Well yes, if the theonomists are right, politics, economics, foreign policy etc,etc... would be part of the church's message, and thats the problem I have with it.

Theonomy and reconstuction sound good on paper, it's a grand idea, and we probably would all like to see it to at least some degree, but I see 2 major roadblocks, the Gospel is the message we have been given to preach, I see nothing in scripture about the church being the agent of goverment reform, we are strangers passing thru to a new world, not pioneers setting out to build a new world, and I also believe in the depravity of man, what might start as a good idea, can turn out to be tyranny, if theonomic rule ever got started, the state church would be just around the corner, and I doubt it would be a baptist church.



I like some of the ideas that theonmists have put forward, their thinking on things like education and justice, but how do you implent this things outside the christian community? To a degree I have to ask how is this much different from the social gospel? It all just seems to be a postmil pipe dream....

 

[MrJim]

Well yes, if the theonomists are right, politics, economics, foreign policy etc,etc... would be part of the church's message, and thats the problem I have with it.

Theonomy and reconstuction sound good on paper, it's a grand idea, and we probably would all like to see it to at least some degree, but I see 2 major roadblocks, the Gospel is the message we have been given to preach, I see nothing in scripture about the church being the agent of goverment reform, we are strangers passing thru to a new world, not pioneers setting out to build a new world, and I also believe in the depravity of man, what might start as a good idea, can turn out to be tyranny, if theonomic rule ever got started, the state church would be just around the corner, and I doubt it would be a baptist church.



I like some of the ideas that theonmists have put forward, their thinking on things like education and justice, but how do you implent this things outside the christian community? To a degree I have to ask how is this much different from the social gospel? It all just seems to be a postmil pipe dream....

Agreed~my little brother once said there should just be a white building that says "church" and nothing else for peole to go worship. If there was such a unified global Body of Christ in unanimous accord then perhaps we could move on toward some "social engineering" but we can't even decide what is proper baptism so I think we are far away from determining domestic & foreign policy

 

[Nilloc]

Well yes, if the theonomists are right, politics, economics, foreign policy etc,etc... would be part of the church's message, and thats the problem I have with it.

And as you may have noticed, the link to the sermon I posted was all about Capitalism. At least the pastor is being consistent.

Theonomy and reconstuction sound good on paper, it's a grand idea, and we probably would all like to see it to at least some degree, but I see 2 major roadblocks, the Gospel is the message we have been given to preach, I see nothing in scripture about the church being the agent of goverment reform, we are strangers passing thru to a new world, not pioneers setting out to build a new world

Agreed.

if theonomic rule ever got started, the state church would be just around the corner, and I doubt it would be a baptist church.

I don’t really understand how it is not inherently a State-Church. Theomonists (or at least some of them) say that the death penalty would be carried out for anyone who breaks the Ten Commandments. Since most Christians are not Sabbartarian (myself included), would that mean that non-Sabbatarians would be killed? If they don’t believe Christians have to keep the Sabbath, there’s a pretty good chance they’re not going to keep it (however “keeping the Sabbath” would be defined). And what about all the non-Christians; they don’t keep the Sabbath? The Theonomists would in effect be pulling a Joshua: purging the land of the unrighteous. Sounds like a State-Church, at least how I define it.

And in regards to the State-Church not being Baptist: there is at least one Theonomist—I read about in an article critical of Theonomy—say that any credo-baptists would be either jailed or executed (can’t remember which it was) under the kind of Theonmic society he desired.

I couldn’t imagine the blood bath that would have to result under such a system.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

So clearly covenant theology based Theonomy is the only way to go

I think I can see voting libertarian.