The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his094/recon.arj/RECON.TXT

Text File | 1989-10-02 | 18KB | 343 lines

[ This is a partial response to Steve Kacen's discussion of Reconstructionism ]


   If we're really 'heavenly bound' and our affections are set upon
heaven, we're not going to be trying to make the earth into it.

   To read doctrine out of parables is downright dangerous!
Parables teach principles - only one main point, but if we apply
"kingdom theology" to the parables in Matthew, what can we make of
Matthew 13:44-52?  Jesus' kingdom is obviously heaven, not earth, just
as the parables say, "kingdom of heaven".  Re-defining "kingdom of
heaven" into some kind of "kingdom on earth" is plainly a deviation
from sound Biblical interpretation.  Most cults do the same thing!

   After listening to the Jehovah's Witnesses (false witnesses), ramble
on and on for 2 hours, citing passage after passage out of context
about restoring the earth to a place "suitable for Christ to reign",
I am surprised how reconstructionist use basically the same passages
(ie. Matthew 28:19, Genesis 1:28, etc.) and speak the same nonsense.
It's not animosity, it's apostasy!  What are we making DISCIPLES for?
a paradise on earth, or an eternity in Heaven?

   "If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things
above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.  Set your mind
on the things above, not on the things that are on the earth."
(Colossians 3:1-2)

   The Reconstructionists, even by the meaning of their name, wish to make
this earth a utopia, under their rule - even though they SAY it is a
Biblical mandate to bring the earth into submission with all it's
peoples of every nation.  But Jesus says:

   "My kingdom is not of this world.  If my kingdom were of this world,
then my servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up
to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm"  (Matthew
18:36)

   There is no mistaking, this earth is not, nor will ever be Christ's
kingdom.  The statement, "not of this realm" clearly identifies Christ's
kingdom as NOT being earthly.

   2 Peter 3:3-10 is clearly contrary to 'establishing an earthly kingdom'.
"...in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following
after their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming?'"

   Since Reconstructionists plan on setting up the kingdom - it's obviously
without Jesus Christ at the helm!  We ALREADY have these mockers running
around today, so if the "last days" means LAST DAYS, their "kingdom"
will utterly fail to materialize (with apostates & mockers abundant) -
Someone ought to tell North & Demar to work on the bad guys!

   The Reconstructionists are spending more time attacking Bible Believeing
Christianity than doing the work of their 'kingdom'.  I take much
exception to the self-righteous & arrogant attitude of folks like
Gary North - if this is an example of 'kingdom living', the present
world is still more appealing!  Calling Pre-millenial theologians
"amateurs" is hardly becoming of a Christian... especially coming from
an economist that cranks out theological 'text' books in 2 weeks.
Where did Gary North get his theological training?

   What are we making DISCIPLES for?
To conquer the earth, or an eternity in Heaven?

> Since you stated "we already know that it will get worse", then you
> have nothing more to learn.

   Personally speaking, I have learned that reconstructionists are legalists
in the Biblical sense.  Paul addresses these type of people..

   "This is the only thing I want to find out from you; did you receive
the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Are you so foolish?  Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being
perfected by the flesh?"  (Galatians 3:2-3)

   "Therefore the Law has become our tutor TO LEAD US TO CHRIST, that we
may be justified by faith.  But now that faith has come, we are no
longer under a tutor"  (Galatians 3:24-25)

   If Post-A-millenialist's kingdom does come to pass, what are we to
think of the judgment after judgment throughout the pages of Scripture?
Why would God Judge the righteous, especially if they are being obedient
and submissive to Christ?

   More than likely - if the kingdom does come to pass (which I believe it
will as the New Age movement) - it will be judged and destroyed as every
other man-made kingdom has for it's immorality and corruption!

> What does it mean to "make disciples of all the nations"?

   It means the Gospel is not restricted to just the Jews.  God had much
trouble communicating this to Peter...

   "...You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to
associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me
that I should not call any man unholy or unclean"  (Acts 10:28)

   No nationality, person, color of skin, male or female, was to be
excluded any longer - the Gospel was for people "..of all the nations",
not just the Jews.  The trouble Peter went though, and the fact that
Paul (also a Jew) began to preach to the Gentiles *AFTER* Peters 'white
sheet' encounter, proves that up until this point, they were preaching
the Gospel to the Jews, and excluding the Gentiles.  The command was to
take the Gospel to ALL nations, God had to make it clear to Peter and
the church in Jerusalem.

> Just a side note:  Neither I, Gary North nor any other Reconstructionist
> is advocating destructive force, ..... This does not rule out, Christians
> rising to the top of their discipline ..... and demonstrating and teaching
> people that following the ethical principles of our Lord brings blessings
> into every area of life.

   Neither did the German Theologians prior to the rise of Nazi Germany!
They DID provide the theological 'engine' and raised the issue of the
"Jewish Problem" in the Protestant Churches that LEAD to the wholesale
slaughter of 6 million Jews.  What began as an 'innocent discussion'
ended in innocent bloodshed.

   Who establishes these "Ethical principles"?  We already know that
reconstructionists wish to reinstate the Old Testament Law, so we
know what 'teaching people to follow the ethical principles' really
means - a yoke of slavery for blessings???

   But, since Paul states...

   "For if inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on a
promise..."  and later "For if a law had been given which was able to
impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law."
(Galatians 3:18a & 21b).  And finally, "in order that He might REDEEM
those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an
heir through God"  (Galatians 4:5-7)

   Whoever places themselves under the Law, or imposes the Law upon anyone
else, imposes a yoke of SLAVERY, unkeepable by any man.

   "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm
and DO NOT BE SUBJECT AGAIN TO A YOKE OF SLAVERY"  (Galatians 5:1)

> Surely there are other Christians, who do not necessarily connect
> themselves with Fundamentalists, who make the same sacrifices.

   Since Fundamentalists adhere to the basic fundamentals of the faith,
we already know they believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant
(which Catholics do not), but what about 'sacrifices'?

   We believe in abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, swearing, worldly dress,
secular movies, dancing, loose talk, etc.  Instead, we see the importance
in the Great Commission - using our resources to preach the Gospel and
be a good testimony, instead of becoming like the unsaved world.

The Catholic "wins" at BINGO - the Baptist "wins" souls to Christ.
The Catholic "consumes" alcohol - the Baptist "consumes" the Word.
The Catholic preaches from philosophy & humanism - the Baptist expounds
the Word of God.
Catholicism is a non-christian cult, whose foundation rest on ever-changing
"traditions" instead of the inerrant Word of God.

   In comparing Genesis 1:28 to Genesis 9:1-7, there is no longer the command
to subdue and rule, but now God says he has put FEAR and TERROR into the
hearts of animals.  The gift of "food" still remains, but "ruling" & "subdue"
is no longer included.  The fall of man effected even animals - which is
what God GAVE to Noah for food.

   But this is an interesting point, since Reconstructionists take this
"pre-fall" verse LITERALLY - why are they disobeying it?  This verse is easily
hoisted out of context, combined with Matthew 28:19 (also out of context),
to read something like, "Go therefore and subdue the earth, every member
of every nation, rule over them and over every living thing on the earth"!

   When we realize God spoke to the only 2 people on the face of the earth
(Genesis 1:28), it becomes clear the Reconstructionists are using this
verse (out of context) to promote their own cause of world domination,
or they're Evolutionists and don't believe in the Creation account.

   It is interesting though, in Genesis 9:2 - after the fall - that God
puts the fear of man in living things, and then *gives* to Noah, as
FOOD instead of commanding him to subdue the earth.  Like Adam and Eve,
there wasn't anyone other person(s) to subdue & rule over, nor were
there heathen inhabiting the earth, therefore, we can easily conclude the
command was for PLANTS & ANIMALS - not men.

   I don't have to say, "post-fall" or "post-flood" or "pre-N.T.", but we can
say that Reconstructionists ought to be lion tamers & zoo keepers.

   This is a classic example of what Dave Breese calls "Segmented Biblical
Attention" - a mark of a cult.
Paying special attention to a "favorite" verse or portion of scripture
that appears to support their particular point of view.  This leads to
isolation of certain passages from the main body of the Scripture Text
that keep the interpretation in the proper context.

   Breese states, "Virtually every cult in existence today has followed
the unwise course of segmented biblical attention..."
I whole heartedly agree with Dr. Breese.

   At this point we should seriously consider the Apostle Paul's admonition
to young Timothy...

   "If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound
words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with doctrine conforming to
godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid
interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which
arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction
between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that
godliness is a means of gain."  (1 Timothy 6:3-5)

> Carrying out the Great Commission will result in nations being brought
> into the ethical standards that our Lord set before us.

   Sorry, but I see no indication to this anywhere in the New Testament,
in fact I see as time goes on, things will continue to decline and
degenerate morally, spiritually, ethically, and that mens hearts will
grow cold, evil proceeding from bad to worse, etc., etc.

> The Bible preaches ethical reconciliation - a new humanity born by God's
> imputation of Christ's perfect humanity (though not His divinity) to
> individual sinners.  This is to lead to evangelism: inside-out ethical
> renovation that produces the spread of reconciliation.

   Sorry, again, the Bible preaches SALVATION through Jesus Christ, it was
through His shed blood He was capable to become the propitiation for our
sins, not through His humanity.  Scripture says rightousness is imputed,
nowhere does it say His perfect humanity is imputed, or this leads to
evangelism.  Preaching the Gospel is evangelism.  Is it possible to perfect
fallen man - to bring in an utopian age upon the earth, or even a single
nation?  Not without eradication of the 'old nature' and receiving a new
and glorified body & mind incorruptible by sin.

   Through Jesus' shed Blood, righteousness - a POSITION OF STANDING before God
- is imputed to the Christian.  We have not received "Christ's perfect
humanity" in any sense of the phrase.  Here Gary North sounds more like
a New Ager than a Christian.

   Christians are pronounced righteous & sin debt free according to Someone
elses act of righteousness, they are not, however, free from sin or the
ability to sin, nor from temptation.  Why would we want to put a sin-prone
man into a 'spiritual' leadership role over us - to exercise absolute
authority over our daily lives?

   Paul's discussion of this in Romans 7 leaves little doubt that Christians
have not lost the ability to sin - only spiritual pride or ignorance of
Scripture could possibly lead one to think Christians are perfect.

   While reconstructionists may not state their disbelief in the fallen
nature of man, to hold a utopian world view of nations subjugated to
the authority of Jesus Christ, demonstrates they honestly believe
Christians (or not) are inherently GOOD.  The blood of Christ washes
away the net result of sin (damnation), it did not eradicate the 'fleshy'
nature.  This sounds more like Roman Catholic theology than Biblical
Christianity.

> ....orders them to exercise dominion in and under Him.

   What does this mean 'to exercise dominion'?  "Who" will exercise
"dominion" over "who"?

> We are not to attain positions of leadership by revolution or
> rebellion.  Instead, we are to work at our callings and wait on
> the Lord to place us in positions of influence, in His time.

   Our President holds office usually 4 years.  We have all but forgotten
Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford's influence in our day.
This would mean a new government structure to pull it off.
Why deny the eventual & rational truth?  i.e. revolution to reconstruct.

   It is no secret, the nations that professed Christianity only a few
centuries ago, are now infested with a multitude of heresies, cults and
demon worship.  Though worthy causes & important issues have risen and
fallen by the wayside, neglect in preaching the Simple Gospel shows
it's lack of results.  The only positive & eternal influence Christians
can have in a secular society is by face to face evangelism.  Imposing
laws of worship (an inevitable result) or laws of conscience, do more
to diminish the effectiveness of the Gospel.

   Europe is a wasteland, a 'glowing' example of accommodation and compromise.
When we talk about Christians being a mighty army, storming the world
with the Gospel, we ought to take a hard look what has been accomplished.

   From it's humble beginnings, Christianity spread from Jerusalem across the
far reaches of western Civilization.  After the 'dust' settled, what we
have left is by in large a dead religion masquerading under the name of
"Christianity".  The horizon of nearly every city in the USA is already
dotted with steeples of buildings called churches - with new ones being
built every day.  These are greater monuments to the Pharisees 'cup' than
Biblical Christianity, clean and magnificent on the outside, but full of
unregenerate and unclean members on the inside.  We are fooling ourselves
to think "Christian leadership" or "Christian rule" will ever produce the
personal change of the Gospel speaks of in 2 Corinthians 5:17.  Europe
resembles more of a spiritual cemetery of Christianity, despite it's once
rich heritage.  Interesting how little of Christianity remains in
the countries where it once flourished, or originated.  Israel is all but
devoid of the Gospel.

   What better example that the world is spiritually "winding down" becoming
waterlogged with apostasy and groaning for the return of Jesus Christ?

   If the world is gradually becoming a better place, soon fit for the
Masters return, then we must be awaiting the "prince of the power of the
air", since this resembles his kingdom instead of Christs'.  The
postmillenialists view (that Christ will return after the millennium - which
we are in now???), both demonstrates the laxity of mainline denominational
churches to preach the Gospel and their preoccupation with social issues
that have little or no lasting value to Christianity.

   What were the Nicolatians?  What were their deeds and their doctrine?
We have only one definite indication as to the nature of this group and that
comes to us from the meaning of the word itself.  The word Nicolatian comes
from two Greek words, "nicao" and "laos" which means "victory over" or
"subjugation of the people".

   Twice this doctrine is condemned in Scripture, Revelation 2:6 and
Revelation 2:15.  Even within the early church heresies such as "clergy" &
"laity" classes of people or "spiritual fatherhood" was arising among the
brethren.  IF Christians are suppose to bring the earth under the subjugation
of the Old Testament laws, this would mean a whole class of Scribes,
Pharisees & Priests to "dispense" the law of the land.  .....  Which is
condemned in Revelation chap. 2 !!

   I'm not worried about Gary North assuming the role of 'spiritual leadership'
on the earth - I'm concerned about him providing the WAY for the WRONG
type of 'spiritual leader' to take control.

   Are these ideas really new?  Is this the promise of a utopian age in which
everyone will willingly submit to this new form of Government, religion,
and yoke of unkeepable Old Testament laws?

   We have already have had centuries of Roman Catholic dominion (rule)
demonstrating how dangerous any spiritual hierarchy can become.  Power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, who could possibly
rule the world while the reconstructionists wait for Jesus Christ to
return?  Who would set the so-called Biblical standards for us to follow?
Who would prevent the wrong people from getting into places of leadership?
We can imagine how Adolf Hitler bam-boozeled the Pope to get his endorsement,
who is to say this wouldn't happen again - this time with the anti-christ?

   This isn't the Great Commission Jesus spoke of in Matthew 28.
Sometimes just thinking things through to their logical conclusions
helps us understand what's really being promoted.

Bill Bennett