Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Incrementalism is incompatible with reconstructionist theonomy

Abolitionist John Reasnor had been debating Clinton Wilcox. And AHA has been sponsoring Reasnor's presentations, both on Facebook and on its blog. So he's an approved spokesman for AHA. 

I noticed in his reply to Wilcox that Reasnor was recycling theonomist arguments. So for him, incrementalism is incompatible with Scripture because incrementalism is incompatible with reconstructionist theonomy. Incrementalism is incompatible with his theonomic interpretation of Scripture. 

My immediate point is not to evaluate theonomy, but just to document the linkage between abolitionism and theonomy. According to their authorized representative, abolitionism is a theonomic ideology.

That connection is made more explicit when I go to Reasnor's Facebook page, which says he's a member of Reconstructionist Theonomists.

Christian Reconstructionists are generally characterized by a comprehensive system comprised of  the following five doctrines:

1. Predestination - because God alone is absolutely sovereign over Creation, able to bring all things He will to pass.
2. Covenant theology - because there is a long-term relationship between covenant-keeping and external blessings in history, as well as covenant-breaking and external cursings in history.
3. Biblical law - because God has put in place legal and moral boundaries, both individually and corporately, which are universal to all times, people, and places.
4. Presuppositional apologetics - because there is no neutrality in any aspect of life - everything is either supporting the Kingdom of God or fighting against it.
5. Postmillennialism - because the eschatology of hope is why we labor to bring everything into cavity under Christ - we actually believe that Christian culture we are working toward will come to fruition in history.

(derived largely from Gary North's book, Tools of Dominion)

One need not necessarily ascribe to all of these beliefs to participate in this group, but the following is required:

1. Belief in the Bible as inerrant and the only authority in all matters of life.
2. Belief in the universal and on-going applicability of God's Law in all areas of society, family, civil, ecclesiastical. (The scope and nature of specific applications are open for discussion.)

We strive to provide a place for edifying, biblical discussion for the application of God's Law in all realms of society. 

1 comment:

  1. I thought AHA's arguments sounded theonomic and post-mil. It really has a lot of explanatory power for their rhetoric, as well as their strong contempt for their ideological opponents, especially within the broader professing church.

    Rushdoony and North in particular are well known for being less than irenic.