I believe we should reduce the two threads into one.  We have appeared to arrive at similar discussion points.  I quote Joe's last comment below:

Joe Napalm:

First, I clicked on the link and noted that it was written by Greg Bahnsen. I then clicked the little "x" on the tab and disregarded. The Christian Reconstructionism movement began in 1973. And, just like the Dispensationalism movement that began in the 1800s, I reject both as new inventions of men. Thank you for trying to force the subject, but I care very little about it.

Second, concerning our conversation with Justin (JT400), we talked about the definition of Christianity at the dinner table on Sunday. I'm not sure of your age, but I wanted to know if my 12-year old son could define "Christianity". He said he'd think about it and get back to me. About 10 minutes into the discussion, without any prompting at all and without leaving the table to go find an answer, he said he was ready. He said, "Christians are people who believe Jesus Christ is Lord and obey his commandments." To this we all answered, "Bingo!"

So, would you agree with the statement? While your statement about the truthfulness of the Bible and whether or not it is from God is good, I believe that definining Christians as followers of Jesus Christ -- the Son of God, the agent of creation and with equality to God the Father and the Holy Spirit -- is better because there are many groups that will tell you that the Bible is God's Word, but will deny the deity and Lordship of Jesus (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International [link - see "Nature of Jesus Christ"], Christadelphians [link] and Unitarians).

Again, do you agree?

I also re-quote Dr. Schaeffer for use of Christianity by the "first sense" verses the "second sense."

"Not all the individual men who laid down the foundation for the United States Constitution were Christians; many, in fact, were deists.  But we should realize that the word Christian can legitimately be used two ways.  The primary meaning is: an individual who has come to God through the work of Christ.  The second meaning must be kept distinct but also has validity.  It is possible for an individual to live within the circle of that which a Christian consensus brings forth, even though he himself is not a Christian in the first sense.  This may be true in many areas--for example, in the arts or political thought.  Many of the men who laid the foundation of the United States Constitution were not Christians in the first sense, and yet they built upon the basis of the Reformation either directly through the Lex Rex [Law is King] tradition or indirectly through Locke.  To whatever degree a society allows the teaching of the Bible to bring forth its natural conclusions, it is able to have form and freedom in society and government."  (Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?)

Wesley, before we get too far, I still have a couple questions from the old threads. I would still be interested in how you feel I showed a faulty processor. And do you think that God's law is defunct?

Joe, I am seventeen years old, and my new avatar is a picture of me in Jamestown. That is a good definition. As I had said, my definition was only a very basic starting point. You are right, I would not call Jehovah's Witnesses Christians. By the same token, I would have a hard time calling someone a Christian who disregarded the Old Testament. Although I do agree that Christ is the cornerstone. So yes, I agree.

Wesley, thank you for re-posting the quote. It seems to me that "To whatever degree a society allows the teaching of the Bible to bring forth its natural conclusions, it is able to have form and freedom in society and government." supports Biblical voting.

John Adams denied the deity of Christ.  Like Jefferson and Franklin, key words for Adams were rational and reason.  Therefore, he was also troubled with miracles.  He was even troubled with the reliability of the Bible in the form he had.  A great insight into the mind of Adams and Jefferson can be seen in their letters to one another around 1813.

So were Adams and Jefferson Christians in the "first sense" based on this information?

So I guess Joe's approach to Bahnsen is just like my approach to Tim LaHaye. Too bad, Bahnsen would do you guys good. (or is it just a vocabulary and unction issue?) B8

 Wesley, I am serious, are you going to answer my questions?

Based on that information, no, I don't think they were. And I might agree that Jefferson was not a Christian in "the first sense," I'm still not convinced about Adams though... Can you give me any data to support your conclusion? (So much for not being able to spend any time here...) ;-)

Bahnsen8:

So I guess Joe's approach to Bahnsen is just like my approach to Tim LaHaye. Too bad, Bahnsen would do you guys good. (or is it just a vocabulary and unction issue?) B8

It's certainly not a vocabulary or unction. I've plied though some of the toughest crap before.

It's just that when a movement or a theology has a definite beginning point -- a person or group of people who are known to have founded the thought -- that is significantly after the events of the Bible, I say guilty until proven otherwise. For example, you mentioned Tim LaHaye who is a big dispensationalist. Not only is dispensationalism refuted by Paul in the New Testament -- "there is neither Jew nor Greek" in Romans, Galatians and Colossians -- it has a definite beginning in popularity in America in the 1800s. I'll group Calvinism in there, too, because I believe Calvin would claw his eyes out because of what has been done in his name.

On top of that, the Spirit gives us discernment. And I get that same icky feeling concerning Bahnsen that I get when holding Mormon literature or walking into one of those crystal shops. While it's not a tangible and objective thing to say, I have to admit that it's what I sense.

I like my Bible the way I like my coffee -- black. Don't add anything. Leave out the -isms and doctrines that men with large vocabularies have brewed. The Pharisees were guilty -- and so are men like Bahnsen and LaHaye -- to add to Scripture things that were never there.

Oh, I bet Fluffy just "jumped over the moon" in excitement after reading Joe's last post! 

Joe Napalm:

Bahnsen8:

So I guess Joe's approach to Bahnsen is just like my approach to Tim LaHaye. Too bad, Bahnsen would do you guys good. (or is it just a vocabulary and unction issue?) B8

It's certainly not a vocabulary or unction. I've plied though some of the toughest crap before.

It's just that when a movement or a theology has a definite beginning point -- a person or group of people who are known to have founded the thought -- that is significantly after the events of the Bible, I say guilty until proven otherwise. For example, you mentioned Tim LaHaye who is a big dispensationalist. Not only is dispensationalism refuted by Paul in the New Testament -- "there is neither Jew nor Greek" in Romans, Galatians and Colossians -- it has a definite beginning in popularity in America in the 1800s. I'll group Calvinism in there, too, because I believe Calvin would claw his eyes out because of what has been done in his name.

On top of that, the Spirit gives us discernment. And I get that same icky feeling concerning Bahnsen that I get when holding Mormon literature or walking into one of those crystal shops. While it's not a tangible and objective thing to say, I have to admit that it's what I sense.

I like my Bible the way I like my coffee -- black. Don't add anything. Leave out the -isms and doctrines that men with large vocabularies have brewed. The Pharisees were guilty -- and so are men like Bahnsen and LaHaye -- to add to Scripture things that were never there.

Joe, I, like you, also avoid new movements and ideas that seem to spring up from nowhere. I view the writing and teaching of Bahnsen, Sproul and other modern reformed thinkers as a continuation of Paul, Augustine, Athanasius, Bernard of Clairvaux, Luther, Knox, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield, Cotton, and others, who simply stood on one another's shoulders over the years, continuing to be more and more molded into the patterns of God's Word. None were perfect. Only the Bible is perfect. And, your accusation regarding Bahnsen adding to the Scriptures: could you show me some examples of this horrible act in Bahnsen's writings or teachings? Sincerely, B8

No mention of Van Til, Rushdoony or North? Maybe just an oversight.

Anyway ... additions? Ah, yes. There is the total depravity of man as defined by hyper-Calvinists and Bahnsen. There is the "Older Covenant" and "Newer Covenant" that is extrabiblical and leads to false interpretation of the abolish-ment of the Mosaic covenant. The mistranslation of plerosai is false. He finds continuity between the Mosaic law and the Gospel which doesn't exist.

And there's more, but if you're a rock-solid Christian Reconstructionist bent on defending it, then I prefer to spend my time on more beneficial subjects.

jt400:

 Wesley, I am serious, are you going to answer my questions?

Based on that information, no, I don't think they were. And I might agree that Jefferson was not a Christian in "the first sense," I'm still not convinced about Adams though... Can you give me any data to support your conclusion? (So much for not being able to spend any time here...) ;-)

Yes, I am going to answer your question.  But it is going to be a process.

As for Adams, read carefully his words:

"The human understanding is a revelation from its maker which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no skepticism, incredulity, or infidelity here. No prophecies, no miracles are necessary to prove the celestial communication. This revelation had made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or prophecies might frighten us out of our wits, might scare us to death, might induce us to lie, to say that we believe that two and two make five, but we should not believe it; we should know the contrary.  Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it. The thunders and the lightnings and the earthquakes and the transcendent splendors and glories might have overwhelmed us with terror and amazement, but we could not have believed the doctrine. We should be more likely to say in our hearts—whatever we might say with our lips—“This is chance.  There is no God, no Truth. This is all delusion, fiction, and a lie, or it is all chance.... God has infinite wisdom, goodness, and power; he created the universe; his duration is eternal ... his presence is as extensive as space. It is said that he created this speck of dirt—the earth—and the human species for his glory. And then, the orthodox theologians say, he chose to make nine-tenths of our species miserable forever, for his greater glory.  Now, my friend Jefferson, can prophecies and miracles convince you or me that infinite benevolence, wisdom, and power created and preserves for a time, innumerable millions, only in the end to make them miserable forever, and for no other purpose than his own glory? Wretch! What is glory? Is he ambitious? Does he want promotion? Is he vain, tickled with adulation, exulting and triumphing in his power and the sweetness of his vengeance? Pardon me, my Maker, for these awful questions…but I believe no such thing. My adoration for the author of the universe is too profound, too sincere. The love of God and his creation—delight, joy, triumph, exultation in my own existence—are my religion.  The Calvinist, the Athanasian divines ... will say I am no Christian. I say they are no Christians, and there the account is balanced." (Adams to Jefferson, 1813)

Like I said, read his words carefully.  Adams was a man of reason and logic.  Also, evidence seems to show that he was part of the Unitarian crowd (which appears to be very popular during his time).  The movement of the Congregational churches to Unitarianism centered around the trinity and the infallibility of the Bible, both ideas the Unitarians denied.

WesleySonofCornelius:

Oh, I bet Fluffy just "jumped over the moon" in excitement after reading Joe's last post! 

Why? Cuz Joe said "Crap"?? He does that all the time!!

Joe Napalm:

No mention of Van Til, Rushdoony or North? Maybe just an oversight.

Interestingly, Cornelius Van Til spoke against his former student Rushdoony and son-in-law North:

"Then too I am frankly a little concerned about the political views of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and particularly if I am correctly informed about some of the views Gary North has with respect to the application of Old Testament principles to our day. My only point is that I would hope and expect that they would not claim that such views are inherent in the principles I hold."

Francis Schaeffer was also a student of Van Til.  Describing Schaeffer's view, J. Budziszewski writes:

"Presuppositionalists, he held, are right to assert that the ultimate premises of Christian and anti–Christian systems of thought are utterly at odds. On the other hand, evidentialists are right to assert that between Christian and anti–Christian systems of thought there is always a point of contact. The reason for this point of contact, he argued, is that nonbelievers cannot bring themselves to be completely consistent with their own presuppositions, and this inconsistency is a result of common grace. 'Thus, illogically,' he wrote, 'men have in their accepted worldviews various amounts of that which is ours. But, illogical though it may be, it is there and we can appeal to it.'"

With which I think Van Til might agree.  Rushdoony and North went "south" with Van Til's views; Van Til's views can be summarized as "both believer and unbeliever stand on common ground, but that ground is Christian ground. Thus, the apologetic task is not to move the unbeliever onto Christian ground, but to show him that he has been standing on Christian ground all along!"

And why is it Christian ground all along?  Because "through [His Son] also He created the world."  (Hebrews 1:2 ESV)

And as Nebuchadnezzar learned "the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom He will." (Daniel 4:32)  Therefore, we can echo this Babylonian king when he said: "for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, 'What have you done?'" (Daniel 4:34-35)

And this is the truth, we do not present Him a kingdom, but He presents us with a kingdom.

Three posts are a charm!

And as Fluffy alluded to in her opinion, if Liberty is truly a God-given right, no man or government can take it away from us.  This truth is proclaimed by the Apostle Paul when he wrote: "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty [freedom in ESV] which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." (Gal. 4:2 KJV)

And if our Liberty is truly in Christ Jesus, we cannot lose it!