8 Differences Between Covenanters and Reconstructionists – Purely Presbyterian |
8 Differences Between Covenanters, Reconstructionists, and Anarcho-Patriarchs |
|
The Patriarch Abraham obeyed God's Law:
No organized government had conquered Abraham and put him under tribute. There was no temple and no priesthood. Abraham lived in a state of "anarcho-capitalism." The Bible says that the desire for earthly archists like the nations around Abraham (Genesis 14) is a rejection of God Himself (1 Samuel 8). But Israel did reject God, and was an idolatrous harlot-wife, and led the world astray. We need to beat our "swords into plowshares" (Micah 4). During the 20th century, organized governments (earthly archists) killed hundreds of millions of human beings, enslaved billions, and stole or destroyed trillions of dollars of private property. It was violence like this, committed by "great men," "mighty men which were of old, men of renown" (Genesis 6:4), that outraged God so much that He destroyed the earth at the time of Noah, "for the earth is filled with violence through them") (Genesis 6:13). This is an important issue. James 1:27 says that pure religion is guarding the safety of widows and the fatherless. During my lifetime, "my" government has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant non-white civilians around the world. Instead of guarding widows, the U.S. government creates widows and then torments them. I would say that the major issue of our day is statism: worship of The State. It is idolatry. "The Sword" is a false god. This false god inevitably shows itself to be at war with God, the True King, the True Government, and always bans the Bible. Even the once-"Christian" USA has banned the Bible from government-run schools and other "public" institutions. Because the Bible is at war with the false gods of statism, civil governments inevitably ban the Bible, if they are consistent with their archist presupposition. If they become consistent with the Bible, they must go out of business as The State. Just as they would go out of business as the Mafia. |
||
| 1. National covenanting – This is where the name “Covenanter” comes from. Their belief is that a covenant must be made nationally acknowledging Jesus Christ as King and vowing to be God’s people while being lovingly obedient to his laws. This includes not working with evil nations and protecting the true Christian religion. Reconstructionists don’t think national covenanting is necessary or commanded in scripture. Some believe the U.S. Constitution is acceptable and there is no need for another covenant. | There is only one legitimate "nation"
1 Peter 29 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; This is a quotation from Exodus 19:6, where God addressed Israel, His chosen nation.All other "nations" or "kingdoms" are rivals to the Kingdom of God. They must be called to repent and "go out of business." "Covenanters" don't want earthly human rival governments to go out of business; they want governments to delude themselves into thinking they can "covenant" with God. Covenanters say they oppose "working with evil nations," but they want to work with every one of them to continue to exist, but to exist in some kind of "covenant" with God. But God has a government of His own. |
|
| 2. Establishment principle – Covenanters believe there should be a separation between church and state but there is some overlap and cooperation with each other. Reformed Presbyterianism must be the established religion of the nation, with the Westminster Standards as the subordinate authority over the church. Reconstructionists want an absolute separation but both are under the authority of God’s word. Some believe there should be no established religion and allow religious pluralism. Others are in favor of establishing Christianity as the national religion with no specific denomination or confession. | The Patriarch Abraham would be against the "separation of church and state" in our day, because that slogan really means "the separation of God and Government." It means the State can ignore the Law of God.
But Abraham would go further, and advocate the abolition of church and state. He would say we need to abolish both "Church" and "State." "Church" is a hold-over from the Levitical priesthood, which was abolished by Christ. There was no "church" or "State" in Abraham's day. That is our model today.
The Kingdom of God is patriarchs like Abraham exercising dominion over the earth. The State -- earthly human kingdoms -- is at war with this Kingdom. The "institutional church" is not a part of the Kingdom of God. Neither is the Mafia. Neither is the State. The Kingdom of God cannot be "established" by the Mafia or The State. |
|
| 3. Enforcement of both tables of the law – Covenanters uphold both tables of the law for punishing crime. This includes punishing idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, breaking of the Sabbath, etc. Reconstructionists believe in punishing only the second table of the law, except for blasphemy and some heresies and some idolatry depending on the individual. Joel McDurmon is against the civil government enforcing the first table of the law (commandments 1-4). Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony are examples of Reconstructionists who do not believe in the continuation of punishing violators of the weekly Sabbath (see The Economics of Sabbath-Keeping by North and The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1 by Rushdoony). Greg Bahnsen is an example of a Reconstructionist who believed in enforcement of both tables of the law, although he had no issues with images of Jesus. | There is no concept of "capital punishment" in the Bible, when seen as an arm of "the State." What the Bible talks about (in verses misused to support "capital punishment" in our day) is the ritual shedding of blood to cleanse the land (Hebrew, כָּפַר kaphar, make atonement, Strong's #3722). See some of these verses here. Why was it necessary to shed blood under the Old Covenant? Why is it not necessary -- indeed, why is it forbidden -- to obey these verses literally and shed blood in our day?
A Theonomic Argument Against Capital Punishment If you reject the analysis in that essay, and believe blood must still be shed even after Christ shed His blood, where does the Bible say that a patriarch like Abraham cannot obey these laws, and must ask one of the ungodly governments around him (Genesis 14) to shed the blood for him? No such verse exists. No legitimate monopoly of violence exists on planet earth today. |
|
The Myth of the "Two Tables"This "two tables" paradigm is a bogus "two kingdoms" idea with no Scriptural support. First, the most recent scholarship contends that the "two tables" are two copies of the covenant, one for God and one for man. The Two Tables of the Covenant: Meredith Kline Second, even if this theory isn't correct, there is simply not a shred of evidence in the Bible to divide the law into two separate water-tight compartments. Notice Exodus 32:15
If Kline is incorrect, and the two tables were not two identical copies, then the 10 commandments were written on four sides of two tablets. The Bible says nothing to divide these four sides into two separate categories, one for "church" and the other for "state." How do we know that there weren't three commandments on "page one." three commandments on "page two," three commandments on "page three," and one commandment left over on "page four?" The "two tables" theory is a pawn of "two kingdoms" theology, which is completely unbiblical. Even Christian nationalists of the past didn't put this idea into practice: the "civil government" enforced the "first table": How The Second Commandment was Applied in Early American Law
The Ten Commandments and American Law: Response to Marci Hamilton The First Commandment is radically State-centered, not "worship" centered.
If the civil government is supposed to enforce the "second table," how does the civil government enforce the 10th commandment against coveting? How does the civil government know if I'm coveting? Where does the Bible set forth a civil punishment for coveting? The whole "two tables" theory breaks down when analyzed closely. It sounds good and pious, but it's not actually in the Bible. There are a lot of theories which "sound good" because we've heard them repeated so often. They're bogus. |
||
| 4. Regulative Principle of Worship – Covenanters hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) strictly. This is the guideline for corporate, family and private worship. That includes Exclusive Psalmody, no instruments, and rejecting all religious holidays except for the Sabbath. Reconstructionists are not as strict on the regulative principle. It is acceptable to sing uninspired songs, use instruments, and allow the celebration of various religious holidays. | I don't believe in "worship." "Worship" is a hold-over from Levitical ceremonies in the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant, worship means obedience to God's Law by Patriarchs in every area of life. Worship means service, not liturgy.
The idea that in our Sunday morning liturgies we cannot use musical instruments or sing any songs made with words other than the words of the Psalms (not even the words of the New Testament) strikes me as bizarre. Do Covenanters allow people to clap their hands during the "worship service?" Can I clap my hands in rhythm with the singing? If I am sitting down, may I slap my thighs with my hands in rhythm with the singing? Am I allowed to slap my chair or the pew with my hands? Is this "drumming?" Have I turned the pew into an "instrument?" Is that a sinful violation of something in Scripture? Really? This line of thinking is cultic. Can a preacher use his own words in a sermon? Or must he quote only Scripture? Or only the Psalms? While preaching, can a preacher use vocal inflection, or must he use a perfect monotone? Can he use too much vocal inflection? What if he uses so much vocal inflection that it sounds like singing? Is he then instantly under a moral obligation to stop preaching and quote only words from the Psalms, or else go back to a monotone? Can the congregation say "Amen" or "That's right" while the Preacher preaches? Can the "That's right" be sung? But "That's right" is not in the Psalms, so it shouldn't be sung -- or spoken with too much inflection. |
|
Is this a "song" or a "sermon?" |
||
| Instruments aside, was that "preaching" or "singing?" Where does the Scripture delineate the difference between "preaching a sermon" (which can consist entirely of the uninspired words of man) and "singing a song" (which cannot be a song using the words of man, but must be Scripture, and not all parts of the Word of God, but Psalms exclusively)?
Listen to this preacher. Listen to the phrase "You oughta thank Him for keeping you!" (@ 2:13) Did he just SING that phrase? If that was singing, shouldn't he have quoted the Psalms exclusively in his singing, er, sermon? (Never mind that this church uses "instruments" -- what if all the music in the background of this sermon was created exclusively by human singing a cappella? [The phrase "a cappella" is Italian for "in the manner of the chapel." Italian? Chapel? Is "exclusive a capella Psalmody" some kind of insidious "rapprochement with Rome?"]) This whole line of thinking is cultic. |
||
| 5. Eschatology – Generally, Covenanters are historicist classical Postmillennialists and Reconstructionists are partial-preterist Postmillennialists (see also 7 Differences Between Partial Preterist and Historicist Postmillennialism). |
I don't believe in "eschatology." The word "eschatology" comes from the Greek word ἔσχατος (eschatos), meaning "last," as in
The writers of the New Testament could not have been clearer: they were living in the "last days," the "last times," the "last hour." They were living in the "eschaton." They were living at the end of the Old Covenant. There isn't a single verse in the New Testament which says that the eschaton would begin thousands of years in the future. We are no longer in "the last times." We are in The Beginning Times. I guess I'm not a "partial preterist postmillennialist," but just a "preterist." I believe the Messiah came in the past, and now reigns, and our job is to beat our swords into plowshares. |
|
| 6. Two-Kingdoms – Covenanters have a historical Two-Kingdom theology view. God has always been King over the entire creation but specifically Christ rules over the church as it was given to him in his humanity for his mediatorial dominion. Reconstructionists have a Kuyperian, one-kingdom view of the kingdom of God. | Two Kingdoms? This idea is heretical.
The Covenanters' "Two Kingdoms" A website under construction here: |
|
| 7. Political Dissent – Covenanters practice political dissent. This means that if the government is wicked, we must not participate in voting, military involvement, hold political office, or any other action that will require an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the ungodly U.S. Constitution. Reconstructionists do not practice political dissent but political involvement. Christians must vote and hold political office in order to bring a reformation to the wicked government. | Too many Christians -- as well as Reconstructionists -- do not realize that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Christians cannot hold public office, or any job (like public school teacher) which requires an oath to "support the Constitution." This is not the fault of the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified by 13 Christian Theocracies, and was never intended to turn a Christian nation into a nation committed to the Religion of Secular Humanism. I studied Constitutional Law and passed the California Bar Exam, but was denied a license to practice law because of this shift from Christianity to secularism.
Can a Christian Be a Politician? Other than that, I see no reason why an anarchist could not run for office in order to abolish the office and the surrounding government. Someone needs to be the last person to turn out the lights. I agree with voting as "self-defense." We should vote against tax increases, floating bonds for atheistic schools, and other injustices, if we have that opportunity. |
|
| So I see "Covenanters" as a strange cult, not following the Bible, but following human creeds and confessions. | ||
| No Christian is a "Christian Nationalist" | ||