I just realized VP & CLP are christian reconstructionist

[Rebecca77]

Just needed to acknowledge that for some reason. I'm not intelligent enough to explain, or debate it.

 

Reading a review of Streams of Civilization ll on Amazon is what opened my eyes, and started my research.

 

And I was concerned about the Hakim books. Geesh:tongue_smilie:

 

Again, not wanting to stir anything up, I still plan on using the VP cards. I also use BJU even though I don't believe in some of their theology.

 

This was just quite eye opening for me, and very interesting to say the least.

[OnTheBrink]

What does reconstructionist mean? I've never used VP or CLP (well, other than VP cards with other history programs). I've considered their Omnibus for high school, though.

[JudoMom]

What does reconstructionist mean? I've never used VP or CLP (well, other than VP cards with other history programs). I've considered their Omnibus for high school, though.

 

According to Wiki...

[Heather in VA]

While I think it's impossible to use Omnibus secularly, we use it and are not Christian reconstructionists. I have had no problems doing so. We are evangelical Christians. The essay/summa questions and discussion points are open enough that you can easily interpret them with your own perspective on beliefs. For example, recently my daughter wrote an essay asking whether a Christian can have a bigger impact on society by working to force a change in the structure of the government (which would then enforce Christian beliefs) or by focusing on affecting the individuals around them and thereby making change in society through the individual. If you are a Christian reconstructionist (if I understand it correctly) your goal in affecting society will be different than an evangelical Christian but this is still an answerable question and interesting discussion no matter your view. My daughter took the approach of spreading the Gospel and compared it with a faith of a mustard seed growing and spreading from one individual with faith and compared that to the completely ineffectual idea of forcing faith from government.

 

There was nothing in Omnibus that prevented us from using it in this way and the answers provided in the TM are more broad, allowing a variety of perspectives. And when it comes down to it, the answers in the TM are guides - they are discussion questions so nothing is requiring you to agree with the answer in the first place. The comprehension questions are straight-forward and non-theological. We do skip books like Chosen By God because the book itself doesn't fit with our beliefs but that was in Omni 1. We've done them all in Omni 3.

 

Heather

[LAmom]

What gave you that impression? I know they are both reformed/calvinists, etc., as am I. I am not into the theonomy, etc., and full christian reconstructionists do have extreme views that I don't agree with. I am not here to debate either--just wondering what you read that gave you that impression, and how it would be shown in lessons/books. I don't personally know much about either CLP or VP but many of my reformed friends use it.

[Medieval Mom]

Let's clarify for others that CLP refers to Christian Liberty Press and NOT Christian Light Publications (who are Mennonites selling Christian Light Education curricula at clp.org) :D

 

P.S. Yes, their viewpoints are such that I just couldn't make the leap to use VP materials.... I don't know why it bothers me, frankly. We're not Mennonite, and have no problem using CLE and R&S. Perhaps it's that Mennonite is closer to my own beliefs and are pacifists :)

[Delighted3]

I know what is meant by reformed/calvinist, but I am still confused by the term christian reconstructionist. What exactly does that mean in laymans terms please :001_smile:?

Thanks,

Joy

[TracyP]

Let's clarify for others that CLP refers to Christian Liberty Press and NOT Christian Light Publications (who are Mennonites selling Christian Light Education curricula at clp.org) :D

 

 

Thanks for this, I was just about to start searching. I don't need anything else to "look into":tongue_smilie:

[Donna T.]

What does reconstructionist mean?

 

 

 

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/notes_on.htm

 

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/dominion.htm

[Heather in VA]

What gave you that impression? I know they are both reformed/calvinists, etc., as am I. I am not into the theonomy, etc., and full christian reconstructionists do have extreme views that I don't agree with. I am not here to debate either--just wondering what you read that gave you that impression, and how it would be shown in lessons/books. I don't personally know much about either CLP or VP but many of my reformed friends use it.

 

I can not speak to CLP but this is something I have heard about VP several times but never from any primary source. I have kept my eyes opened as we've used their products but I haven't seen any confirmation in the curriculum itself.

 

Heather

[Donna T.]

I know what is meant by reformed/calvinist, but I am still confused by the term christian reconstructionist. What exactly does that mean in laymans terms please :001_smile:?

Thanks,

Joy

 

Christian reconstructionists believe the Church must take Dominion of the Earth and thus cleanse all spheres of society through the so-called Noahide Laws before the Lord Jesus Christ will Return. They believe the Church will deliver the Kingdom to the Lord, rather than the Lord bringing the Kingdom to the Church. That's it in a nutshell.

[Heather in WI]

What do you base this on? I've never heard this claim before.

 

Reformed or even Calvinism alone does not equal Christian Reconstructionism.

[Rebecca77]

Maybe my conclusions about VP are presumptuous. I guess the connection with Doug Wilson and all the CLP books they use made me assume.

[Jami]

Maybe my conclusions about VP are presumptuous. I guess the connection with Doug Wilson and all the CLP books they use made me assume.

 

 

Probably should supply actual quotes, statements, etc. if you're going to label people.

 

One can hold to a postmillienial and/or preterist eschatology and be well within the bounds of orthodoxy, perhaps more than pre-mill/pre-trib if you look at church history in general.

[cajun.classical]

Probably should supply actual quotes, statements, etc. if you're going to label people.

 

One can hold to a postmillienial and/or preterist eschatology and be well within the bounds of orthodoxy, perhaps more than pre-mill/pre-trib if you look at church history in general.

 

Furthermore, the Omnibus books are written by many different authors--who do not all share the same theological perspectives.

Edited April 22, 2010 by cajun.classical

[Heather in VA]

Furthermore, the Omnibus books are written by many different authors--who do not all share the same theological perspectives.

 

This is very true and I think it is this very reason that I have never found any of the rumored VP theology in evidence in Omnibus nor have I had any trouble using it even though I am not a strict Calvinist.

 

Heather

[Mrs Mungo]

Maybe my conclusions about VP are presumptuous. I guess the connection with Doug Wilson and all the CLP books they use made me assume.

 

Well, I do think they present history as providential, but so does Abeka. It is in how they frame things. The extermination of the Native Americans was inevitable and according God's plan, etc. I would never be able to use Omnibus because I find this perspective offensive.

 

Look at the way they describe some books:

http://www.veritaspress.com/prodinfo.asp?number=473375

Unlike most historical fiction these works seek to view major events in US history from a biblical worldview. Pastor Doyle recounts time and again the providential care our faithful creator doled out to us during our ancestors fight to establish a land of freedom.

http://www.veritaspress.com/prodinfo.asp?number=280630

Albert Einstein rated him as an all-time great scientist-up there with Galileo and Newton. He was the father of the electric motor, transformer and generator not to mention his numerous discoveries and improvements. He served as an elder in a small London church and provides a great example of how to take dominion of God's creation.

eta: I think this can be very subtle. For example, in one of Abeka's history books it says something like: as settlers were expanding westward, they started killing off so many buffalo that Native Americans had to start farming (I don't have the exact quote, this is strictly from memory). This is several untruths wrapped into one sentence. There were *lots* of different groups of Native Americans, many of whom were farming long before European colonists touched the shores of what is now the United States. It wasn't colonists killing off the buffalo, there was a concentrated government effort to wipe out the buffalo with *the intent* of exterminating Native Americans. Edited April 22, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Rebecca77]

Oh dear, wish I'd never started this. I guess I have no solid proof. It was the review for Streams of Civilization ll on Amazon that started this. And then googling Doug Wilson. So I guess I assumed guilt by association. So I'm so sorry I labled them based on my assumptions. Would love to be proved wrong.

[LauraQ]

I can not speak to CLP but this is something I have heard about VP several times but never from any primary source. I have kept my eyes opened as we've used their products but I haven't seen any confirmation in the curriculum itself.

 

Heather

 

I haven't seen this so far (halfway through Omnibus I w/dd) either. The material is decidedly Reformed (we are not-we are Lutheran) so I often do not agree with the TG answers in some sessions, and we have skipped or will skip books (Chosen by God), I just don't see that they are extreme enough to be referred to as Reconstructionist. Maybe it's in there, but it's only contained in the answers we reject for reasons of them being Reformed, so that I don't read them closely enough to see the Reconstructionism in them as well. Even if VP is, I still think their material is quite usable for those who aren't.

[Delighted3]

Christian reconstructionists believe the Church must take Dominion of the Earth and thus cleanse all spheres of society through the so-called Noahide Laws before the Lord Jesus Christ will Return. They believe the Church will deliver the Kingdom to the Lord, rather than the Lord bringing the Kingdom to the Church. That's it in a nutshell.

 

 

I find it interesting that believing the Church will deliver the kingdom to the Lord instead of the other way around is connected to reformed/calvinist theology since we believe God preordained and predestined. The two seem to be at odds with other.

 

That aside though, I belong to a reformed church that is part of the United Reformed Churches and I have never heard this taught and have been a part of another reformed church government where this was not taught either. Also, as someone who considers her theology to be reformed, I do not consider CLP to be reformed, but more baptist in theology.

 

I guess my point to the original poster is this: Even though I don't know anything about christian reconstructionism (and being reformed/calvinist for half my life, you would think that I would if it were indeed a reformed/calvinist thing that all reformed/calvinists believed ;)), you should probably research it a little more before condemning 2 well known and well liked curriculums with a negative label.

JMHO,

Joy

[Delighted3]

Oh dear, wish I'd never started this. I guess I have no solid proof. It was the review for Streams of Civilization ll on Amazon that started this. And then googling Doug Wilson. So I guess I assumed guilt by association. So I'm so sorry I labled them based on my assumptions. Would love to be proved wrong.

 

I am sorry, you must have posted this while I was writing my previous post and I didn't see it. I am glad you brought this topic up because I am interested in learning more about christian reconstructionism and how it fits in with reformed theology.

Joy

[angela in ohio]

I never let my students cite Wikipedia.

[angela in ohio]

Maybe my conclusions about VP are presumptuous. I guess the connection with Doug Wilson and all the CLP books they use made me assume.

 

Doug Wilson and Logos School have influenced many schools in the Classical Christian movement. You will find his books recommended by many of them.

 

SWB recommends R&S; does that make her Mennonite? ;)

[Heather in VA]

I haven't seen this so far (halfway through Omnibus I w/dd) either. The material is decidedly Reformed (we are not-we are Lutheran) so I often do not agree with the TG answers in some sessions, and we have skipped or will skip books (Chosen by God), I just don't see that they are extreme enough to be referred to as Reconstructionist. Maybe it's in there, but it's only contained in the answers we reject for reasons of them being Reformed, so that I don't read them closely enough to see the Reconstructionism in them as well. Even if VP is, I still think their material is quite usable for those who aren't.

 

Yep - that's exactly what we are seeing. It is not the same as using a science program that is at odds with your beliefs and having to change the tests so you child doesn't have to memorize answers you don't agree with. Omnibus is a discussion curriculum and you control the discussion. The books linked to above are in their catalog but are not part of any of their core curriculum. Those descriptions are not representative of what the curriculum teaches or requires for usability. I understand if someone chooses not to use a curriculum because they disagree with their beliefs, but for anyone who wishes to use it but is concerned that they will be forced to agree with beliefs.. that isn't the case with the VP products I've used.

 

Heather

[Mommyfaithe]

While I think it's impossible to use Omnibus secularly, we use it and are not Christian reconstructionists. I have had no problems doing so. We are evangelical Christians. The essay/summa questions and discussion points are open enough that you can easily interpret them with your own perspective on beliefs. For example, recently my daughter wrote an essay asking whether a Christian can have a bigger impact on society by working to force a change in the structure of the government (which would then enforce Christian beliefs) or by focusing on affecting the individuals around them and thereby making change in society through the individual. If you are a Christian reconstructionist (if I understand it correctly) your goal in affecting society will be different than an evangelical Christian but this is still an answerable question and interesting discussion no matter your view. My daughter took the approach of spreading the Gospel and compared it with a faith of a mustard seed growing and spreading from one individual with faith and compared that to the completely ineffectual idea of forcing faith from government.

 

There was nothing in Omnibus that prevented us from using it in this way and the answers provided in the TM are more broad, allowing a variety of perspectives. And when it comes down to it, the answers in the TM are guides - they are discussion questions so nothing is requiring you to agree with the answer in the first place. The comprehension questions are straight-forward and non-theological. We do skip books like Chosen By God because the book itself doesn't fit with our beliefs but that was in Omni 1. We've done them all in Omni 3.

 

Heather

 

:iagree:

I am not a reforemed Christian nor a reconstructionist...but we were able to use Omnibus 1-3 with my kids in 7-9th grades.

 

~~Faithe

[Donna A.]

Certainly, using books from these publishers doesn't automatically make one a reconstructionist. Lots of curriculum providers use books from CLP, and many of the same books that VP uses as well.

 

And FTR, many of CLP's books are just reprints of old books written 100 or more years ago. ;)

 

That includes Streams, of which Volume 1 was actually the combined work of Dr. Albert Hyma, Professor of History at University of Michigan, and Dr. Mary Stanton, an archeologist, anthropologist, educator, and historian. They have both taught in both public and private schools and were striving for a history text that was relatively unbiased that could be used in public schools.

 

Also contributing to Streams Vol. 1 was Polly Hutchinson, a history teacher in public schools. Some sections of this volume were written by Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research. Eventually published, but not written, by CLP.

 

The text of Volume 2 was originally written by Robert G. Clouse and Richard V. Pierard and edited by Mott Media. Then there were editing and revisions made by others, and eventually, by Michael McHugh of CLP.

 

I also think there are varying perspectives on exactly what makes one a "reconstructionist". I could be accused of being a reconstructionist if I choose to recycle and buy a Smart Car, kwim? There are *extreme* reconstructionists (this is sometimes known as Dominion Theology), and then there are Christians who simply want to be good stewards and use biblical principles in all areas of society -- financial, political, familial, educational, the local community..... It seems as if the Christian who's concerned that the government is going to take away our homeschooling and parental rights is seen as somewhat of a reconstructionist, and are told that we shouldn't bother getting involved in politics at all. :glare:

 

Much of it is just opinion, personal preference, or even biblical conviction, but I grow weary of the accusations.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yep - that's exactly what we are seeing. It is not the same as using a science program that is at odds with your beliefs and having to change the tests so you child doesn't have to memorize answers you don't agree with. Omnibus is a discussion curriculum and you control the discussion. The books linked to above are in their catalog but are not part of any of their core curriculum. Those descriptions are not representative of what the curriculum teaches or requires for usability. I understand if someone chooses not to use a curriculum because they disagree with their beliefs, but for anyone who wishes to use it but is concerned that they will be forced to agree with beliefs.. that isn't the case with the VP products I've used.

 

Heather

 

Again, I think these views are often very subtle in the way they are presented. I would have a very hard time using any curriculum put together by a group that held a providential and/or dominionist view of history. I think the question presented was-does VP hold these views? I believe the links that I gave show that they do, generally speaking. You could use *any* text as a point of discussion, that doesn't make it the best fit for someone who does not hold those views.

[Jami]

Again, I think these views are often very subtle in the way they are presented. I would have a very hard time using any curriculum put together by a group that held a providential and/or dominionist view of history. I think the question presented was-does VP hold these views? I believe the links that I gave show that they do, generally speaking. You could use *any* text as a point of discussion, that doesn't make it the best fit for someone who does not hold those views.

 

 

But the way those words are used varies. I hold to a dominion view of creation. I believe Adam was created, placed in the garden, and told that he was to care for it, to rule over it, to have dominion. Also called the Creation Mandate. That's not the same as "Dominion" theology.

 

I believe that God providentially rules over all nations, over all history. That he places kings on thrones. I don't believe that America is some sort of extra special part of his plan, and I've never seen evidence that those that run VP do either. They don't carry Peter Marshall's books for example.

 

So "dominion" and "providential" are not clear terms. In this thread there are so many assumptions flying without clear definitions.

[Donna A.]

I find it interesting that believing the Church will deliver the kingdom to the Lord instead of the other way around is connected to reformed/calvinist theology since we believe God preordained and predestined. The two seem to be at odds with other.

 

Ditto, but believe it or not, there are groups out there who do believe this. I don't get it, either. (We're Reformed, btw. Reformed Baptist, but were in a Presby church for a while, and at one time, we didn't consider ourselves Reformed at all because that was a bad word where we were for many years prior to that. So I've been on both sides of this camp.)

 

Also, as someone who considers her theology to be reformed, I do not consider CLP to be reformed, but more baptist in theology.

Well, CLP is definitely NOT Baptist in any way, shape or form! They're Presbyterian... Paedobaptist and (I believe) Postmillenial or perhaps even Amillenial.

 

I guess my point to the original poster is this: Even though I don't know anything about christian reconstructionism (and being reformed/calvinist for half my life, you would think that I would if it were indeed a reformed/calvinist thing that all reformed/calvinists believed ;)), you should probably research it a little more before condemning 2 well known and well liked curriculums with a negative label.

JMHO,

Joy

Agree with this. :)

[Donna A.]

I never let my students cite Wikipedia.

 

Indeed. In fact, the Wiki article that was linked clumps a whole lot of different terms into one group and calls it "Christian Reconstruction". That just simply isn't accurate.

[Delighted3]

 

Well, I stand corrected :) They are definitely reformed. I even got this off their website. "As a ministry of the Church of Christian Liberty, we are rooted in the Reformed tradition, as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith." Interesting stuff.

Joy

[LAmom]

Well, I stand corrected :) They are definitely reformed. I even got this off their website. "As a ministry of the Church of Christian Liberty, we are rooted in the Reformed tradition, as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith." Interesting stuff.

Joy

 

I have no idea about CLP, but there is such a thing as Reformed Baptists. Simply the same as reformed but a different view on baptism. Maybe that is the confusion?

[LAmom]

Oh, but I see that someone mentioned they are paedobaptists....nevermind if so! :)

[LAmom]

They believe the Church will deliver the Kingdom to the Lord, rather than the Lord bringing the Kingdom to the Church. That's it in a nutshell.

 

This confuses me. :confused: Why is the Lord separated from the church? He is the Church. I have so many questions from this discussion. Good thing my husband is a theology nerd/pastor. :) My head is starting to spin.

 

I do agree that we need to be careful with wording. I believe that Adam (humans) were called to have dominion...though have a feeling that the Dominion Mandate has a different meaning from what I believe. And for people to say that God has not had all the control (all part of His plan) over everything that has happened in history blows my mind. But, again, the original poster did not want to start a debate....but did open my eyes to see that I have a lot more learning to do!!

 

OK. I will go back to discussing homeschooling and save this stuff for a theological forum. Puritanboard is a good one if you like discussions....;)

[LAmom]

This confuses me. :confused: Why is the Lord separated from the church? He is the Church.

 

I guess I should say Head of the church..we are the body. You know, bridegroom and bride.

[Donna A.]

Yes, that's what I said. CLP *is* Reformed. They're Presbyterian. Paedobaptist. Not Baptist. Not even Reformed Baptist. :lol:

 

And FTR, not all Reformed Baptists hold to the same view of eschatology, either. ;)

 

Oh, and before anybody says anything..... being Reformed does NOT automatically equal "not evangelical and don't do or support missions." :D

[LAmom]

Yes, that's what I said. CLP *is* Reformed. They're Presbyterian. Paedobaptist. Not Baptist. Not even Reformed Baptist. :lol:

 

And FTR, not all Reformed Baptists hold to the same view of eschatology, either. ;)

 

Oh, and before anybody says anything..... being Reformed does NOT automatically equal "not evangelical and don't do or support missions." :D

 

 

Not all Reformed hold to the same eschatological view either. Lots of amils amongst postmils.

 

Missions? What? :lol:

[Donna A.]

Not all Reformed hold to the same eschatological view either. Lots of amils amongst postmils.

 

Missions? What? :lol:

 

:lol:

[justamouse]

Again, I think these views are often very subtle in the way they are presented.

 

Very, very true. So subtle. I got sick of fine tooth combing it and just ditched it all together. Shame, that, because I think the idea of the Omnibus is fantastic. Esp for homeschoolers in their first years.

[Daisy]

Agreeing with what others have stated. I'm very much Reformed in my theology but do not hold to a reconstructionist viewpoint.

 

There really is a lot of stuff like that floating around in the home school movement though. I see it frequently in my home school group. It worries me especially with all the strong rhetoric going on about politics and revolutions lately. Some in the christian community are embracing this mentality so much they are basically foaming at the mouth for the next Crusade.

 

While I do believe the curriculum groups carry some materials that would be considered reconstructionist I'm not going to paint every component of the curriculum with the same broad stroke. Knowledge about what you believe based on Scripture is always the best defense against faulty thinking.

 

Doug Wilson's own blog (Blog and Mablog) have convinced me enough of his viewpoints that I won't buy his materials.

 

There are a lot of assumptions about what Reformed actually means. I encourage you to seek out information about Calvinism, TULIP, and the five solas. Views on infant baptism, eschatology, views of history, cessation of the gifts, etc. are all secondary doctrines that will vary by individual denominations and individual people.

[ScoutTN]

I am a reformed, Presbyterian Christian. When I was in seminary in the early 90s, theonomy (Christian reconstruction) was a major issue. I found the labels and unclear/dissimilar use of theological terms in many conversations confusing so I decided to study the subject for myself. I commend this path to anyone with serious interest or concerns. N.B. - This is not light reading!

 

Authors to read:

R.J. Rushdoony - the founder of Christian Reconstruction theology.

Gary North

Gary Demar

Greg Bahnsen

 

Also Credenda Agenda magazine (only online now?) for Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart and others. This will be shorter and esier reading than the above authors.

 

I have not read the Omnibus materials and cannot speak to the theological viewpoints expressed in the TG. VP is on the conservative end of the reformed spectrum, for sure, but they have great materials and are an excellent resource for many Christians parents and teachers.

 

Mention was made above of R.C. Sproul's book Chosen by God. Sproul is reformed but definitely not a theonomist. He is a wonderful teacher. Listen to his radio program, Renewing Your Mind if you're interested. R.C. Jr. is more conservative/reactionary than his father, I think. At least in his views on education.

 

With regard to the comments about reformed and baptist labels, yes one can be reformed and baptist. (Though not all my Reformed friends would agree!) I think many people are reformed/calvinist in their soteriology (doctrine of salvation) but not covenantal in their view of baptism. John Piper is an excellent example.

 

Best readable book on reformed theology is Michael Horton's

Putting Amazing Back Into Grace.

 

I agree with the others that the wiki article cited above is not carefully researched or written. Surprise, surprise! ;)

[FordFamily]

i see some links but has anyone explained what this is?

Edited April 22, 2010 by FordFamily
found links...

[Rebecca77]

I have no problem with reformed doctrine. I've been reformed for almost 10 years now. It's the dominion theology of reconstructionism that stems from a postmillenial view of the end times that I'm concerned about.

 

I can't believe I started this thread, I guess something in me was just so sure, and I just felt the urge to get the info out there. But, it was very imature, and careless of me, and again I really do apologize.

[ScoutTN]

i see some links but has anyone explained what this is?

 

As in the post just above, it is a very extreme form of reformed postmillenialism.

They think that the Old Testament civil law is still binding today and much of their writing is an application of that to American history and political theory. They tend to have strong overall emphasis on law and less on grace. Though they would deny that most fervently!

 

You may hear people referred to as "TR" or "truly reformed" which is a dig at their attitude or the way they often come across. Some popele hold to the applications that theonomic teachers make without actually holding to the technical views. For instance, someone might read, believe and apply the ideas from Doug Wilson's books on marriage without actually believing in Christian reconstruction.

 

Most Christians today hold that the OT moral law (e.g. the 10 Commandments) is always applicable and that the ceremonial laws no longer apply because Christ fulfilled them. The civil law applied to Israel as a theocracy which was unique expression of God's relationship with his people that no longer exists so by definition, the civil law is abrogated. We can learn from and apply the "general equity" or the principles of the ceremonial and civil law today so they are not irrelevant or unnecessary and still the Word of God. But this is not what Christian reconstructionists believe.

 

Not sure if that helps or just adds to the murk! ;)

Edited April 22, 2010 by ScoutTN

[Mrs Mungo]

But the way those words are used varies. I hold to a dominion view of creation. I believe Adam was created, placed in the garden, and told that he was to care for it, to rule over it, to have dominion. Also called the Creation Mandate. That's not the same as "Dominion" theology.

 

I believe that God providentially rules over all nations, over all history. That he places kings on thrones. I don't believe that America is some sort of extra special part of his plan, and I've never seen evidence that those that run VP do either. They don't carry Peter Marshall's books for example.

 

I don't believe everything that happens on earth is according to God's will. God may *use* whatever happens for a greater purpose but I don't think everything is His will. Some texts *clearly* believe that everything that happens is God's will, and when I talk about providential history, I'm talking about that philosophy. I once walked out of a Thanksgiving service in which the pastor quoted from William Bradford in what *I* felt was an extremely insensitive and offensive manner.

 

So "dominion" and "providential" are not clear terms. In this thread there are so many assumptions flying without clear definitions.

 

I agree that we're working without clear definitions, not everyone really agrees on what these terms mean. I *disagree* that everyone is making assumptions. I'm making a determination because I've personally read many of these materials.

[Jami]

I don't believe everything that happens on earth is according to God's will. God may *use* whatever happens for a greater purpose but I don't think everything is His will. Some texts *clearly* believe that everything that happens is God's will, and when I talk about providential history, I'm talking about that philosophy. I once walked out of a Thanksgiving service in which the pastor quoted from William Bradford in what *I* felt was an extremely insensitive and offensive manner.

 

 

 

I agree that we're working without clear definitions, not everyone really agrees on what these terms mean. I *disagree* that everyone is making assumptions. I'm making a determination because I've personally read many of these materials.

 

But the definitions I gave for those terms, coming from the quotes you used, are common within Reformed theology. It's quite fine that you're not Reformed, but Veritas Press has never tried to say it is not Reformed. There is no reason for Omnibus to be "subtle" in looking at history from this perspective. Anymore than Kolbe or MODG has to attempt to somehow hide their Catholic perspective, or R&S be "subtle" in writing from an Anabaptist perspective. I could care less if people use CLP, read Doug Wilson or use Omnibus. Honestly. :) But being Reformed, outwardly so, is not something they should have to hide in their materials. Others can just choose not to use those resources. And believing in dominion and providential history does not mean some sort of fringe theology that the OP seemed to assume and that Donna T was happy to provide links for, as though the label of Reconstructionist had been securely attached and defined.

 

I always get the feeling that people take it personally that Omnibus is not secular or xyz theology because they like the look of it and wish they could use it. It's okay for people to write boldly from their worldview, if it doesn't fit the way I understand the Bible (I wouldn't use Abeka, BJU, R&S Bible programs for example), then that's okay. It's not that they're trying to sneak things by me or leave me out.

[Mrs Mungo]

But the definitions I gave for those terms, coming from the quotes you used, are common within Reformed theology. It's quite fine that you're not Reformed, but Veritas Press has never tried to say it is not Reformed. There is no reason for Omnibus to be "subtle" in looking at history from this perspective. Anymore than Kolbe or MODG has to attempt to somehow hide their Catholic perspective, or R&S be "subtle" in writing from an Anabaptist perspective. I could care less if people use CLP, read Doug Wilson or use Omnibus. Honestly. :) But being Reformed, outwardly so, is not something they should have to hide in their materials. Others can just choose not to use those resources. And believing in dominion and providential history does not mean some sort of fringe theology that the OP seemed to assume and that Donna T was happy to provide links for, as though the label of Reconstructionist had been securely attached and defined.

 

I always get the feeling that people take it personally that Omnibus is not secular or xyz theology because they like the look of it and wish they could use it. It's okay for people to write boldly from their worldview, if it doesn't fit the way I understand the Bible (I wouldn't use Abeka, BJU, R&S Bible programs for example), then that's okay. It's not that they're trying to sneak things by me or leave me out.

 

I don't take anything "personally," VP can use whatever philosophy they wish. The OP seemed to be seeking an answer to the question: "can I use these materials, even if I do not subscribe to these philosophies?" Some people in this thread have claimed that you can. I would strongly disagree with that notion for the reasons I stated.

 

eta: When someone says "hey, I'm a conservative Christian Republican, would Howard Zinn work for us?" I say "no, probably not." I don't say "oh, anyone could use it for great discussions!" Or "geez, why take it so personally that he has a progressive philosophy? Gosh!" That's silly. Would it work? No! End of discussion. This is the same thing.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Mrs Mungo