There is a tremendous difference between saying, “Islam is not an external threat IN the United States” as opposed to saying, “Islam is not an external threat TO the United States” as you have Horton saying. In other words, Horton is saying, Islam is not in any way an external threat to Christianity in the U.S. If you are under the impression Islam is a threat to Christianity, then I would have to wonder who you think is in charge? In other words, if it is Christ who is advancing His Kingdom, then how can Islam, or anything else be a threat to this advancement? The bottom line here is though, Horton does not say anything, “about Islam not being an external threat to the US” as you have him saying. Therefore, one is not reading very carefully. Or are they are being less than honest about what was actually said?
This sort of reminds me of when Paul said,
“For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?”
So then, it does not seem as if Paul was concerned with the behavior of those outside the Church. Rather, his concern seems to be with those inside. Just before Paul said this, he had this to say,
Again, where is the focus? Is it with the culture war? My point is, maybe it is time for the Chruch to focus upon those who name the Name of Christ, instead upon those who do not? In this way, instead of the Church boycotting the likes of Disney World, who does not name the Name of Christ, we would instead boycott those ministries who do name the Name of Christ who are preaching a false Gospel forbidding any of our members from supporting such ministries. If this were the case, it would have been impossible to have such ministries as, Praise the Lord Club, Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, and the like. Instead, we are concerned about Disney.
Jack O’Neal Hanley
1.) As I read your comment I see that you are a fanboy of some kind of version of Radical Two Kingdom theology. It’s not a shock that you speak against people like me or that you have a bad case of understanding historic Biblical Christianity as that is a necessity for your Weltanschauung.
2.) Reconstruction is basic Christianity. Reconstruction is an inescapable category. By your refusal to engage the culture wars (culture is merely religion externalized) you are, by your retreat, reconstructing the culture in a non-Christian direction inasmuch as your absence allows the wicked to reconstruct religion externalized as they like without your loyalty to Jesus Christ being advanced in the culture (which is defined as religion externalized). All who reconstruct by not reconstructing are cowards. That’s right. I called you a coward. A Nancy boy. A Pajama boy. One of Christ’s soldiers who refuses to engage the enemy under a cloak of pietistic “but we’re not supposed to hate that which is evil and cling to that which is good.” We’re not really supposed to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” We’re not really supposed to be “pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” You say to me … “Don’t you know that Christianity is a private matter. It is not supposed to impact the public square.”
3.) Your sophistry is epic. On the one hand you fault me for saying that Horton did not say the Islam was not a threat to the US while on the other hand you say that because God is sovereign therefore Islam can not be a threat to Christianity in the US. But if God is sovereign than it is also true that Islam can’t be a threat to the US. If God is sovereign Islam was never a threat to the northern littoral of Africa in the 7th century and neither was Islam ever a threat to Christianity in the Northern littoral of Africa in the 7th century. Indeed, we may as well lose the word “threatening” since God is sovereign. God is sovereign therefore stupidity is no threat to your ability to reason. God is sovereign therefore the enemies design on His Kingdom can never be spoken of as a “threat.”
5.) “Failed to nurture those inside the Church”
LOL … I’ve heard your Escondido preacher-boys preach. Don’t try to tell me that they are “nurturing the Church.” The Escondido boys traverse land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, they make him twice as much a son of hell as they are. The Escondido boys are poisonous sacks infecting the whole visible Church with their Gnosticism and their Reformed Dispensationalism. If they win out the Church will either collapse until the Augean R2K stables are cleaned out in some certain future day or the Church will end up being a pale reflection of the culture (religion externalized) as it already currently is.
6.) “It is a fact that the Church has lost the culture wars.”
7.)
8.) “Getting the Gospel correct”
9.) “Law has the power to save.”
Insert loud buzzer sound.
Insert announcer’s voiceover: “I’m sorry Mr. Hanley you guessed wrong on the subject you chose: “What do Reconstructionists believe.” We are sorry to inform you Mr. Contestant that now Reconstructionists believes that the Law saves. You can now continue on with the game and experience ever increasing embarrassment and shame at being so consistently in error or you can quit now with your tail between your legs and save whatever little dignity you have left.
10.) “the Church itself has produced more atheists, than any of these other perceived threats,”
Now, I’m going to resist listing the prominent Reformed Pillars of the Church and their sons by name who have gone off the rails because I’m a polite guy. But I can think of five just off the top of my head. All of these sons were nurtured in the Church that you envision and all of them went belly up doctrinally or morally.
11.) Now in terms of your spoof texting: Here i am Bubba … judging you who is in the Church just as you are Judging me who is in the Church. How’s that going for you?
12.) That’s God’s law is totalistic and applicable to all men is seen in Jonah’s ministry to pagan (non-covenant) Nineveh. It is seen in Daniel’s declaration to Nebuchadnezzar. Let’s remember the pagan Canaanites whose cup of wickedness was not yet full when God spoke to Father Abraham but when it became full God judged them for their violations against His law-Character.
It is seen in Paul’s words to Timothy;
The threat to Christianity in America is not Islam. It’s the fact that on any given Sunday people, including people who call themselves Christians, are sleeping in, going to brunch, mowing the lawn, watching the talk shows — in short, anything at all except go to church. The percentage of Americans who are active in church has been sinking for decades. The problem, in other words, is that Americans have been thoroughly secularized, and there’s no reason to think that will change any time soon.
I have nothing kind to say about Islam. I lived in the Middle East for three years where I had multiple opportunity to observe its worst aspects. But the 1% or so of the American population that’s Muslim isn’t the threat. It’s the 90% of Americans that have tuned out of religion altogether, even if nominally they still call themselves Christian. We’re not living in Israel under an apostate monarch; we’re living in Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar.
Kathleen,
There are many threats to Christianity in American and Islam is indeed one of them. See
https://virtueonline.org/what-islam-isnt-dr-peter-hammond
I quite agree that Americans are no longer Christian. It is not that they have been secularized, if by secularized you mean that they are no longer adherents to a religion. The problem is that they are now Humanists which is a far thing from being secularized.
And of course it is not possible to tune out religion. All men are equally hopelessly religious. Religion never goes away.
Finally, I understand your point about living under Nebuchadnezzar and not under an apostate monarch though I might argue here that as America was founded as a Christian nation we are indeed living under an apostate Monarch.
Thank you for writing.