Quote
Theo said:
Hey Joe,

Thanks VERY much for that informative response! I had certainly not known that about Schaeffer. Both John and John C asked good questions, and I'd be interested in knowing the answer to those as well when you have time.

Theo
Sorry, it has taken me a while to answer – time is limited.

For more on how Van Til “influenced” the movements please see Gary North’s Westminster's Confession: the Abandonment of Van Til's Legacy and Greg L. Bahnsen’s No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics. They explain how they got from VT to Recon... However, please note that Van Til himself NEVER became a theonomist to my understanding. According to Gary North, Van Til argued that,

Quote
There is no philosophical strategy that has ever worked, except this one; to challenge the lost in terms of the revelation of God in His Bible. . .by what standard can man know anything truly? By the Bible, and only by the Bible.'' This idea that the correct and only way to view reality is through the lens of a Biblical world view is known as presuppositionalism.
But, according to Gary North, Van Til stopped short of proposing what a Biblical society might look like or how to get there (from the best I can deduce VT used the term "theonomy" to categorize the view which sees God as revealed in the Bible, as the sole source of one's ethics. Thus, using the term in this sense VT recognized that there “is no alternative but that of theonomy or autonomy." (Christian Theistic Ethics p.134)). What of the interpretation then of the term "ethics"? That is where Reconstructionism begins. While Van Til states that man is not autonomous and that all rationality is inseparable from faith in God and the Bible, the Reconstructionists go further and set a course of world conquest or ''dominion,'' claiming a Biblically prophesied ''inevitable victory (Apologetics Index). Thus, IMO North, Bahnsen and a host of others have stretched Van Tils’ teachings [note I agree with presuppositionalism] to what “they consider” its logical end, but others [such as myself] see errors to “this logical end” as IMO it does not consider the entire height, length, and depth of the word of God. John Frame I believe does an excellent job in Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought in helping us somewhat here.

Someone asked how we get from VT to Reconstuctionism and I suggest to read the books, but briefly, VT ethics pits the moral commandments of God against other ideas held by non-believers. Ideas always have consequences. Since ideas are intrinsically moral in nature, they will either glorify God or they will glorify human beings in their fallen, sinful state. Ideas that do not glorify God are a product of human autonomy or self law. Moral commandments that come from God himself may be termed as "theonomy" or God's law. However, if we ignore certain scriptures and apply VT thoughts to OT ethics we will end up where North, Bahnsen, and others have entered into another manger [note: this is not to say they are not Christian, but have deviated IMO from the foundational teachings of Christ]. Jay Rodgers comments and says it about as clearly as I have heard it expressed,

Quote
There are two schools of theonomic ethics derived from three of Van Til's students. Even as Van Til was a protégé of Kuyper and took his ideas to new heights, three of Van Til's students saw the implications of presuppositionalism in the area of Christian ethics. Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen coined the term "theonomy" to describe the antithesis of autonomy. This school of thought is also called Christian Reconstructionism because theonomy provides the blueprint by which Christians should seek to reconstruct society. Christian Reconstruction includes several prolific Christian authors including Gary North, Gary DeMar, David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry.

Another of Van Til's students, Dr. Francis Schaeffer has had an even wider influence. Schaefferism is not "theonomic" in the strictest sense, but resembles some of the ideas of Rushdoony and Bahnsen. Schaeffer's philosophy is sometimes called "soft theonomy." Schaeffer's protégés have included Christian ministers, authors, well-known politicians and social activists including Jack Kemp and C. Everett Koop. He has also greatly affected the thinking of the so-called "Christian Right" especially Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Chuck Colson, Cal Thomas and Randall Terry.

The main difference between the two schools of thought is that the Christian Reconstructionists see an immediate application of the laws of Moses and the penal sanctions of the Old Testament as applicable to modern society. … The latter group influenced by Francis Schaeffer tends to be more oriented toward a campaign for Christian social ethics to have an equal place in public debate. These thinkers take principles from the Bible and apply them to social and political ethics, but do not necessarily advocate imposing the sanctions of biblical law on offenders.
As far as my original statement "as referenced" that came mostly from Greg Loren Durand who authored, Judicial Warfare: Christian Reconstruction's Blueprints.

Reformed and Always Reforming,