In reply to:[color:"blue"]Where we [img]https://the-highway.com/Smileys/censored.gif[/img] heads is over what I call extreme views: Neo-Calvinism is extreme. Reconstruction and Theonomy are extreme, as well
Calling something "extreme" is not the same thing as calling it wrong. By Arminian standards, you are "extreme" in your calvinism. By Premillennial standards, you are "extreme" in your lack of literal interpretation. By Secular standards, you and me are "extreme" bible thumpers. Thus, the label "extreme" is merely a subjective judgement.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Balance is what I am after in my Christian life
And so am I and so are many other Theonomists. Being a non-Theonomist is no guarantee that you will avoid "extremism", as the many examples of non-theonomists in "A B C D" you have just cited above clearly show.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Theonomists and Reconstructionists have gone to extremes as well pushing their theology as the only viable tenet of faith.
Well do not 5 point Calvinists do the very same thing in regards to TULIP?
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Even you Colin in the Puritan thread (Who is Your Favorite) had to comment once again pushing ONE topic. While the Charismatics see a demon behind every tree, you see a political structure behind every verse in Scripture--that just are not there
.
I certainly do not see a "political structure behind every verse in Scripture". In fact, I rarely discuss politics even on this forum. Theonomy actually has little to do with politics per se, in comparison to Socialism which sees politics as the only answer to man's salvation.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]I am saddened anytime I see this almost cultic reverence for an idea at the sacrifice for the full-Truth once delivered
Is one's reverence for God's law a "cultic reverence"? Were the puritans also guilty of a "cultic reverence"? Are we not living in a society that has absolutely no reverence whatsoever for God's Moral law? Just recently, the Ontario Supreme Court legalised Same Sex marriages. Almost immediately, Gays and Lesbians obtained marriage licences and got married. The Federal Government is planning on Appealing this Ontario court decision. But even if they do so at a later date, the Gay couples who recently got married will still be legally married regardless of any future Appeal by the Federal Government.
"Cultic reverence"? How about cultic irreverance for God's Moral Law by some Critics of Theonomy, who BTW also happen to have Gays and Lesbians and the Ontario Supreme Court as among their political allies.
I'm of course not saying that you are personally guilty of this, but I am saying that Theonomy or having true reverence for God's Law is not the problem. Anti-Theonomy is the real problem, as revealed in the recent Ontario Court decision, among many other examples.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]These unbalances (and, of course, there are many more) maime many and do utmost harm to the integrity of the faith of uncertain souls. They undermine the very nature of the Scripture, changing them for the ploys of man's premise instead of the eternal promises of God. We have all heard of the Islamic Jihad which is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war. What I see in these extremes is a cultic-Jihad. Instead of a physical war they use a “war” and “terrorism” of unbiblical exegesis against the faith once delivered.
And you actually think this has anything to do with Theonomy as held by Reformed Christians? Funny how Ligon Duncan never mentioned it in his Critique that Pilgrim posted.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]please understand that I say this not against you personally, but only some of your views.
As I've said before Joe, you are free to disagree with Theonomy (and with me), but you are not free to falsely accuse it or misrepresent just because you don't like it or don't understand it. Ligon Duncan warned against making caricatures of it. This is all a part of having balanced Christian truth. I love balanced truth as much as you do, Joe. This is why I oppose real errors like Hyper-Calvinism and Hyper-Preterism and Hyper-Presbyterianism (AKA Steelites). And I also have some strong reservations against what is now called Hyper-Covenantalism. Furthermore, I also oppose the Caricaturized version of Theonomy that you presently oppose. But unlike the other errors I just mentioned, this latter one doesn't actually exist outside your own imagination.
But I certainly rejoice in your statement that: "I believe that we agree on the general basics of the faith once delivered".
