<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As is typical of your replies, you have tried to circumvent the question and offer nothing in reply but rhetoric.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>But at least I didn't resort to using rhetorical words like "extremist", "Abhorent", "inadequate", "fervent", "humorous" like you chose to do in your reply. And I do take exception to your characterization of my replies as being typically "circumvent" and "nothing but rhetoric". I wonder if you had even fully read my last post, since you barely interacted with it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Can you cite any historical records where the Puritans, who appear to be at least a large part of your attempt to justify your extremist use of the Israelic judicial law, practiced the execution of individuals who violated such laws as pertained to homosexuality, adultery, errant children, etc.. ??</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Actually, I am surprised that you, an admirer of the puritans, is even asking such a question. Its like asking if there are any historical records showing that they believed in calvinism. But perhaps your lack of knowledge is due in part to the neo-puritan publishers like
The Banner of Truth who have systematically suppressed this historical aspect of the Puritans in order so that potential readers like yourself would not be scared off from the so called "extremism" of the Puritan's view of civil law. It would certainly explain why the Banner of Truth rarely discusses Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan Commonwealth or John Winthrop's historical account of puritan Massachusetts. <br><br>The documented history of these two major puritan figures will alone answer your question. Just read
The Journal of John Winthrop, 1630-1649 or a historical account of Oliver Cromwell and the period surrounding him, and you will find abundant information on the kind of civil laws enforced during those times. In some cases, the Puritans even went
beyond what Theonomists advocate, such as making Sabbath breaking and heresy a capital crime. And in Winthrop's
Journal he cites an account of some persons who were executed for having sex with a cow. Another was executed for the crime of Witchcraft in 1648 (This was 44 years before the infamous Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692).<br><br>And how can you read WCF XXIII:3 and its proof texts used? Or for example, the proof texts used to the
Larger Catechism and Deut 21:18-21 (Q128) and Deut 22:8 (Q135) and Exodus 22:2-3 (Q136) and LC Questions 139 which cites Lev 18:1-21 and Lev 20:15-16?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It should have been assumed that capital punishment for murder was not intended to be included since that mandate predated Moses by thousands of years and is rarely something contested.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Well you did specify "Old testament law". And BTW the pre-Mosaic law against Murder makes no distinction between murder and manslaughter. That distinction is found only in the case laws. So even if you hold to a view of capital sanctions only against the sixth commandment, you still have to confront the moral issue of accidental homicide when it occurs. And the Decalogue itself stipulates no civil penalties, so without the case laws, you have no way of knowing how they should be properly applied today. <br><br>And to say that "capital punishment for murder is rarely contested" while you are presently living in Canada which has no death penalty for murder is a very odd statement to make. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am more interested in the application of those laws which most biblical Christians find most abhorrent, for various reasons and which most Theonomist/Reconstructionists seem most fervent to espouse and defend.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>One might well ask, why do most modern "biblical Christians" find "most abhorrent" the very idea of
applying God's law today? Was it also "abhorrent" in the days of the Old Covenant too? And if those laws were "just" under the OT (Heb 2:2) , how then are they now "unjust" today?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As to Remillard's attempt to make the meaning of "General Equity" fit into the mold mould of Reconstructionism, I find it quite inadequate among other things.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>He wasn't trying to do that. And is your use of the word "mould" another attempt at rhetoric? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I also reject his attempt to make a major distinction between "abrogated" and "expired", and then use that to try and further his Reconstructionist presuppositions.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>He doesn't have any "Reconstructionist presuppositions" AFAIK. He is not even a Christian Reconstructionist. But the distinction is still valid since the word "abrogation" is never used in the WCF regarding the Judicial laws as it is used for the ceremonial laws.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The section in question is more than perspicuous when it says:<br><br>"to them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now . . ."<br><br>This much is understood by most to mean that the judicial law is no longer binding due to the fact that Israel as a theonomic nation is also no more. To try and then reverse what the author's have clearly stated with the exception clause is almost humorous.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So you admit that Israel was once in fact, a "Theonomic nation"? But my point is that you cannot quote this section without also citing the additional words regarding the
required general equity of those Judicial laws. Thus, whatever laws "expired" with the passing of OT Israel,
does not include the general equity of those judicial laws. So your attempt to suppress what the Westminster Divines
fully wrote in this section appears to be abit disingenuous as if you do not even want to deal with the issue of the required general equity at all.<br><br>And Theonomists accept the WCF view that the judicial laws as worded and given to the OT Israelites have indeed "expired" with the passing of OT Israel, but that the
underlying moral principles of them (the general equity) remains binding today. What is so "abhorrent" about that? Is Legalised abortion and Legalised sodomy somehow less abhorrent for today?<br><br>And how do you view Chapter XXIII:3 regarding the duty of the civil magistrate to "suppress all heresies and blasphemies"?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Can you cite any records of the Puritans which show that they practiced, upon political polity, by virtue of "General Equity", the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, errant children, etc.?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I've already cited some records, but even if no puritans ever did, that would not undermine the
Biblical case for Theonomy. It would only undermine one single historical case for it. But any honest historical research will support Theonomy and its puritan and Calvinistic heritage.<br><br>Also, keep in mind that there are some puritan views that Theonomists do not accept such as Wage and Price controls and compulsory State education and a state established church, primarily because we do not see any biblical justification for them.<br><br>Colin
