<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Two references to one obscure Puritan and another well-known, Cromwell, certainly doesn't make your case.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>John Winthrop was hardly an "obscure" figure. He was a major puritan leader in New England and the first puritan Governor of Massachusetts in the early 17th century. His Journal is a major primary source document for New England puritan studies. Your cavaliar attempt to dismiss his weighty testimony amounts to not wanting to be honest with historical facts. And I have also previously cited the Works of John Cotton and Samuel Willard and Nathaniel Ward whom you have totally ignored. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Cromwell is well-known also for his extremism in certain practices.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>Here is what D. Martin Lloyd-Jones said about Cromwell in 1978:<br><br><blockquote>The great period during Cromwell's Protectorate...was one of the most amazing epochs in the whole history of [England]. To me it was certainly one of the most glorious...Oliver Cromwell is a man whom we do not honour as we should</blockquote><br><br>But keep in mind that Theonomists are not blind followers of men even if they are puritans. Instead they desire to follow the Word of God. I have previously mentioned how Theonomists have dissented from some of the views of the Puritans. But if you want to call the puritans "extremists", perhaps you should write a letter to the Banner of Truth and inform them of that.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]...the objection is and always has been against Reconstructionism's attempt to ignore the uniqueness of the nation of Israel as a Theonomic nation and to impose the Israelic civil law upon the world.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>No Reconstructionist has ever "ignored the uniqueness of the nation of Israel". That is a typical strawman accusation no different than the one raised by the typical Arminian who falsely claims that Calvinism "ignores" evangelism or human responsibility. <br><br>And Reconstructionists do not want to "impose the Israelic Civil Law upon the world". Rather, they believe that according the WCF I:2 that:<br><br><blockquote>Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament....<span style="background-color:yellow;">All</span> which are given by inspiration of God to be <span style="background-color:yellow;">the rule of faith and life</span></blockquote><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The WCF states this clear enough to which you consistently dismiss.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I don't "dismiss" it, I accept it along with the rest of the quote which you continue to dismiss regarding the required general equity.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]And how do you view Chapter XXIII:3 regarding the duty of the civil magistrate to "suppress all heresies and blasphemies"?<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Erroneous!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So why then is not the part in Chapter XIX:4 which you cite also "erroneous"? If XXIII:3 can be in error, so could XIX:4 as it is worded.<br><br>If its ok for you to be selective in your commitment to the WCF, why can't Theonomists also be selective too? But one thing is certain, Chapter XXIII:3 is a theonomic chapter that even goes further than what Theonomists themselves will allow (ie. State sanctions against heresy).<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]the vast majority of Calvinists, who btw, are NOT worse than Dispensationalists as you have many times charged</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Where did I ever say that the "vast majority of Calvinists" are "worse than Dispensationalists"?? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What I have been able to conclude from all of the rhetoric which you have posted on this Board is that:<br><br>1. There is no one outside of the Postmil/Theonomy/Reconstructionist camp who has any viable information about this group.<br><br>2. Any criticism or critiques which have ever been written against this group is misinformed and/or is fraught with ignorant errors.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Wrong conclusion. There are plenty of people outside the Theonomy "camp" who have had viable information on it. Let me cite a few:<br><br>1) The New Puritanism: A Preliminary Assessment of Christian Reconstructionism by Robert Bowman Jr. in the Mar/1988 Christian Research Journal<br><br>2) Christian Reconstruction by Dr. Irving Hexham in the Christian Week Feb 5/91<br><br>3) Christian Reconstruction and its Critics by Dr. Irving Hexham in Christian Week Feb 19/91<br><br>4) Great Divides: Understanding The Controversies that Come Between Christians by Dr. Ronald Nash<br><br>5) Heaven On Earth? The Political and Social Agenda of Dominion Theology by Dr. Bruce Barron<br><br>6) A Challenge to Theonomy by D. Clair Davis in Theonomy: An Reformed Critique.<br><br>7) Review of The Institutes of Biblical Law by John Frame in Westminster Theological Journal (1976)<br><br>8) Eulogy for Greg Bahnsen by John Frame (Dec 1995)<br><br>9) Christian Reconstructionism by Rev. Jack Keep (Dispensationalist Baptist)<br><br>10) The Theonomic Postmillennialism of Christian Reconstruction: A Contrast with Traditional <br>Postmillennialism and a Premillennial Assessment by Layton Talbert<br><br>The above all have "viable information" about reconstructionism while giving it fair criticism.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]3. Everyone who does not embrace this theology is in serious error.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>And what do you say about those who do not accept Calvinism or covenant theology?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Everyone who holds to Amillennialism has departed from the original truth of Postmillennialism, which is said to take historical precedence.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>And what do you say about those holding holding to postmillennialism?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]No one has successfully read or even read at all, books and/or articles written by those who espouse this view.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes and that includes me[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/read.gif" alt="read" title="read[/img] and probably many other Theonomists too. Just like I haven't successfully read all the writings of all the puritans either. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Lastly, I would offer another article by one of us poor ignorant and unread "backslidden" Calvinists who find Reconstructionism in error.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I've never called you or anyone else "ignorant" or "unread", or "backslidden". The latter term was used by me only to describe the System of Amillennialism and not the person who holds to it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]BTW have you done the moral thing and contacted The Banner of Truth Trust and expressed to them that you believe and have publicly stated that they "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."?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The BoT were informed of that over 20 years ago. I am not the first one to have made that observation. Even the Anti-Theonomist Jon Zens agreed with that observation 20 years ago. <br><br>BTW since you have publicly called Cromwell an "extremist", when are you going to do the moral thing and contact Sprinkle Publications about that, since they are the publishers of a biography on Cromwell entitled, THE PROTECTOR: A VINDICATION by J.H. Merle D'Aubigne?<br><br>And the new Ligon Duncan article can be answered by the fact that he accuses all theonomists of being "anti-Confessional". This accusation is contrary to the PCA's own 25 year old official position on Theonomy which forbids using the WCF to settle the Theonomy issue. And no Theonomist has ever been charged in the PCA for being "anti-Confessional". Nor has any ordained Elder in the OPC been charged either. If Ligon Duncan truly believes in what he writes, then he ought to do the moral thing and bring charges against Theonomists in the PCA for being "anti-Confessional". A failure to do so would be a violation of his own vows as an Elder. <br><br>Furthermore, Duncan relies heavily on Ferguson's 1990 Anti-Theonomy Essay without interacting or acknowledging Greg Bahnsen's 1993 Response to Ferguson or Martin Foulner's 1997 book on [u]Theonomy and the Westminster Confession[/u]. This is a scholarly lapse on Duncan's part. <br><br>But Duncan's entire comments on WCF XIX:4 can easily be rendered moot by simply borrowing your own response to Chapter XXIII:3 [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>Colin