<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]At the risk of feeding your obsession with Reconstructionism I'll answer but a couple of your fractured comments</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I do not have an "obession with Reconstructionism" What are you now, Dr. Phil? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Please cite where I have ever made a summary judgment upon the Puritans wherein I called them all "extremists"! Your typical distortion of what people have written in opposition to Reconstructionism and your demeanor in its defense can be clearly seen here (and myriad other places) for these are my exact words, which you yourself quoted:<br><br>"Cromwell is well-known also for his extremism in certain practices."</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I was just using the same style of argument that you and Joe have frequently used on this forum. Arguing from the lesser to the greater. It seemed to be perfectly acceptable style on here. But unlike you and Joe, I will apologise for the pluralism in my remark.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As everyone who can read can plainly see, my comment was in regard to one man, Oliver Cromwell and qualified to "certain practices". This can hardly be construed as a sweeping charge of "extremism" of Puritanism.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Then why do you not accept the qualifications equally made by Theonomists? Instead you have made sweeping accusations of "extremism" against Theonomy. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Thanks for making one of my points in my latter assessment of some of the protagonists of Reconstructionism, you in particular. Everything in objection is nothing but a strawman</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Here you are making another sweeping statement with your phrase "Everything in objection is nothing but a strawman". I did not accuse those other 10 critics I cited of making strawman arguments.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I have read Frame's critiques and his is somewhat "sympathetic" to your cause. No doubt the others have similar comments and thus this would explain their making your "okay guys" list.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>A false assumption on your part. For example, I cited Rev. Jack Keep. He is an Arminian, dispensationalist, Fundamentalist Baptist in Virginia. He has
no sympathy with Reconstructionism at all. However, he was quite fair in his criticisms and made the logical point that since Reconstructionism is
inconsistent with Dispensationalism, it is therefore, wrong (from a Dispie perspective).<br><br>I also cited Layton Talbert. Another Fundamental Baptist dispensationist who has
no sympathy with Reconstructionism, yet he wrote a very fair critique of it from a premillennial perspective. His critique was a Master's Thesis from Bob Jones University. <br><br>I also cited Robert Bowman Jr. who is also not sympathetic to Reconstructionism.<br><br>The ten examples of Criticisms I cited in my previous post demonstrates that Reconstructionism can be critiqued
fairly without resorting to
Ad Hominen abuse or sweeping accusations. Ligon Duncan's first article is close to being fair, but he still make several errors in his criticisms that are less than fair.<br><br>Surely even you must admit that there must be
some fair criticisms of Calvinism without the strawman ones that are so typical from most Arminians. I am thinking of an Arminian who can express his disagreements with Calvinism fairly without slandering it like Dave Hunt does.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Colin:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Where did I ever say that the "vast majority of Calvinists" are "worse than Dispensationalists"??<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>You said that in this reply to Joe where you wrote:<br><br>"But modern Calvinist's contempt for the judicial laws of the Bible only rivals the contempt that modern Dispensationalists have for the Decalogue itself. In this, modern Calvinism and Dispensationalism are the secular humanist's best friends, since all three groups are strong opponents of God's judicial laws for today."<br><br>As everyone can plainly see, your castigation is actually far worse than what I stated it was!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>As anyone should plainly see, my remark does not make Calvinists
worse than Dispensationalists, but rather, only make some Calvinists
as bad as dispensationalists. This is seen in my use of the word "Rival". Thus, it is
not far worse than what you stated, but your misinterpretation of my words only made it
look worse than it actually was. IOW an overstatement on your part.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]In reply to one of my "assessments" where I wrote:<br><br>3. Everyone who does not embrace this theology is in serious error.<br>You responded with:<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>And what do you say about those who do not accept Calvinism or covenant theology?<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Another favorite tactic you are known to use is seen here. Are you serious? Would you have us believe that those who reject the perpetuity and binding obligation to keep the Mosaic civil/judicial laws on par with those who reject the doctrines of sovereign grace? That's just plain fanaticism.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Is God's sovereign moral and judicial laws
less important than His sovereign grace? Were the OT Israelites "fanatics" for keeping God's Judicial laws? Were the Reformers and Puritans "fanatics" when they enforced the OT moral and judical laws in their day? Are modern Calvinists "fanatic" about the perpetuity of the OT decalogue too?<br><br>BTW is accepting covenant theology as
equally important as accepting the doctrines of sovereign grace? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]In reply to:<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><br>Oh really? Here are a few of your remarks posted on this Board:<br><br>Joe, I really think you should stop trying to pretend that you know what you are talking about. Its obvious that you have very little knowledge of what Reconstructionism actually teaches. You have about as much knowledge of Reconstructionism as Dave Hunt has of Calvinism. <br><br>[written to Joe here] One thing is quite obvious, you certainly do not behave like you've read anything by Sinclair Ferguson or the Puritans he seeks to emulate.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>My response to Joe had been to his false accusation that Reconstructionism is guilty of the "Donatist" heresy, as well as to his comparing Reconstructionism to the "Spanish Inquisition". I am quite surprised that you pointed to my reply to Joe's Post, since Joe's remarks should be very embarrassing to the Highway Staff. <br><br>So I admit that I was wrong to claim that I never called "anyone" "unread" about Reconstructionism, for I did say that about Joe in particular. But this example you cited should be more embarassing for you and Joe and Wesley than for me, simply due to Joe's extremely offensive and hostile criticisms. All one has to do is compare Ligon Duncan's first critique of Reconstructionism with Joe's public remarks on this forum and then see the vast difference between them. Duncan himself even warned against using "Abusive ad hominem and sensationalism in most responses to this issue".<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I have yet to see a doctrine backslide as opposed to those who espouse it.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I look at "Amyraldanism" as "backslidden" from Calvinism. I look at "limited Inerrancy" as backslidden" from "full Inerrancy". I look at the "Framework Hypothesis" as backslidden from Six day Creationism, etc. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I've already exposed your misquoting and/or twisting of what I actually wrote above.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So when are you going to start
exposing Joe's misquoting and twisting what Reconstructionism teaches? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]<br><br>Colin <br><br> <br>
