<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Where exactly did Pilgrim reveal "any historical inconsistencies" of mine? I haven't seen him address them [color:red]
anywhere</font color=red>, but only dismiss them as "obscure".</font><hr></blockquote><p> Your historical arguments (both yours and others you present) are obscure. They are one of your weakest links in your chain of thought, only being surpassed by your faulty explanation of Scripture and the embarrassment of Theonomy/Reconstruction/ "extreme" Post-Mil views. <br><br>[color:blue]
Examples</font color=blue>: You said concerning,
Moses' Law for Modern Gov't., [color:red]
This article is filled with several errors that I can point out at a later time.</font color=red> But, you never did explain it away with
[color:blue]specifics</font color=blue> (never interacted with the material to disprove it), [color:red]
just your normal characterization of things</font color=red>. <br><br>What is literally hilarious though is above, you said, [color:red]
this article is filled with several errors</font color=red>, but elsewhere you appeal to it for protection, saying, [color:red]
All one has to do is compare Ligon Duncan's first critique of Reconstructionism</font color=red>. Now, by your own admission, you say, that you will embrace "what you consider to be error" to defend you own position. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br><br>Yes, your history of things, inconsistencies, et. al. reveal many problems with your errant views. Others can view your historical deficiencies here in these threads:
Amillennialism vs. Reconstructionism or
Amil./Postmil. thoughts on 1 Cor. 15?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am not going to address the rest of your comments with a response. You and Dave Hunt would make a great team since you both use the same style of arguments, and he also opposes Reconstructionism as strongly as you do.</font><hr></blockquote><p> I can understand why; <br><br><ul>1. when confronted with the
infallible Word of God, and <br><br>2. specific examples of your faulty reasonings in Theonomy[/LIST] that you choose not to reply. Comparing me to Dave Hunt is just another one of your character assassination tricks you use here and on other forums, as can be seen
HERE.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Its one thing to faithfully contend against damnable heresies</font><hr></blockquote><p> Yes, Theonomy and Reconstruction are to be faithfully contended against [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/idea.gif" alt="idea" title="idea[/img]
