<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Your historical arguments (both yours and others you present) are obscure. They are one of your weakest links in your chain of thought...</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Joe, whether something is "obscure" or not has little to do with whether it is correct or not. Like your use of the "extremist" epithet against me, you and Pilgrim's use of word "obscure" is merely a subjective rhetoric and has no validity on the value of the historical evidence I've presented. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Examples: You said concerning, Moses' Law for Modern Gov't., "This article is filled with several errors that I can point out at a later time". But, you never did explain it away with specifics (never interacted with the material to disprove it), just your normal characterization of things.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Joe, I did say that I would reply to it "at a later time". Duncan's article is long and filled with several unfootnoted assertions. Why it was deemed "technically" difficult to provide the original footnotes for it, I don't know. So I have been busy compiling my own footnotes to Duncan's article such as his citations of Gary DeMar and Greg Bahnsen's writings.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What is literally hilarious though is above, you said, this article is filled with several errors, but elsewhere you appeal to it for protection, saying, "All one has to do is compare Ligon Duncan's first critique of Reconstructionism". Now, by your own admission, you say, that you will embrace "what you consider to be error" to defend you own position.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Obviously, not everything in Duncan's article has errors in it. I had said it had several errors, I did not say that everything in it was erroneous.<br><br>But my later appeal to it was to compare Duncan's criticisms (right or wrong) of Reconstructionism with your own criticisms. Duncan no where accuses Reconstructionism with the severity of accusations that you have done here. Thus, I was using Duncan's article (which was previously recommended by you) against your own hostile and malicious remarks against Reconstructionism. Why can't you have as much restraint in your criticisms of Reconstructionism that Duncan shows? <br><br>So you are wrong to say that I "will embrace what I consider to be error to defend [my] own position". Your attempt to make me contradict myself is what is really literally hilarious.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]1. when confronted with the infallible Word of God, and <br><br>2. specific examples of your faulty reasonings in Theonomy<br>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</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I have replied several times including pointing out errors in Duncan's article. That I have not yet fully replied to Duncan's long article is certainly no example of me "not choosing to reply".<br><br>And comparing you to Dave Hunt is not "Character Assassination". But you making comparisons of Theonomists to the "Donatists" and to the "Spanish Inquisition" is certianly an example of character assassination.<br> <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]"Its one thing to faithfully contend against damnable heresies"<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Yes, Theonomy and Reconstruction are to be faithfully contended against</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So are you saying that Theonomy and Reconstructionism are "damnable heresies"? That is not Duncan's position, nor is it the position of the PCA or OPC or RPCNA or Westminster Seminary.<br><br>Colin
