In reply to:
[color:"blue"]You make a habit of character Assassinations and "you" yourself are extremely offensive and full of hostile criticisms as can be seen from your results of your other posts here and on other forums. Here is an example from an exchange between Joe Bell and Reg Barrow, of which Greg says that Joe Bell/you have never replied



Where exactly are my "extemely offensive" and "hostile criticisms" in the Reg Barrow citation that you quoted? All you have is Barrow's unsubstantiated assertion that I said something wrong, but no evidence of it is actually given.

And since when do Christians accept unsubstantiated gossip as valid evidence? For your use of this Barrow quote is nothing more than gossip and tale bearing, which is explicitly condemned in the Bible and in the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q145). Furthermore, there is no evidence that I am even the person whom Barrows claims who allegedly slandered him. It is just a mere assumption on his part.

Thus, what reason would I have to "reply" to something that had nothing to do with me?

Your emotional bias in this discussion is very transparent.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]The amazing thing Colin is that apparently this was YEARS ago and YOU still have not made amends!



There are no "amends" for me to make. And this has absolutely nothing to do with our present discussion. You are obviously assuming without any supporting evidence, that Barrow is telling the truth about what was said and who had said it. Do you always take one side of a story without first checking both sides of an issue before making accusations?

What if I or another individual made similar accusations against Pilgrim or Wesley? Would you blindly accept the accuser's singular accusation against Pilgrim without first checking all the facts? Or do you simply assume that Pilgrim is guilty of the accusation made against him before checking his innocence? That BTW was the code of Napolean, that the accused is presumed guilty first before being seen as innocent. The modern Western way is actually based on Biblical law: the presumption of innocence before the establishment of guilt.

Thankfully, the Bible (biblical law) gives us protection against false accusations from a single individual.

Exodus 23:1 "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness"

Numbers 35:20 "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die."

Deut 19:15 "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." See also, Matt 18:16.

And as for Barrow himself, I find it very ironic that you would cite him at all given your claim that Theonomy is "extremist". What then would you call Barrow's own Steelite Covenanter beliefs?

Barrow believes in the following:

1) That it is a sin to attend or to be a member of the PCA, OPC and RPCNA or any denomination other than his own Covenanter one.

2) That it is a sin to sing hymns and use musical instruments in worship

3) That it is a sin to vote or run for public office at present.

4) That it is a sin for any American to swear an oath to U.S. Constitution. (e.g. Politicians and the Military).

5) That it is a sin for Canada, the USA and Britain to deny the original Solemn League and Covenant.

6) That it is a sin for any church to deny the SLC.

7) That it is a sin to deny any part of the original WCF.

8) That it is a sin to deny Jus Divinum or the Divine Right of Presbyterian church government

9) That it is a sin to deny a Civil government supported Presbyterian only State-Church.

10) That it is a sin to deny the power of the civil magistrate to punish heresy.

None of these views are held by Theonomists (though a small minority do hold to point 2 for reasons not related to Theonomy).

Barrow's Steelite covenanter views makes Theonomists look like moderate neo-evangelicals by comparison.

Colin


Last edited by chestnutmare; Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:59 AM.