The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Old Testament Laws under New Testament grace?

Who decides proper doctrine now? The creedally commited Reformed church does. Theonomy, contrary to the Reformers and Puritans, does not allow the State to decide proper doctrine or punish those without it. Only the church has the keys to the Kingdom.<br><br>william.......according to whose creed tho? Not all reformed churches agree on every single aspect as this subject shows. So which ones specifically?<br><br>While the reformation did permit a little too much power to the magistrate, it was due to a very slow process of reform. But the more Theonomic the Puritans got (e.g. Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford and the Scottish Covenanters), the less power the magistrate was given. This is because God's law puts a restraint on all forms of Tyranny, since all tyranny is based on man-made law.<br><br>william.......but isn't that the crux of the problem with all man-run governmental systems? Aren't even Christians apt to abuse power?<br><br>Yes, but Christians under the NT now have the power of the Holy Spirit, with the law of God written upon our redeemed hearts in addition to the law written down in Scripture (which is the same law).<br><br>That's the same claim that created 20,000 American denominations. While I agree that true believers fall into this category, I do not believe one specific church is made up only of true believers, excepting the invisible church. So this claim has it's problems as well, because I am not a theonomist, and accordingly must not have all truth or am simply uninformed as of yet.<br><br>Pleas explain the Galatians passage to me? Thanks friend. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/thinks.gif" alt="thinks" title="thinks[/img]<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

Colin,<br><br>At the risk of feeding your obsession with Reconstructionism I'll answer but a couple of your fractured comments:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p>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:<blockquote>Cromwell is well-known also for his extremism <span style="background-color:yellow;">in certain practices</span>.</blockquote> 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. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p>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, despite your list of those who you say have given a fair critique of Reconstructionism. 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.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Where did I ever say that the "vast majority of Calvinists" are "worse than Dispensationalists"??</font><hr></blockquote><p>You said that in this reply to Joe where you wrote:<blockquote>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.</blockquote>As everyone can plainly see, your castigation is actually far worse than what I stated it was!<br><br>In reply to one of my "assessments" where I wrote:<blockquote>3. Everyone who does not embrace this theology is in serious error.</blockquote>You responded with:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]And what do you say about those who do not accept Calvinism or covenant theology?</font><hr></blockquote><p>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.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Oh really? Here are a few of your remarks posted on this Board:<blockquote>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. [from this message]</blockquote><blockquote>[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.</blockquote>There were a few similar statements but I really didn't have the motivation to try and track them down. As to the latter remark re: backslidden, I find that almost humorous. I have yet to see a doctrine backslide as opposed to those who espouse it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img]<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]BTW since you have publicly called Cromwell an "extremist", when are you going to do the moral thing and contact Sprinkle Publications . . .</font><hr></blockquote><p>I've already exposed your misquoting and/or twisting of what I actually wrote above. So your comments are null.<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]according to whose creed tho? Not all reformed churches agree on every single aspect as this subject shows. So which ones specifically?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Theonomy does not argue for a monolithic Church supported by the State. This is what the Reformers and puritans and Scottish Covenanters had advocated. Theonomy allows for an ecclesiastical pluralism within an orthodox concensus. This concensus would be the Ecumenical Creeds and the freedom for each church to choose its own reformed Confession (presbyterian, baptist, Anglican, etc). In other words something alittle more broader than NAPARC, but not as broad as the WCC or NCC or NAE.<br><br>However, I should point out that Theonomy per se is not about Church organization. I realize that you are trying to understand what a Theonomic State might look like. The Book, God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government edited by Gary Scott Smith gives some good answers to these kinds of questions. <br><br>Basically, Christian Reconstructionism is a kind of Libertarian version of the Puritan view of Church and State. So the emphasis is on limiting and restraining the power of the civil magistrate, not expanding it. <br><br>Thus, the primary theonomic view of government is Self-government under God. This simply means the Lordship of Christ over the redeemed Christian applies the law to his own life<br><br>The secondary theonomic view of government is family government or the Lordship of Christ over the Redeemed family along with God's law for the protection and blessing of the family.<br><br>The Third Theonomic view of government is church government or the Lordship of Christ over his Church. Thus, far Calvin's 2nd and 3rd Uses of the Law are used for all three of these governing bodies.<br><br>Last and also Least is State government or the Lordship of Christ over the Civil Sphere. This is where Calvin's First Use of the Law applies for the purpose of restraining sin and crime. (1 Tim 1:8-10).<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]but isn't that the crux of the problem with all man-run governmental systems? Aren't even Christians apt to abuse power?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Any and all man made institutions are subject to abuse. And if the sinless Adam who even abused his Divinely given freedoms in the Garden of Eden, how much more so are we prone to abuse? <br><br>But God's law is meant for a blessing. This is why God gave us His various moral and civil laws in order to restrain such abusive behaviour of man. And while various institutions are prone to abuse because of sin, that does not nuliify the lawful institutions themselves. For example, the institution of marriage is prone to abuse, but the institution itself is still lawful. Likewise, the family is an institution prone to abuse, but it is still a lawful institution. The same too, with the institution of Work and Church and Civil government. All of them are prone to abusive power.<br><br>But as Christians who are recipients of God's sovereign grace and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit to help our infirmities, we are given the strength to obey our Lord and Saviour who continues to forgive our misdeeds when we ask His forgiveness. <br><br>And God's law serves as our Divine guide for righteous behaviour for all things in life including culture and political matters. (2 Tim 3:16-17).<br><br>For a much better explaination of Theonomy, see:<br><br>What Is Theonomy?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Pleas explain the Galatians passage to me?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to? The i]Theonomic[/i] view of the book of Galatians is the same as any standard reformed view of Galatians. John Brown of Edinburgh wrote one of the best reformed Expositions on Galatians. And Moisés Silva of Westminster Seminary wrote one of the best expositions of Galatians 3 in his chapter entitled, Is the Law Against the Promises? The Significance of Galatians 3:21 for Covenant Continuity published in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique and which teaches that the Law was given for Sanctification and not for Justification.<br><br>Thus, the teaching of the Book of Galatians is simply not a unique or controversial issue in respect to Theonomy.<br><br>Colin

I would not put to much faith in the comments of John Zens<br><br>On the Puritan Message Boards John Zens and his NCT has been strongly criticised by various folk for promoting hyper-antinomianism and a new kind of dispensationalism.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Though Winthrop was “good” in many areas I do not wholly agree with him in all he did. The Puritans have their good sides and their bad (look at John Endecott, who is most often recalled for advocating the torture and execution of Quakers). Everyone has their limitations, save Christ, whom we should be an imitation of. As I understand your many quotes, you support Winthrop’s dealings with individuals, communities, and society as a whole. His methodology is one of your examples of theonomy at work in society. But, was not John Winthrop “extreme” in some of his views? <br><br>Though I am no advocate of Antinomianism (a system of doctrine which naturally leads to licentiousness of life), did not the Massachusetts theocrats continue, after the excommunication of Anne Hutchinson (which Winthrop presided over), to froth over the Hutchinsonian heresy for some years to come, variously [color:red]whipping</font color=red>, [color:red]banishing</font color=red>, and [color:red]in one case executing</font color=red> those who continued to espouse Antinomianism (look at the history Colin). Is this your theonomy, your Winthropianism at work? Is this what we are to expect during the next 36,000 years (the estimate for reconstruction according to “your” David Chilton)?<br><br>It appears as if theonomists have replaced the [color:blue]Good News of the Gospel</font color=blue> with the [color:red]Guillotine News</font color=red>, if Winthrop is your example and not Christ! Are we to change Matthew 22:9, which says, [color:blue]Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage</font color=blue> to the theonomists version, of [color:red]Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, <span style="background-color:yellow;">execute</span> before the marriage</font color=red>. Or maybe, you would have us believe that Paul missed his [color:red]theonomist calling</font color=red>, when instead of sharing the Gospel call at Mars Hill (Acts 17:17-34), he should have variously [color:red]whipped</font color=red>, [color:red]banished</font color=red>, and [color:red]executed</font color=red> those that did not embrace Christianity. Paul tried the stoning bit before his conversion with Stephen (consenting unto the death, Acts 8:1)—God corrected him, in his conversion! Colin, Winthropianism and theonomy are NOT [color:blue]the Gospel</font color=blue>! As Paul says,<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue] Galatians 1:6-11 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto [color:red]another gospel</font color=red>: Which is not another; [color:red]but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ</font color=red>. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. </blockquote></font color=blue> Thus, Winthrop denies your assertion by his actions, that [color:red]Theonomists are not blind followers of men even if they are puritans. Instead they desire to follow the Word of God,</font color=red> for clearly Winthrop embraced something other than [color:blue]the Gospel</font color=blue> by his actions.<br><br><center>Pilgrim addressed the rest of your post revealing once again its historical inconsistencies and other errors. <br><br>Choose you this day the Gospel or the Guillotine? The Gospel or Theonomy?. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img]</center>

Hi Colin<br><br>Hyper-Calvinism does "ignore" evangelism and human responsibility. I used to attend a Strict and Particular baptist chapel in England and am well versed in hyper-calvinism. It is a false gospel in my opinion as is arminianism and dispensationalism.<br><br>Regards howard

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I would not put to much faith in the comments of John Zens<br><br>On the Puritan Message Boards John Zens and his NCT has been strongly criticised by various folk for promoting hyper-antinomianism and a new kind of dispensationalism.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>My point was that Jon Zens (and also John Reisinger too) clearly saw the logical implications of calvinism and puritan covenant Theology leading directly to Christian Reconstructionism. Hence, they rejected puritan covenant theology in favour of NCT and Anabaptism. They invented "NCT" in order to avoid going all the way back to dispensationalism, and in order to have another alternative to the covenant theology of Christian Reconstruction. <br><br>And I would agree with you that NCT would be better labelled "NKD" or "New kind of Dispensationalism". But the point is that their rejection of puritan Covenant theology is entirely consistent with their rejection of Christian Reconstruction, since the latter is hermeneutically built on the former. Zens and Reisinger's only inconsistency is found in their rejection of classical dispensationalism, which is what they should logically embrace, given their own hermeneutics of discontinuity of the OT.<br><br>Colin

<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>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Pilgrim addressed the rest of your post revealing once again its historical inconsistencies and other errors.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Really? Where exactly did Pilgrim reveal "any historical inconsistencies" of mine? I haven't seen him address them anywhere, but only dismiss them as "obscure".<br><br>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.<br><br>But I am just surprised that Pilgrim and Wesley lets you get away with the kind of remarks you make against other reformed Christian's theological views. Its one thing to faithfully contend against damnable heresies, its quite another to make the same kind of accusations towards certain theological views that all orthodox and reformed Christians have internally differed amongst themselves on. <br><br>Colin

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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".</font><hr></blockquote><p> You make a habit of character Assassinations and "you" yourself are [color:red]extremely offensive and full of hostile criticisms</font color=red> 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:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"][color:blue]<font class="big">Joe, lay off the goofiness, you could care less about me (as if you were so high-minded as to be trying to protect me from embarrassment -- what a joke). Your constant barrage of email slanders, censorship of my refutations of your positions at CS, and even your stooping to have someone publicly slander me over the list you control (under the cover of anonymity which you suggested) have proved time and time again that you will use the most dishonest and antichristian methods to discredit the covenanted reformation in our day. At least be honest enough to own up to this fact. <br><br>Furthermore, concerning your having [color:red]Colin Tayler publicly slander me</font color=red> without putting his name to his scurrilous piece of writing, I think you should ask Andrew Sandlin what R.J. Rushdoony thinks of such cowardly tactics. Even Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss -- and to his face. </font><hr></blockquote><p></font color=blue></font mu=big> A CONTEMPORARY COVENANTING DEBATE; OR, COVENANTING REDIVIVUS. The amazing thing Colin is that apparently this was YEARS ago and YOU still have not made amends! <br><br>You are not welcome here if you continue in this manner!

<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]

<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

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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. <br><br>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 Westminste 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.<br>Thus, what reason would I have to "reply" to something that had nothing to do with me?</font><hr></blockquote><p> [color:red]So, are you saying it is NOT you?</font color=red><br><br>YES or NO Colin. <br><br>[color:red]Are you saying Reg Barrow has lied about this?</font color=red><br><br>Yes or No Colin?<br><br>'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' <br><br>'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'