[Travis]

I think this article by James Jordan on the historicity of theonomy (in relation to the Westminster Confession) should be read by all, since it is often claimed that theonomy contradicts the Confession and our Puritan heritage.

[Athanasius]

Travis, I believe the minutes from the Westminster Assembly are being published at some point this year...you may find clarifications for Section 19's reading in them...or just more confusion.

[+Donny]

Without confusion, there would be less debate, and what fun would that be?

[+Donny]

I just realized something. That article was written in the late 70's. I wasn't either birthed yet.

Man I am young.... it makes you feel so insignificant when this much debating and discussing has been going on for this long. Even if I was successful and wrote/taught for 40 years, I would still be just a footnote in Church history (if I was incredibly incredibly lucky). That is amazingly humbling.

[+Donny]

Your belief in regards to theonomy is in the minority, so just as Arminianism is mocked, so be it with theonomy.

Actually, you can mock anyone'e belief, whether in the minority or majority. However, we have to make sure such jabs are done in fun and are not meant to actually be cruel or hurtful.

[Travis]

Let's get back on topic.

[Lightknight]

Hmmm... I did read it all. But I don't see how this changes things. Or am I missing some part of the article that was specific to it? I mean, I read the parts on theonomy, but to what exactly are you refering.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

But I don't see how this changes things.

What do you mean by "things"? It is a response to the mantra of many Reformed Christians today who believe that theonomy is a departure from the Westminster Confession and the historical view of the reformers, Puritans, etc. The article proves otherwise.

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Or am I missing some part of the article that was specific to it?

What is "it"?

Originally Posted by Lightknight

I mean, I read the parts on theonomy

The entire article was about theonomy's roots in history and the fact that the divines who composed the Westminster Confession adhered to such beliefs.

Originally Posted by Lightknight

but to what exactly are you refering.

What do you mean, "to what am I referring"? Read my original post.

[Athanasius]

I honestly believe, Travis, that the reason that all these articles by theonomists go "unrefuted" is because non-theonomic theologians have lives.

In all seriousness, I never cease to be amazed at the pages and pages that are spewed out of such an incredibly small and new theological faction.

"The Reformation restated clearly the doctrine of justification, but it failed to clarify the doctrine of sanctification. The confusion is apparent in the Westminster Confession of Faith . . . We have previously seen how impossible it is to separate any law of Scripture as the Westminster divines suggested . . . At this point, the Confession is guilty of nonsense." (A chopped up 3rd handed quote of Rushdoony's)

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Athanasius

I honestly believe, Travis, that the reason that all these articles by theonomists go "unrefuted" is because non-theonomic theologians have lives.

Reformed non-theonomists must have very busy lives considering the fact that there has still yet to even be an attempt at a refutation of No Other Standard (Bahnsen's 1991 response to various anti-theonomic works, including that of the Westminster faculty) from a Reformed perspective.

Originally Posted by Athanasius

In all seriousness, I never cease to be amazed at the pages and pages that are spewed out of such an incredibly small and new theological faction.

I believe it was Meredith Kline who referred to the "over-heated typewriter of Greg Bahnsen," and he didn't put out a fraction of the material North has.

I must say, however, that I resent your calling it "a new faction" without even addressing the article which I believe proves otherwise.

Originally Posted by Athanasius

"The Reformation restated clearly the doctrine of justification, but it failed to clarify the doctrine of sanctification. The confusion is apparent in the Westminster Confession of Faith . . . We have previously seen how impossible it is to separate any law of Scripture as the Westminster divines suggested . . . At this point, the Confession is guilty of nonsense." (A chopped up 3rd handed quote of Rushdoony's)

I fail to see how the opinion of one Reconstructionist (very early in the modern movement) somehow disproves all the arguments made in Jordan's article. Forgive me if that wasn't what you were trying to accomplish, however--I recognize that it likely was not and that I can't honestly expect you to reply to such a long article, especially not here. I will just say with Bahnsen that "I do not agree with everything [Rushdoony] has written." (No Other Standard, p. 3)

[Athanasius]

It wasn't what I was trying to accomplish. All in good fun, all in good fun.

[Benny Hicks]

I know this is way off topic, but can Arminianism truly be considered a minority movement? It doesn't seem like it can be compared to theonomy at all.

Ben

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Travis

What do you mean by "things"? It is a response to the mantra of many Reformed Christians today who believe that theonomy is a departure from the Westminster Confession and the historical view of the reformers, Puritans, etc. The article proves otherwise.

What is "it"?

The entire article was about theonomy's roots in history and the fact that the divines who composed the Westminster Confession adhered to such beliefs.
What do you mean, "to what am I referring"? Read my original post.

Ah, k. I read it again and saw what I missed. It wasn't refuted. Ok. But what impact does that have on the issue theologically?

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Benny Hicks

I know this is way off topic, but can Arminianism truly be considered a minority movement? It doesn't seem like it can be compared to theonomy at all.

Ben

How would Arminianism be a minority movement at all? We're in the majority

[Benny Hicks]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

How would Arminianism be a minority movement at all? We're in the majority

Well, not to eat a dead possum or anything, but what did you mean when you said, "Your belief in regards to theonomy is in the minority, so just as Arminianism is mocked, so be it with theonomy"?

Ben