Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Well, that's simplistic too. Many who would call themselves non-theonomists can agree that "principles" carry over. That's too vague to make anything of it.

Anyway, that doesn't matter much since some non-theonomists will argue that *whatever way* the theonomist wants to take his thesis, the *Scriptures* militate against it.

So, my only point was that *theonomy* doesn't obviously follow from II Tim. 3:16. As I said, the same argument can be made for wearing mono-fabric clothing.

Your argument at this stage appears to be this:

1) All Scripture is profitable for the man of God today.

2) The OT case laws are Scripture.

3) Therefore the OT case laws are profitable for the man of God today.

The problem is at this simplistic leval, we can substitute *all sorts* of things for (2) that we would not want to say "is for today."

Sure, they are 'profitable," but does that mean that *theonomy* follows? No, just like mono-fabric clothing for today doesn't follow.

All I'm saying is that you're not going to be able to so easily squeeze theonomic juice of of the fruit of this passage.