The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Objections to the Abiding Validity of the Judicial Law

Daniel Ritchie · #**136** (**permalink**) 01-06-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

And the heat of my reply was that you are speaking very disparagingly of an ordained minister of the gospel who has passed into glory. And an ordained minister who remained in good standing all of his life. That isn't exactly tactful. Perhaps Westminster was wrong to give him a degree, but perhaps the OPC was wrong not to bring charges against him, if he is that dangerous.

Jacob, my point being is why did he remain in good standing on the subject of theonomy/Law. The OPC, should have vehemently opposed his position in 1973 when Rush wrote Institutes of Biblical Law and Bahnsen wrote the manuscript of Theonomy in Christian Ethics. The ground was fertile for this and why it never happened is a mystery in my mind. Regardles if these 2 men 'caused' the split is a moot point. It happened and the swords were drawn, yet this movement was left untouched. Now we are left with attacking a deceased person who has been elevated into a position of untouchable coated with thick teflon by his disciples.

I honestly did not notice any heat in your reply. and took no offense. You are passionate and I repsect that. And yes, WTS was terribly wrong to give hi a degree. A process which is not easily attained. I only wish Durand kept the original name of his book, "Judicial Warfare" to be "The New Galatians" Yet out of some sort of charity he did not. For some reason the teflon on GB and RR and Gary is thicker than the one on my cookware...

Tell me Nicholas, do you believe that there should be any civil laws nowadays at all? If so who gets to make them?

Moreover, do you consider George Gillespie to have been a "New Galatian" as well?