|
If only, Daniel, if only! Unfortunately, it does not seem to be possible to hold to the TR position without charging the rest of the world with contradicting the Westminster Standards and the doctrine of inerrancy. But this is only a one-way problem. I have zero problem with Matthew Winzer and Steve Rafalsky's position on inerrancy, in terms of believing them. I wish they would believe me.
I don't know that theonomy has ever been that much of an issue for me. There is just enough vagueness among various positions that I really don't have a bone in this fight. My position is this: general equity is present in many of the OT laws, and that general equity is still binding, even if the exact form of the law is not.
|