Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie There is a difference between moral law=Decalogue, and moral law=Decalogue alone; the latter is ridiculous and unworthy of reply. | As the evidence cited in post 85 shows, Calvin, Perkins, Gouge, Burgess, the WLC, Witsius and Brown of Haddington all took the position that the moral law=the decalogue alone. Whether they were right or wrong in doing so may be debated; that they held that view is a certainty. That it was these individuals who held this view puts the idea that the moral law=decalogue alone squarely in the mainstream of Reformed Confessionalism.
Attempts to dismiss it without refutation by calling it "ridiculous and unworthy of reply" will prove counter-productive for Theonomy's advocates, since all a critic then will then have to do is point inquirers to the primary sources, which will quite nicely demonstrate to the inquirer that any Theonomist who belittles the view that the moral law=decalogue alone in the Westminster Standards or other key figures in the Reformed tradition simply does not know what he is talking about. When fighting for a cause, one is well advised to use a gun that shoots the enemy not oneself.
__________________
In Christ's love and service
Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon
|