
05-31-2008, 01:58 PM
|
| Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat 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. | Actually, you do not prove your point at all; you turn the word "summarily" into completely - which is ludicrous. Summarily comprehended means a comprehensive summary of the whole moral law, not an exhaustative statement. But anyway, I do not pretend to have the power to convince you, any more than I would pretend to have the power to convince Wesley of Calvinism.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|