Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress  Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe I am cringing at the idea...but maybe not.
The anti-theonomic side would have to agree on who to debate. Ultimately, this would be a debate, not about God's law, but a debate on presuppositions. Would the anti-theonomy side choose a Klinean who has little in common, with regard to social ethics, with Calvin and Knox? Or would the anti-thoenomic side choose a Puritan? (The Puritan would do much better, btw). | Right. And the Theonomic side(s) don't have a similar problem? There's the question of definition at the very least. It won't be easy to organize but its worth discussing. |
Agreed.
For better or for worse (probably for worse), theonomy is usually presented as closer to monolithy than its detractors. Most of them agree with most of Bahnsen's conclusions and the theonomists on this board are fairly monolithic. I am not denying disagreements within their camp, but simply pointing out the difference between Bahnsen and Rushdoony is smaller than the difference between Doug Kelly and Lee Irons.