Quote:
Originally Posted by Christusregnat  Semper Fidelis,
I believe that you have publically misrepresented Mr. Ritchie's position. Please re-read, and you will note that you have misquoted his position. Mr. Ritchie said "Yes, I often think to myself that WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged, so that they can link anyone who believes in societal reformation (who is not a pietist) as being similar to the FV." |
I have not misrepresented him. I dealt both with the premises and conclusion. The premise (the WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged) is clearly impious. The broad conclusion: that they're eager for any excuse to label anything that argues for societal reformation as being similar to the FV is equally fallacious and, again, assumes the worst possible character motives of the WSC faculty. It even paints them as stupid because it would assume that they cannot even discriminate between a liberal who argues for social reform and a Federal Visionist. Liberation theologians - another form of the FV in the WSC faculties' minds?
The issue has nothing to do with whether or not WSC is sympathetic or not to Theonomy. The issue has everything to do with their
integrity in how they go about it. The quote above paints them in the worse possible light as joyful that theological error has arisen to bolster their opposition to any view of Scriptures that does not comport to their own.
I will leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions but I don't know how one can state that they actually agree with the WLC on this point and Durham's exposition of the 9th Commandment above and try to defend the argument that you just made.
You might particularly want to make note of this point:
Quote:
(2) Secondly, in gesture this command may be
broken, by nodding, winking, or such like (and
even sometimes by silence) when these import in
our accustomed way some tacit sinister
insinuation, especially when either they are
purposed for that end, or when others are known
to mistake because of them, and we suffer them
to continue under this mistake.
|
On the note of euphemism, I should have used a different term and appreciate the definition. I knew it was an expression but didn't realize it was always a softer form of an expression. One could note that it is "gentler" to call someone a Cretan these days than to call them out for everything that the expression represents but that's besid the point. Either way, the note is still the same. Yes, Paul makes reference to particular Jews to which it applies but the point is that it is still a saying or an expression. I never disputed that it is OK to group people together by something that is generally representative of their train of thought. What I have questioned is the propriety of ascribing the same usage in this instance as if it is commonly accepted that the WSC is sinister in its desire for theological error. A more apt example of generalizing a concept with an institution would be the way historians talk about the old Princeton Theology.
If the comment was simply that WSC tends toward Klineanism then it would not have raised any eyebrows to note a school of thought. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out when that line is crossed.