09-13-2008, 08:11 PM
|
 | Administrator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 8,865
Thanks: 1,043
Thanked 985 Times in 634 Posts
| |
I agree that Rutherford and Gillespie are no theonomists, so of course they may appear inconsistent to some.  Quote:
Originally Posted by Christusregnat  Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress As for OT penalties, Samuel Rutherford opined as follows:[indent] No man but sees the punishment of theft is of common morall equity, and obligeth all Nations, but the manner or degree of punishment is more positive: as to punish Theft by restoring foure Oxen for the stealing of one Oxe, doth not so oblige all Nations, but some other bodily punishment, as whipping, may be used against Theeves.[1] | A sad case of poor reasoning. Rutherford can't have it both ways. On one hand, he wants to argue from the judicials for certain things; on others, he wants to defy them. Also, I have read several excepts from the free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience to the opposite effect. For instance: Quote: |
...but the question may draw to this, whether the Laws of England & Scotland be bloody or unjust, that ordains seminary Priests and Jesuits, whose trade it is to seduce souls to the whole body of Popery, to bee hanged. I conceive they are most just Lawes and warranted by Duet. 13. and many other Scriptures, and that the King and Parliament of either Kingdomes serve Christ, and kisse the Son in making and executing these Lawes. page 68
| This contradicts your quotations, and also affirms Pergy's hanging argument 
I see your Rutherford; you want to raise me a Gillespie?
Cheers, | |