If you don't like the term theonomist, then Rutherford and Gillespie would be called what? They both acknowledge the death penalty for idolatry proselytization, sodomy, adultery, and other issues directly related to the Mosaic Judicials. If that is not theonomy, then I need you to do some detailed explanation.

All I was stating was that Rutherford is not a consistent reasoner on these issues. Now he's a theonomist; now he's not. However, the overall thrust of his thought is theonomic from start to finish. This is the service that modern theonomists have done to their forbears: they have systematized and attempted to root out inconsistencies from the basic puritan socio-political ideology. Theonomy is just covenant theology applied to one particular area of thought. Just as infant baptism is covenant theology applied to a different area of thought. If someone said in his works, "Our children are included with us in the visible church", and then said "Our children are vipers and diapers, and should not be baptized", where should one fall. I see Rutherford as doing just that. Anywho, I'll get off of my

Cheers,

__________________
Adam B., Livermore, California
Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA

He who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.