Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Actually Sinclair Ferguson has been refuted by Martin Foulner's Theonomy and the Westminster Confession an annotated sourcebook of 60 pages of Theonomic quotes from early Reformed authors. Moroever, if you read the footnotes of the original Westminster Standards you will find that the penology of the Older Testament is quoted as part of the unchanging moral law of God.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I really don't think Martin has done any such thing. I believe the main point that Ferguson makes stands, that there is some practical agreement in outcome, but a difference in how Puritan and Theonomist arrive at those applications in practice. Ferguson's position is theoretical theonomy is not the teaching of the Confession. But such is the work for journal articles not chat forums. But I did want to put in my two cents.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I really don't think Martin has done any such thing. I believe the main point that Ferguson makes stands, that there is some practical agreement in outcome, but a difference in how Puritan and Theonomist arrive at those applications in practice. Ferguson's position is theoretical theonomy is not the teaching of the Confession. But such is the work for journal articles not chat forums. But I did want to put in my two cents.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.

The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the whole judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists.

Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity.

The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.

Originally Posted by py3ak

[Moderator]Theonomy is off-topic on this thread. That discussion can be had elsewhere. And I would suggest reviewing this thread in order to make sure that any such hypothetical new thread in which to wax vigorous over theonomy would be a productive advance in the discussion, instead of merely deja vu leftovers.

So, back to the discussion of what subscription really entails.[/Moderator]

Originally Posted by KenPierce

This is the typical line of those who want to trumpet strict subscriptionism, but cut a wide swath for their own doctrinal eccentricities. It is precisely what Stephen Wilkins, in one of his former incarnations did. He thought the PCA had to be absolutely 6-24 on creation, but not punctiliar about Reconstructionism.

Let's face it: the divines could not have been Van Til-influenced theonomists because there was no Van Til. The divines uphold the Law in its right use, and with the proper three-fold division. To try to claim the WCF was a theonomic document is a chronological fallacy of the highest order.

So, you can disparage my learning all day long. It still will not change the fact that you are anything but a strict subscriptionist --you are only intolerant of other people's exceptions, while freely granting your own. Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.

Originally Posted by py3ak

I would tell you that you're welcome, Daniel, but I am constrained to recognize that discussions about moderatorial technique are also off-topic. If you don't let up I shall have to ban both of us from this thread for persistent derailment!

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

There is no hard and fast rule on which points are essential to the system of doctrine and which ones are not.

But we do have precedents in different presbyteries and different sessions.

We had a precedent in the LA presbytery of January 2007 saying FV views were not out of accord with the PCA constitution. Several brought charges against that, and the opposite view prevailed, as of the Feb. 9, 2008, LA Presbytery meeting.

When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and let them decide whether any exceptions are essential.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

There is no hard and fast rule on which points are essential to the system of doctrine and which ones are not.

But we do have precedents in different presbyteries and different sessions.

We had a precedent in the LA presbytery of January 2007 saying FV views were not out of accord with the PCA constitution. Several brought charges against that, and the opposite view prevailed, as of the Feb. 9, 2008, LA Presbytery meeting.

When I was ordained a PCA elder in 1978, I had no exceptions, and when I was installed again in a different PCA church in 2007, I had none; but with a keener understanding from reading the debates on PB, perhaps I should amend my views and let my session know, and let them decide whether any exceptions are essential.

Originally Posted by KenPierce

Andrew,

YOu hate it because you have functioned in MS Valley PResbytery, and are thus on the "safe" side. I don't mean you are prejudiced against it because you're in a safe presbytery. I mean that you don't see how it actually has caused loose presbyteries to become more conscientious.

Now, thanks to Don Clements and others, presbyteries who grant exceptions have to explain why they granted it, and why it doesn't strike at the vitals. Previously, all that could simply be disregarded.

It also removes the liberty of the candidate from saying, "I don't consider this an exception," and (ideally), makes him state all his differences, and then allow the presbytery to declare what are exceptions, and whether or not they can be taught.

So, good faith actually tightens subscription in many settings.

As far as not ordaining non-six-dayers. Were Warfield, MAchen, Hodge, and Augustine faithful ministers in the invisible church? What gives us the right to deny them ordination if they were to appear before our courts today?

Originally Posted by ADKing

The fact that godly men have held wrong opinions should not mean that the church should be required to continue tolerating these wrong opinions as greater light is obtained. This line of reasoning would make it difficult to exclude errors from the past simply because godly men have held them (like episcopacy, for one).

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Your last sentence pretty much sums up why I would not dare take church office. About 5 years ago I would have said I agreed with every jot and title of the Westminster Standards, now I prefer to say that I show a teachable spirit, as I do not have the learning to make such a bold assertion.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Dear Ken,

Your observatio