AHA as an ideology does not have a specific eschatological position or an official position on Theonomy. There is diversity among abolitionists worldwide on these particular issues. I'll certainly admit that I am a Theonomist, and it’s amusing to me that men like Steve Hays have appropriated that fact as somehow discrediting me or Abolitionism, as if Theonomy is a boogie man, or that it is the official position of Abolitionism. If Steve Hays desires to dig up additional piteous ad hominen attacks against me and Abolitionism, he should feel free to just ask me, instead of creeping around my FaceBook. I’m quite open. Although I believe that a Theonomic position is more explicitly and clearly Immediatist, I utterly reject the notion that one must be a Theonomist to Biblically love their neighbor, proclaim Jesus Christ as King, and faithfully oppose discriminatory compromise.
Poor guy is suffering from swamp fever.
i) In drawing attention to evidence for his theonomic commitments, I didn't evaluate theonomy. I didn't make a value judgment on the merits of theonomy. I didn't say if that was good, bad, or something in-between. Reasnor's reaction is paranoid.
ii) Inasmuch as the debate topic is "Incrementalism is a strategy incompatible with Scripture," since Reasnor is the point-man for AHA in this debate, if his side of the argument is indebted to theonomic distinctives, it's relevant to notice how that figures in his argument.
iii) It is hardly an "ad hominem attack" to consider the intellectual commitments which inform a debater's position. If I'm assessing Peter Singer's position on bioethics, it's not "ad hominem" for me to point out that he's a utilitarian philosopher as well as an atheist.
iv) Reasnor has a public Facebook account. I don't have to "creep" around to find additional info. It's not like I was digging through his garbage. Do most abolitionists suffer from this paranoid mentality?
It's perfectly legitimate to research the intellectual background of an advocate for a given position.
iv) Insofar as Reasnor's objections to incrementalism are dependent on his theonomic interpretation of Scripture, when AHA sponsors a debate with Reasnor as their designated hitter, that naturally raises the question of whether the abolitionist objection to incrementalism is inextricably grounded in a theonomic interpretation of Scripture. It presents a dilemma:
Reasnor's theonomic attack on incrementalism either is or is not representative of AHA. If it is, then the intellectual fortunes of AHA are only as good as the case for theonomy.
If it's not, then Reasnor didn't succeed in presenting the abolitionist side of the argument inasmuch as his particular position is too idiosyncratic to accurately reflect the generic AHA position. If his argument doesn't even line up with the position he was supposed to represent, then he automatically lost the debate.