Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Swamp fever


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. 
http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/06/god-has-spoken-incremental-delusions.html?m=1

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.

12 comments:

  1. Seems that Reasnor's little screed has placed him on the horns of a dilemma.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just kidding about the creeping bit. Feel free to follow my page anytime you like. Did I make a distinctively Theonomic argument? I expect Wilcox to make those sort of assumptions, but according to your profile on this blog that I creeped at bit, I'd think someone like yourself who's within the Reformed school of thought wouldn't make those sort of theological errors. Why would an argument insisting that scripture speaks on all manner of things be considered explicitly Theonomic? Sounds simply like basic Reformed theology to me. Could be Theonomic, could be based on natural law, could be postmil, historic premil, or Amil. Come on now, Steve, you should know better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why would an argument insisting that scripture speaks on all manner of things be considered explicitly Theonomic?"

      That's by no means all that you said.

      Delete
    2. Care to give the distinctively Theonomic argument? Point it out for me.

      Delete
    3. I already gave documentation in previous posts.

      Delete
    4. Glad we're making progress.

      Delete
    5. I was referring to your inability or refusal to be specific.

      Delete
    6. And I was referring to your inability or refusal to engage the specific documentation.

      Delete
  3. Which is? Thus far you haven't shown that I've made a distinctively Theonomic argument, but you've only claimed that I have and have alluded to past posts that also don't give specific examples of making a distinctively theonomic argument. Your obtuse vagueness isn't helpful. If you have an example, name it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing "allusive." I've given verbatim quotes to illustrate what I mean. The ball is in your court, gathering dust.

      Delete
    2. This ball of yours seems to be hidden away somewhere. Care to shine a light on it? Why is getting you to answer a simple question like pulling teeth?

      Delete