“ RE: Theonomy Movement ” Thank you for the fair and well formed presentation. I found substantial agreement with the majority of your comments and I appreciated your pastoral heart. R/T has been confrontational to a purpose; major theological/church outlets appear to have colluded to let R/T die the death of silence and shunning. Particularly, Gary North has put on record his modus operandi that certain parties would be 'flushed-out' to engage in biblical/theological debate on our distinctives. Most previous reviews had admittedly performed performed a smear campaign w/o even reading any of the pertinent literature. We have addressed most if not all of our brethren's concerns in writing and in our church sphere. There are always abuses; think on Luther and the Peasant Revolt. That is not warrant to ignore/sleight biblical/confessional progress. Had Theonomy appeared 50+ years ago, there wouldn't have been need for such an emphasis because most historic denominations had a high view of the Law. Our views are well represented in historic Reformed thinking: Johannes Pistoris of the Synod of Dort fame influenced generations with our view of Law, including our Founding Period in America. The Westminster writings include the divines' understanding of 'General Equity', which should prevail. Your pastoral commen
