About

This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.

2 Responses to About

  1. Jim McCullen says:

    Hi

    I think you did a good job on your blogg about Jesus saying more about Hell than heaven. Did you ever confirm your thoght that he actually did not say more about Hell?

    JIMMc

  2. Wayne Sweeney says:

    Dear Jolly Blogger,

    I’ll preface this by letting you know that I am not a theonomist (at least not of the Bahnsenian type). As the topic of Theonomy is still hot, and your comments accompanying your posting/linking of Ligon Duncan’s article “Moses’ Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement” are still on the WWW at http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/10/ligon_duncan_on.html, will you please consider editing your misleading statement at point number 4–“…Westminster Confession, 19.4 on the abrogation of the OT civil law…”. Your comment misleads people to think that 19.4 uses the word “abrogation” when in fact it describes the OT judicial law as having “expired”, whereas the word “abrogated” is used in 19.3 regarding the ceremonial laws. Abrogation (legal annullment) prohibits that something be studied for the purpose of current application, however, in 19.4, the Assembly purposely does not use the word “abrogate” and implicitly calls us to study the OT judicial laws to determine their general equity. (I assume for the purpose of informing the formulation of judicial code in modern nations.) Applying the word “abrogate” to 19.4 is erroneous and further inflames the rhetoric surrounding the Theonomy debate, and it makes life more difficult for those of us who are trying to maintain full subcription to the WCF in it’s plain meaning walking a straight line between the Theonomists and Pluralists. If you would like to gain better understanding of this key distinction, you will need to bypass commentators like Robert Shaw who were of a different time, and read articles written at the time when 19.4 was being formulated. A fast and painless way to do this is via “The Confessional Presbyterian 2009’s” first two articles “The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part One: Chronology” by Chris Coldwell and “The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part Two: Analysis” by Matthew Winzer.

    Please do consider making this correction to the your 2005 web page.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s