Am I a Theonomist?

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by AV1611, Aug 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    I have not read any Theonomy books so I was just wondering if my view is similar to theirs. I believe that the civil law and ceremonial law of Israel are done away with. However I believe in the perpetual abiding of the moral law. I also see that parts of Israel's civil law were founded upon the moral law and these therefore provide us with a perfect application of the moral law in the civil sphere and so there is no reason for the state not to use OT law as a part of its legislation. :candle:
  2. A5pointer

    A5pointer Puritan Board Sophomore

    maybe semi
  3. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    Are Theonomists arguing that all of the civil law of Israel ought be enforced or only parts of it?
  4. Answerman

    Answerman Puritan Board Sophomore

    Richard, the real question for theonomists is do some civil laws for Israel have a mixture of the ceremonial laws in them and therefore need to be carefully qualified or not inforced in those cases.
  5. Answerman

    Answerman Puritan Board Sophomore

    Just like the title on Bahnsen's books on theonomy state, "By this standard" and "No other standard". The whole point of theonomy is what standard ought we use for our civil code? man's or God's. To be sure man comes up with civil laws, but what should be used to judge whether or not these civil laws are truly just.
  6. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    The problem I have had with the theonomy threads is that everyone has a different definition of the word. These discussions and others might bear more fruit if PB had a glossary of terms to which everyone agreed.
  7. Answerman

    Answerman Puritan Board Sophomore

    Good point Ken, the definition of theonomy that I hold to is very broad and loose, mainly because I have not done and extensive study on the subject to nail down where I stand on the various positions within theonomy, but I certainly agree with the general idea behind the theonomic movement.

    Our founding fathers weren't the least bit afraid to quote from the Bible, even from the Old Testament, when formulating laws. I could only wish the same thing was true today.

    Oh God, please send a revival in our nation.
  8. Southern Presbyterian

    Southern Presbyterian Puritan Board Doctor

    Amen Brother!
  9. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor


    If you believe that aspects of the civil law circumstantial to Israel have expired, but that civil laws which can't be exegetically proved to be circumstantial to the land of Canaan are also moral laws, then I would say that you are basically a theonomist.

  10. CalvinandHodges

    CalvinandHodges Puritan Board Junior


    Bahnsen defines Theonomy as the application of all of the principles of the judicial law in society today together with their literal penal sanctions. Thus, if the judicial law calls for the death of an adulterer, then that is what we should do.

    The anabaptists hold that the whole of the judicial law has been abrogated and has nothing to do with civil law today.

    The Reformed hold a middle ground: The Judicial laws were given to the Jewish State to distinguish it from the nations around it. With the destruction of the Jewish state one can say that the Judicial laws of that state have been abrogated. However, some of these laws are echoed in Greek, Roman, British and American Law as well. These laws, founded upon the law of nations (or nature or general revelation if you like) are still binding as they are worded in the Constitutions of those respected states.

    The penal sanctions of the Judicial laws are not obligatory. They were not even obligatory during the Jewish State: David committed adultery and murder - yet he was never punished according to the penal sanctions of the Judicial Law of Israel. Jesus, also, does not condemn the adulterous woman - though the Jews cried out for her being stoned to death because of the Judicial law.

    The "General Equity" passage in the WCF is erroneously interpreted by Bahnsen as "general principles." A better understanding of it would be general revelation or the equity found in the law of nations.

    See: Calvin's Institutes, book 4, chapter 20, sections 14-16.

    An online copy can be found at our website here: - you will have to scroll down a little to find it.


    Francis Turretin's, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, pg. 165-167.

    God bless,

    Last edited: Aug 22, 2007
  11. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    While I refuse to debate this again (at least for the moment), also consider Robert L. Dabney's take on the Mosaic laws:

    Lectures in Systematic Theology, p.407.
  12. Davidius

    Davidius Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    I also remember that the penalty for the man in Corinth who had been sleeping with his mom (stepmom?) was not death but excommunication. Israel the nation, which was a shadow and type of the worldwide visible Church, had death as its highest form of punishment for the most severe crimes. The worldwide visible Church excommunicates and this punishment has arrived as the "fulfillment" of previous judicial sanctions for a Church which is no longer also a state.
  13. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    No theonomist argues that the Church should use the sword.

    Under such logic what would be the punishment for kidnapping, since the death penalty has been superceded by the "Church?"
  14. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    Actually, Theonomy is the only truly Reformed view of civil ethics; this is because only Theonomy recognizes that we cannot have any knowledge of what is right and wrong regarding civil justice independent of God.

    All other views - which imply that the state can invent its own crimes and penal sanctions - deny the sovereignty of God in civil ethics. It does not matter how many Reformers or Puritans you can quote (or mis-quote), the fact of the matter is that Theonomy is the only truly epistemologically Reformed view of judicial ethics.

    For more information read:

    Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, No Other Standard, By This Standard

    Gary DeMar The Debate over Christian Reconstruction and his articles in Theonomy: An Informed Response
  15. Blueridge Believer

    Blueridge Believer Puritan Board Professor

    It is a difficult question brother. I am sympatetic to the thonomist postion, but would we kill sabbath breakers as well?
  16. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    The death penalty in Israel was distinguished from excommunication as it was applied to the strangers who could not partake of the passover. The issue in 1 Cor. 5 is church discipline, not civil penalties.

    Some Theonomists argue that the death penalty for Sabbath violation was partly ceremonial (even if the duty to keep the Sabbath is moral), and therefore no longer binding. I am not convinced by this as the Sabbath is part of God's moral law (just like adultery). I think we need to look at things from God's perspective, not ours, the reason these things seem harsh to us is because we do not view them the way God does.
  17. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    I agree with you here. How would you respond to the fact that King David was not put to death for adultery?
  18. Blueridge Believer

    Blueridge Believer Puritan Board Professor

    God put away his sin just as he does any repentant sinner. If not, we'd all be dead. It didn't change the fact that he deserved to die though, just as we all do.
  19. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    Biblical Law requires two witnesses for the death sentence to be carried out as nobody witnessed the incident David and Bathsheba could not be executed. Those who use this as a pretext for laying aside the death penalty for adultery would also have to do the same with murder, as David had Uriah killed.

    God could have called for him to be executed later, but in His infinite wisdom he did not; but he was judged in God's providence with the death of his sons.

    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  20. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    They argue the general equity of the laws should be enforced (but no one has ever been able to define that adequately).

    Instead of saying I am a theonomist, I say that I hold to Dabney and Thornwell's worldview (men who are heroes in the Reformed faith). I then recommend page 407 in Dabney's systematic theology book. Or Thornwell's address to the Confederate Congress. I leave the discussion at that. No more, no less.

    Of course, to quote Dabney and Thornwell is to quote some men who were theonomic in orientation.
  21. CalvinandHodges

    CalvinandHodges Puritan Board Junior

    John Calvin on Theonomy:

    Some point out James Jordan's article concerning Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy. Note, however, that Calvin did not forbid the use of the Mosaic Judicials, but he only said that they are mutable - changeable according to the natural Equity of the country or society that is enacting laws.

    The Theonomic position is wrong and unorthodox because it insists that the Judicial Law must be enacted for a country to be considered legitimate. Calvin states that as long as the crimes listed in the Moral Law (Ten Commands) are being punished, then righteousness is being instituted in a nation. Such punishment may be consistent with the Judicial Law's penal sanctions, or, it may not.


  22. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I am not beating this horse again. Martin Foulner did an admirable job in defending theonomists' orthodoxy in the last thread on this subject.

    On the other hand, if that's the case, Dabney is unorthodox.
  23. CalvinandHodges

    CalvinandHodges Puritan Board Junior

    Martin Foulner's (and I met him in his bookstore back in '97 and talked to him about it) error is that he is missing the Forest for the trees. This is the same error that Bahnsen makes as he explicates "Theonomy." And it is the same error that all Theonomists make when they try to relate their interpretation with the WCF and the Divines.

    The Forest: Is the overall attitude of the WCF and the Divines to the Judicial Law. Calvin, as noted above, does not forbid the use of the Judicials in society today (or even in his day). What he says is that they are not necessary for a society to enact in order to be under the Sovereignty of Christ or for that society to be just. Francis Turretin picks up on this when he says:

    What Theonomist would say that the Roman Laws are preferred to the Mosaic? It is here that Foulner and Bahnsen make their error. All the civil laws of a society and their penal sanctions refer themselves to the Moral Law (Ten Commands) not to the Judicial Law (forensic or "case" laws if you like). Calvin would say that it is the law of love that should encompass the "equity" of a nation.

    The Trees: This is where Martin Foulner derives his strength from - because it is evident that some of the divines looked to a more literal application of the Judicial Laws than others. Thus, he takes selected quotes from some of these men out of their context in order to promote Theonomy. The argument of necessity of the Judicial Laws for the "righteousness" of a society is where they go wrong. The divines did not argue necessity, but expediency. If the Judicial Law was consistent with the natural (or general) equity of a society, then it was lawful to use. However, if the general equity of a society contradicted or overthrew a Judicial Law, then that contradiction is not unlawful - as such is founded upon "natural equity" (the Laws of Nations or Natural Law if you like). As Turretin states above:

    Consequently, one can quote the WCF and the divines as if they were Theonomists, but they were far from the the interpretation of the Theonomist.

    Grace and Peace,

    PS: If the Theonomist position is correct, then one has to argue that any nation which does not use the Mosaic Judicials is not under the authority of Christ? A rather weak position to hold I would think.
  24. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I understand the rest of what you said, but still think Foulner did a good job. In the meanwhile, could you explain the above statement? Do you mean *all* societies, or just society x?
  25. CalvinandHodges

    CalvinandHodges Puritan Board Junior

    Martin is a great guy, and I like him alot despite our differences.

    I think my previous quotation from Calvin points this out:

    The idea is that a society may have a stealing problem, therefore the penalty for stealing would be more stringent in society "x" rather than in society "y."

    Quite frankly I think we should have the death penalty for pedophiles because it is such a problem in society today. Such a view is not found in the Mosaic Judicials. It is a violation of the 7th Command.


  26. timmopussycat

    timmopussycat Puritan Board Junior

    I too, hesitate before participating in another Theonomy thread but...
    Every man and woman knows what is right and wrong by general revelation. God did not give the Mosaic civil stipulations to the world as a worldwide guide for all men at all times but he gave them to Israel as statutes regulating Israel's specific covenant relationship with him. The Reformed have historically recognized these facts and where possible have instituted those Mosaic stipulations whose general equity still applied.

    If by Theonomy you mean Bahnsen's "ethical perspective of Christian Reconstructionism" you err. Calvin, Turretin, Bullinger, the English Puritans from Perkins and Bayes through Ball and the majority of Westminster Divines differed significantly from Bahnsen on the means employed to justify present day use of Mosaic judicial stipulations. And the difference has consequences affecting whether a modern state can change penalties or decriminalize crimes without implicit or explicit authorization. Bahnsen says no, the others I mention (who are certainly Reformed say yes). And it is because the majority of Reformed folk who have studied the matter recognize these differences, that Bahnsen's Theonomy is not making greater headway in the Reformed world.

    Having read all the books you mention, I remain unpersuaded.
  27. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    Dear Tim

    Sorry I missed you post, but I think you have missed the point of my statement about it being epistemologically Reformed; it does not matter if Calvin, Turretin or all the Puritans were explicitly anti-Theonomic, the argument is a philosophical/theological one, not a debate about Reformed histroy. To answer your more specific objections a friend of mine e-mailed me a list of answers:

    Response: Does every man and woman know what is the right punishment for every criminal wrong doing? The vast differences in judicial practices around the world show that they don't. (epistemologically they do "know", just as they all "know" that God truly exists). But because of sin, they suppress that knowledge of judicial right and wrong, just as they equally suppress the knowledge of God's existence.

    So what I am saying is that epistemologically, everyone is a Theonomist (in Bahnsen's and Van Til's correct sense of the term). But the sinful nature of men supresses the Theonomy of God. Dr. Bahnsen has been reviled by his naive critics simply because he exposed the epistemological suppression of Theonomy by sinful man. Some people's crusade against Bahnsen's Theonomy is just another part of this sinful suppression of righteous knowledge that was revealed in the Bible.

    God did give the Mosaic civil stipulations to the world via the Isrealites who were to be a light to the nations. (Deut 4:5-8). It was only the ceremonial laws (and their few judicial attachments) which were intended solely for "Israel's specific covenant relationship with him.".

    To suggest that civil punishments of adulterers, sodomites, idolaters, kidnappers and incestors with death, and punishing thieves with restitution was merely for "regulating Israel's specific covenant relationship with him" is false, and contrary to historic reformed thought in this area, and contrary to the covenantal hermeneutics of the Bible.

    What if one particular "general equity" reasoner happens to disagree with the conclusions of another general equity reasoner? A stalemate ensues. Whenever the continuing validity of God's law is left in the hands of men, no matter how good they think they are
    at exegesis, autonomy is the inevitable result, since the validity of God's law would then ultimately depend on the skills of a fallible exegete.

    The "Reformed" of the 16th and 17th centuries (who were indisputably Theonomists in
    Bahnsen's sense) had to first *presume* the continuing validity of the general equity of the Judicials (which they did) before they could "institute" them. Hence, the historic Reformed had to be Theonomists in Bahnsen's sense of his "presumption of continuity" hermeneutic, otherwise they could have had no use forgeneral equity at all.

    And since none of them were Dispensationalists, then they followed the hermeneutics of covenant theology, which is the very same hermeneutics of Greg Bahnsen, and not surprisingly, they both came to nearly the same conclusions about civil ethics.

    Again, I repeat this is an epistemological question, not a historical one. Even if it can be proved that all of these men were explicitly anti-Theonomic, it does not mean that Theonomy is not epistemologically Reformed. However, here are the historical arguments:

    Greg Bahnsen revived the Theonomic teachings of Calvin [in his commentaries and sermons], Bullinger, and the EngishPuritans from Perkins and Bayes and Ball and the majority of the Westminster Divines. No one in the 1970's was writing about the puritan view of civil law, except Greg Bahnsen and Rushdoony. A fact which John Frame also noted when he said that the writings of these two men had "revived" the views of the puritans.

    There is no significant differences between Bahnsen's view and the puritan's view on the civil law of God. And infact, hardly anyone in recent times (calvinist or otherwise) really cares what the Puritans said about the civil law of God, except Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North and Gentry and Martin Foulner. Not even Sinclair Ferguson really cares except as a polemic to try and undermine Bahnsen's "Theonomy in Christian Ethics", a book which remains unrefuted to this day.

    Since there are no significant "differences" between Bahnsen and the Puritans [in terms of the abiding validity of penal sanctions], then this point is moot. If anyone thinks that something better than the Bible can be used to "change penalties" or "decriminalize crimes", then he is really promoting *autonomy in Christian ethics*.

    But for Theonomists, we have no objection to the Puritan view of Civil law. And certainly Greg Bahnsen had no general objection to the puritan view of civil law, and infact, he had enthusiastically endorsed their view.

    As for the "majority of [modern] Reformed folk who have studied the matter", they have not been successful in refuting Bahnsen's Theonomy, even after 30 years. The Westminster Seminary book Symposium in 1990 was a major failure as a "reformed critique".

    Furthermore, the majority of modern "Reformed folk" have exposed themselves as Political pluralists and natural law advocates and have little interest in puritan views of civil law application.

    Also, as for the argument about pedophiles, this is dealt with in Biblical law as it would either be a hetrosexual rape (requiring compensation) or a homosexual rape (requiring death).
  28. timmopussycat

    timmopussycat Puritan Board Junior

    Actually I have not missed that point. The Reformers and the Puritans used a different philosophical and theological justification for instituting particular Mosaic judicials than did Bahnsen.

    I believe your friend was Mr. Colin Tayler, with whom I have corresponded extensively on these matters as he has posted the arguments below on another board as well. His points will be marked Quote. QuoteTim: will mark where he cites me.

    Mr. Tayler has just contradicted himself. If men do know that God exists, their pretence that they don't is unconvincing. So if there is a single punishment for a crime that is justly applicable to all situations, men do know it despite their unconvincing protests.

    Everybody is a theonomist in Van Til's sense of the term and in the sense in which Bahnsen usually used in his introduction to "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" i.e. one whose source of ethics is God. But not everybody is a Theonomist in the sense of holding to the "ethical perspective of Christian Reconstructionism." Let us not equivocate over the different meanings of this word.

    Not so. Dr. Bahnsen made errors of exegesis, historical fact and logical reasoning. Had those errors not been made, the claim that any criticisms of him are sinful suppression of Biblical truth might be just. Given that in my book, How Firm A Foundation", I demonstrate that Bahnsen made the errors I claim he made, and that to date Mr. Tayler has yet to refute the demonstrations (not even attempting to refute some of the principle criticisms) despite having access to the draft of my book, his claim with its implied innuendo against me is a violation of C. S. Lewis's dictum that one must show THAT a man is wrong before we talk about why he is wrong. (C. S. Lewis, "Bulverism" in God in The Dock.)

    Had I known Mr. Tayler was reading this board, I would have phrased the point differently. I would have said "God did not give the Mosaic civil stipulations to a worldwide audience with their applicability assigned to all men at all times. Instead they were given to Israel as some of the statutes regulating Israel's specific covenant relationship with him." That was indeed the context in which they were originally given and it is indisputable that the Reformed have recognized this.

    And I have never disputed that the civil laws contain wisdom for the nations. The essential difference between myself and many other theonomists on one hand and Theonomists such as Bahnsen on the other is over the hermeneutic we use to justify applying a given Mosaic stipulation today to a covenantal context different from that to which it was originally given.

    Yet the Reformed have historically recognized that God gave to Israel, "as a body politic sundry judicial laws," also recognizing that those laws "expired together with the state of that people..." Yet like the historic Reformed, I do not falsely conclude from the above that any or all of those punishments must not be instituted by modern states as Mr. Tayler implies. Nor did I use the word "merely". So he is attacking a straw man here. Rather, with the WCF, I recognize that any given Mosaic stipulation may remain just today if its "general equity may require." (WCF 19:4)

    Although Scripture tells us everything we need to know for salvation it does not tell us everything we would like to know about everything else. Scripture tells us everything we need for training in righteouness, but if all of us obeyed what it taught us about training in righteousness, there would be no need for any judicial laws. The simple fact of the matter is that God has chosen not to directly regulate any civil state outside of OT Israel and he was not obligated to tell such states how they should frame their judicial stipulations. It is certain we may not justify contemporary application of the Mosaic judicials because they are covenant stipulations because a) that covenant was never exteded to Gentiles b) that covenant has been superseded and c) if held covenantally, we are in the heresy of Galatianism. So we need some other hermeneutical principle to govern how we apply them today to a different context from which they were given.
    And as in all cases where we take Scripture addressed to one context and apply it to another, we must carefully construct our applications according to good hermeneutics. And whenever hermenetics enters the picture, disagreement follows. So disageement on this point is inevitable, and permitted by God and erring here is not automatic damnation.

    The Reformers, Puritans and Westminster divines were overwhelmingly not Theonomists in Bahnsen's sense
    Proof: Bahnsen's hermeneutic:
    All Mosaic stipulations must be enforced unless the Lawgiver implicitly or explicitly alters them.
    No Mosaic crime may be decriminalized by a state, nor may a Mosaic punishment be changed from its original equity without authorization to do so.

    The Reformed Practice
    I have shown in "How Firm a Foundation" that Calvin, Perkins, Bayes and Gillespie altered Mosaic punishments without authorization. Since Bahnsen's hermeneutic forbids such alteration...
    ...these men did not follow Bahnsen's hermeneutic and thus could not have been Theonomists in Bahnsen's sense of the word.

    This statement contains a logical error. The Divines did not presume the continuing validity of all the judicials. What they presumed was the possibility that any of the judicials might continue to be valid if its general equity still applied. To put it another way, the divines postulated that stealing a cow might possibly deserve the same punishment in 17th century England that it got in Israel. To test that postulate they provided a test: did general equity still apply?

    Unfortunately, Mr. Tayler commits another logical error; this time, the false dilemma. He has been previously and repeatedly informed that at least two major covenant theologians of the period John Ball and Herman Witsius, disagree from Bahnsen on the two key points. Unlike Bahnsen they limit the extent of the moral law to the decalogue specifically, and they recognize that the term judicial laws includes all of what Bahnsen would later describe as standing laws not just some of them. So they did not follow the same hermeneutic as Bahnsen even though in many cases they reached the same conclusios as Bahnsen. Given that the two major covenant theologians of the period do not follow the same hermeneutic as Bahnsen, Mr. Tayler cannot claim that because the divines were covenant theologians they were ipso facto Theonomists in Bahnsen's sense.

    That Bahnsen's Theonomy will be in the same epistemological camp as the Reformed (i.e. that of theonomy in the older pre-Bahnsen sense of the word) doesn't end the debate. For it is not the only view of how to apply the civil laws that comes out of that camp. A diffent view from the same source was adopted by the Reformers/WCF.
    The question at issue in the debate is which hermeneutic is Biblical, Bahnsen's or that of the Reformers/WCF.

    The following arguments are again supplied (I believe) by Mr. Tayler.

    Unfortunately the facts are against Mr. Taylor's claim. These men did not share Bahnsen's hermeneutic. Calvin and Bayes allowed for Dominically unauthorized changes in punishments, Ball unlike Bahnsen limited the moral law specifically to the decalogue. Those interested in seeing the proof of this pudding may contact me offline for an online copy of my book "How Firm a Foundation" which documents these claims.

    In the sense that the Puritans held that the Mosaic judicials should be applied and not ignored, Frame is correct. As far as I can determine, nobody in the 70's put forward the Puritan view with any vigor. But if Frame meant that Bahnsen's hermeneutic was that of the Puritans, he was incorrect as I have shown at length. To see the proof of this point, see my paper "How Firm a Foundation" as noted above.

    Tim-I think there are a few more who care. I notice Mr. Taylor didn't mention Vern Poythress or James Jordan both of whom he knows hold similar views to mine. And those are only two I know about.

    Partial answers to "Theonomy" are extant even if they have to be looked for. And a more complete one is in the publishing process. John DeWitt, (Bahnsen's department chairman at RTS) who acted as publisher's reader for "How Firm a Foundation" has said "As I read your formidable treatise I found myself thinking, 'He is killing a gnat or a flea with a sledgehammer.' If Theonomy is still widely received and credited, then your book is much needed. I was amazed at the thoroughness with which you have done your work. You have brought together a prodigious amount of material. You have, moreover, organized it with painstaking care. For the most part your argument is clear and readily followed, at least by those who have had some introduction to the school of thought you undertook to combat. I should think also that the case you make is unanswerable."

    Not at all. Because the Puritans did both while Bahnsen allows neither, as HFAF documents.

    Straw man argument. I promote the Biblical and confessional view that if general equity still applies then a given Mosaic stipulation should be instituted.

    But since there is a difference in methodology between the 17th century men and Bahnsen he was not endorsing their view even if he thought he was. And if Theonomists call the an accurate description of Puritan view "autonomy in Christian ethics," then Theonomists should be proclaiming their objection to it, not trying to claim it as their own.

    Uneven yes, "major failure" not. John Frame (Machen's Warrior Children) has documented the relative unsuccess of Theonomy in winning converts among Reformed seminarians and TARC is a major reason why that is so.

    Some have, but there are others who have not that Mr. Tayler doesn't mention even though he knows their stand.

    I don't think I said anything to this specific point. And I agree that the Biblical punishment for rape is one where general equity applies.

    Daniel, if your computer can read Word documents and you want to see a copy of "How Firm A Foundation" I'd be happy to forward a copy to you if you reply via private message giving me your email address.
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2007
  29. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Mod. A friendly reminder that may or may not be necessary, but prudent. Please do not let the discussion at this point turn into some kind of proxy conversation with a third party, in this case Colin Taylor, who is not a member of this board. The point of citing external sources is not to create a cross board conversation. If Colin is commenting elsewhere on what is said here, take the response to that site.
  30. timmopussycat

    timmopussycat Puritan Board Junior

    I was responding to the points Mr. Ritchie had posted here, even though I suspected they were authored by Mr. Tayler. Query: if Mr. Ritchie posts further replies here that appear to be from Mr. Tayler should I identify the possible source when I reply to Mr. Ritchie's posts?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page