The opening post claims "Escondido" R2kers leads to defense of gay marriage.
You Impugned Darrell As Having Done Something Wrong. I clarified that he didn't. Darrell did not do what you accuse him of in the first post. He did not put Escondido and R2Kers together necessarily. I want you to first acknowledge he did not do what you said and we will move on. Even in your last post you are admitting to something called R2K. You demanded he come forth based upon your conflating two groups together which he didn't do. Your small quote isn't only taken out of context it is not even an accurate quote. It is a DISTORTION. You then classify DVD and Horton as R2Kers in your comment to me. He is not necessarily doing that. You have some cleaning up to do. Please attend to that. Facts are important and if you can't see this how can I discuss other issues with you.
As a side note...
I linked to Lee Iron's comments above. I didn't link to Misty. I mentioned her because it seemed to start with her and then it moved on to her husband, if I recall the situation correctly. This truly isn't about some blogging woman. BTW, she was a Pastor's wife and it was and is about him. You evidently aren't familiar with the case. Are you? Elder Mark Van Der Molen also linked to Horton's view above which is something I do want to address but I want you to first deal with your distorted accusation. I fully expect that you should set the record straight first and apologize. After you do that I will set to dealing with your hypothetical situation (which is really a poor practice), assumptions, and how association is effecting this situation. BTW, we will be using quotes from these people and not just charging them with assumption nor slandering their character.
Let's remove the emotion and discuss this if you please.
Realize this, you - not Darrell are stating that I am misrepresenting his point there. I have honestly read the above paragraph I cited, as linking poor theological R2K thought to the Escondido R2K argument. Escondido R2K along with any seminary does not have an obligation to respond to the arguments made by those who use their view for sinful license. Antinomianism claims is a charge I hear upon Luther and Calvin all the time when I speak to Roman Catholics or Arminians. Are Luther and Calvin's work failures because of this pathetic charge? I remember the separation from the church of my youth (The Roman Catholic Church). I can not tell you how many people for example stated to me in counter argument, "Well I guess you can go have a ton of orgies, drink it up etc, because you are leaving Roman Catholicism. My point is why does Escondido have to defend the worst plausible argument. Why not just their own?
I am fully capable of misrepresenting the statement I honed in on. I am not saying I'm above misunderstanding. However Darrell has provided me no further clarity. You have represented his statement for him. You essentially are asking me to admit to a misunderstanding I'm fully capable of making - however I don't feel I have full clarity from the original poster of the comment on whether or not he intended to infer the above. I come to this board honestly with far more trepidation than I appear. The vast, and I can't stress vast enough majority of people on here have far better understanding of both scripture and doctrine than myself. I'm not again above reproach on my views or argument. I just have not received clarity from the original person I intended the question be directed at.
Also I classify DVD and Horton as R2Kers he's referring too because he mentions Escondido. While they are not the only two there... Obviously Horton is as well known as any reformed theologian of this day... and obviously DVD has written several books on the matter. But yes we could add others like Fesko, etc. But I figured the two who comment most on the matter within the public realm at Escondido were worth mentioning as I was seeking where published or even auditory works such as the white horse inn might have gone down this road. I do agree the link to Horton above was worthwhile. I don't agree however that Horton is defending the extreme views presented here.