That is a misstatement of fact, Professor, and you know it. I posted, "I am not a Christian Reconstructionist; I am a Presbyterian."
And you obviously read this post because in response you followed up with the statement to someone that "she could be a Presbyterian because CR was begun by the Presbyterians." (paraphrasing here)I think it was you who even mentioned Van Til.
Recall?
No CR I've read has ever advocated stoning children, or anyone. But Christian perspectives are assailed on all sides. As God wills. If you'd like to read what someone like Greg Bahnsen, a student of Van Til, wrote about Scripture, Christianity and God's purpose, a good place to find complete articles is here:
A good one to start with might be:
You are correct about one thing, however. A Christian worldview where all kneel to the Triune God of Scripture does seem to be lagging. It is a loathsome prospect to those who deny it. I have faith, however, it is but a momentary stagnation.
No King but Christ.
"We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." (2 Cor 10:5)
Bump to 1286.
No, I'm afraid that's a lie. You posted in 1029. " I have not said I'm a Christian Reconstructionist. I'm a Presbyterian." You know darn well that the two are not mutually exclusive; CR is an outgrowth of Presbyterianism. And it's a classic example of your strategy of defense by hairsplitting.
If you wish to say now that you are not a CR, I'm glad. They are hateful people, and it's good the world contains one fewer of them than I suspected.
But you then go on to promote yet another of their number. How curious!