Review of T. David Gordon’s Tome in The Law is Not of Faith

I've been doing some reading on the current debate centered on natural law and theonomic ethics. I don't see why these two schools are so polarized, but I definitely think that they are capable of reconciliatory relations. I think it's the purported antagonism that is found in the literature of Michael Horton and other Westminster Seminary theologians (T. David Gordon, David VanDrunen, etc., The Law is not of Faith, 2009) that leads to this sort of paleo-remonstrance against theonomists, aside from the theology. The sad thing is that most of Dr. Gordon's tone against a contributor to the founding of Westminster Seminary, John Murray, is unduly demonstrated. He castigates and berates the theology of John Murray, and may I say, in such an unchristian manner. There should have been a stipulation to the editors' provisions against that sort of thing. I found his (Gordon's) tone so unwelcoming, even though I am not a reader of all of Murray's cherished writings. I find a lot of comfort in Murray's lectures in systematic theology. Now I want to qualify something that I think is screaming "Don't beg the question!": I am a very vehement believer in correcting bad theology, and maybe even in ways that are not conventional. But I also think that there are attitudes which should not even be named among Christians. These attitudes are usually found among the unregenerate and should not be characterized by Christians, especially its doctors and elders. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "but immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3 NASB). This sort of thing should be shunned and rebuked. Michael Horton, who is trying to unite the Reformed world via Modern Reformation and The White Horse Inn, should be more solicitous about these scruples, or the lack thereof, that are being characteristic of the scholarship in "modern reformation." This really isn't an argument against those who hold a view known as "Doctrine of Republication" which a definition can be found on page six in The Law is Not of Faith. My only worry is that this view may only be the allowed view of Reformed fellowships. This is patently a monopoly of ideas and ethically wrong! I think that theonomic brothers should and ought to be allowed to the table of discussion so that the covenant believers of Reformed communities—and non-Reformed communities for those who want to know about the Reformed faith—ought to be allowed to the banquet(s) instead of being ousted by other Reformed believers, whose desire is piety and orthodoxy, isn't it?

Ethics

Proverbs 21:15 "The exercise of justice is joy for the righteous, But is terror to the workers of iniquity." A monopolizing of the forum is a perversion of Biblical ethics. We shouldn't be afraid of letting those with whom we disagree with to speak.