1. That Islamic countries behead individuals is not an argument for legalising what they are against.
2. That a particular practice has support from vested interests is nothing more than a reason in favour of any practice, even genital mutilation.
3. That he formed his view from interaction with ‘ordinary people’ is as shaky a foundation as sand.
4. That contemporary confusion exists amongst some professing Christians is not to be placed above the clear unambiguous teaching of scripture.
5. Citing his own heretical group as an example of what others should do is wholly unconvincing. They were unconvincing at the beginning and remain so.
6. He makes the outrageous claim that law should be made upon the basis of diversity. This is an argument for sharia under which he is a kaffir.
7. He makes the classic mistake of quoting the sins of others as recorded in Scripture as social norms while bypassing the clear verdict of Scripture upon those very sins, including Solomon’s.
This is why Hudson is not to be followed notwithstanding his vaunted claim to enlightenment. It’s the same old unbelieving liberalism of the 19th century.
Rev E T Kirkland, Free Church, Doagh