Re: Four items of possible controversy

From: jack syme (drsyme@cablespeed.com)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:37:56 EST

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Four items of possible controversy"

    I hope I did this correctly.

    Actually when speaking of Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North, the correct word is Theonomy. I dont know what Admanson's view is.

    Theocracy is literally "rule of god", and Theonomy is literally the "rule of the law" specifically the Noahic law. So Theonomy is a type of Theocracy; clearly the Reconstructionists are Theonomists.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: RFaussette@aol.com
      To: jwburgeson@juno.com ; gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu
      Cc: asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:41 AM
      Subject: Re: Four items of possible controversy

      In a message dated 11/12/03 11:06:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwburgeson@juno.com writes:
        Admanson's advocacy of a "Christian State" (is the word theonomy?) is one
        I regard with absolute horror, but I also must assume he holds that
        peculiar position honestly and sincerely. Such a position, of course,
        leads him to naturally oppose the bishop's consecration. But is Admanson
        an Episcopal? If not -- is is ethical for him to fund one side in a fight
        he has no stake in? And to what extent should he make his funding public?
      The Noahide Laws were passed into law in the US in 1991. You must be absolutely horrified!

      A religious bloc vote by a religious community propelled Hilary Clinton to the Senate when New Square NY voted 1400 to 12 after Hilary's visit to the rabbi.

      The word is theocracy.

      To suggest that Christians not use wealth to protect their "altars" is naive.

      rich faussette



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:38:51 EST