Re: Four items of possible controversy

From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 20:27:34 EST

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

    In a message dated 11/12/03 6:39:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
    drsyme@cablespeed.com writes:
    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.
    I've never heard these terms. Please be patient with me. What you call the
    Noahic Law I find in orthodox publications to be called the Noahide laws which
    to orthodox Jewish groups are to provide the legal structure for ruling the
    gentiles when the temple is re-erected in Jerusalem. Are we talking about the
    same thing? Noahic/Noahide?

    I don't know Admanson. I wonder about your views on church and state and so I
    presented the view of George Soros who showed some remorse for the power he
    has wielded lambasted by his fellows.

    I would rather appreciate your views on church and state and how it is
    possible to build a kingdom of God on earth but only spiritually.

    Theonomy is literally "God's Law." Theocracy is literally, "God's rule." I
    don't see enough of a difference to spark contention. You may be referring to
    a specific movement with which I am unacquainted.

    rich faussette



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 20:28:01 EST