theonomy2 at Yahoo! Groups

Rushdoony was not Racist!

mknzycalhoun — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:00:40 GMT

Bringing up a past subject... ... Not only was Rushdoony NOT a racist but he had nothing against the marriage of different racial backgrounds. If that were

calvinlives

Gary Earhart — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:25:28 GMT

Does anybody have any idea what ever happened to calvinlives? He used to post in here a lot and then just dissappeared. would kind of like to talk to him

Re: [Theonomy] Re: Theonomists v. Theocrats

Timothy Wilder — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:08:39 GMT

... Auburn Theology (Federal Vision) seems to have three main componants. 1) Ritualism with leanings toward Old Testament temple service. 2) A doctrine of

Re: Theonomists v. Theocrats

maryannewatkins — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:20:31 GMT

Theonomists through the years seem to gravitate in this direction. This is not anything new in my opinion, nor does it prove that theonomy is wrong. I am

Rule of Law

doctor_brodie — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:12:12 GMT

The greatest strength of the USA is also its greatest weakness. This is its concept of the rule of law. The framers of the constitution sought to create a

Re: Theonomists v. Theocrats

Peter — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:20:45 GMT

... What's that? Is this the liturgical element? I remember, in their defense of Popish superstitions in worship, they said that liturgical worship isn't human

Web update

Timothy Wilder — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:16:25 GMT

I added short essays with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspectives on Biblical law to the essays page (Theonomy section) of www.contra-mundum.org

Re: Theonomists v. Theocrats

Colin — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:08:59 GMT

... Yes, they are followers of ex-Theonomists, James Jordan and Peter Leithart. Theonomy is as Dr. Bahnsen stated in Theonomy in Christian Ethics, an

Theonomists v. Theocrats

Peter — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:21:42 GMT

I recently met a couple involved with Auburn Theology and high church litergicalism. They said they were former theonomists but now are theocrats. Have you

Re: [Theonomy] Article collection

Colin — Thu, 27 May 2004 21:46:04 GMT

... If I recall, I think the differences between them was over the flexibility of the OT penal sanctions. Bahnsen felt that Kaiser (while indeed pro-nomian)

Christianity and Law

Timothy Wilder — Thu, 27 May 2004 16:50:51 GMT

Here is something interesting. Too bad they don't show the actual papers presented: www.concourt.am/Conferences/2000/christ/agenda.html -- T.E. Wilder

Re: [Theonomy] Article collection

Glenn Peoples — Thu, 27 May 2004 00:37:59 GMT

I neglected to include a date, here's a corrected version. Glenn ... From: "Timothy Wilder" To: Sent:

Re: [Theonomy] Article collection

Timothy Wilder — Wed, 26 May 2004 21:34:00 GMT

... Probably the same thing. These things tend to get sent around to various places. The whole collection was supposed to come out in a book from the

Re: [Theonomy] Article collection

Colin — Wed, 26 May 2004 20:58:59 GMT

... Thanks, Tim for adding Glenn's response to Birnie's essay. After all, if critics of Theonomy can have two website links, then so should Theonomists! :-)

On the civil, judicial, moral distinction.

Timothy Wilder — Tue, 25 May 2004 18:48:49 GMT

Here is something a bit weird: Here is an article by Sherman Isbell, who says that theonomy is wrong because "Theonomy denies the threefold distinction of