|

|
|
|
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,893
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,349
Posts56,545
Members992
| |
Most Online2,383 Jan 12th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
|
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615 |
Tom said: Is it not true that Theonomy is biblical, but extreem forms of Theonomy are not biblical?
Theonomy is God's Law. Jesus said, if you love Me, obey my Commandments and by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His Commandments and The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him. Though your definition is technically correct, terms take on new meanings ... (that's bad man, can mean that something is cool or very good, etc.). The term "theonomy" today is used to mean the entire Mosaic economy (to varying degrees) is still in force today. Thus, if you desire to speak about God's law today you had better separate it -- civil, ceremonial, or moral - and thus specify exactly what you desire to say. If you merely use the term theonomy to describe your position above everyone else will be confused by your use of the term ... In addition, though the moral law of God is still in effect today you would not desire to use the phrase "moral theonomy" for to many this would mean that the moral punishments (which are actually civil) are still in effect today as well. And then there will be <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" /> Thus, by today's definition theonomy is not biblical.
Reformed and Always Reforming,
|
|
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
Theo
|
Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:10 AM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
J_Edwards
|
Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:18 AM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
john
|
Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:52 AM
|
Theonomy
|
Tom
|
Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:37 AM
|
Re: Theonomy
|
J_Edwards
|
Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:47 AM
|
Re: Theonomy
|
Tom
|
Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:18 AM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
John_C
|
Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:05 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
Theo
|
Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:18 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
J_Edwards
|
Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:01 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
Adopted
|
Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:06 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
J_Edwards
|
Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:12 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
Adopted
|
Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:55 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
Pilgrim
|
Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:00 AM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
John_C
|
Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:10 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
J_Edwards
|
Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:24 PM
|
Rushdoony
|
William
|
Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:04 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony
|
Theo
|
Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:57 PM
|
Re: Rushdoony
|
Adopted
|
Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:31 AM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
missionaryman
|
Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:04 AM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
Theo
|
Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:17 AM
|
Re: Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til
|
missionaryman
|
Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:54 AM
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
152
guests, and
37
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|