Talk:Theonomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Catholic theonomy
Article needs improvement. Theonomy is also a concept in the thought of the late Pope John Paul II. Rusell Hittinger's _The First Grace_ touches upon this. I'll see if I can make the time to improve the article myself. --KJJ 04:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- One must also remember that theonomy, in the Calvinist sense, not the Pope John Paul II sense, is not only a belief in the Reconstruction of the Law of God, the Torah, but the belief that Christ's domain will eventually stretch throughout the world. It is at this point that the Torah will be applied once again, as in ancient Covenantal Israel. Before this time, establishment of the Law would not be understood by most, for they lack the knowledge that theonomists have: that Christ rules the world, and one day every knee will bow to Him. Thus, the theonomist's act, at the present, in any case, is to spread the Good News throughout the globe and to make people understand that Christ is the One King of the World. --Eric Hendrickson. September 17, 2005.
-
- Theonomy is basically bypassing the hard work of bringing people to the cross for individual conversion (the Great Commission) by making obedience to God a matter of civil law, sort of like handling almsgiving by having the government take it out of your paycheck before you see it. Paul had a problem with theonomy when he wrote in Galatians 5:4, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." --Her girlfriend 21:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] support
i support this rv. The previous edit was a wholesale copy of a page on geocities, which this claims is a joke site. (No other verifiable references to Erik Klafshenke). Current rv is a lot more verifiable as regards the references given. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "note to editors"
NOTE TO WIKIPEDIA EDITORS: While there is indeed a nutball link to support the crap in this article, it is balatantly biased to presume that such wackos are a fair representation of the ideas behind Theonomy. This article (and particularly this section) is anything but objective. I've read and listened enough to Bahnsen to know that even though he's legitimately controversial in some ways, he has never and did never advocate anything like eliminating freedom of religion, and any sort of theocracy is repugnant to almost all Reformed Christians - that's what the Reformers were driven to schism with the Roman church to get away from, after all! The US Government was deliberately based largely on Presbyterian church government, but also quite deliberately separate. Finally, The existence of a site making extremist claims is not a justification for slamming legitimate ideas with which a few wingnuts choose to align themselves. For that matter, if one extremist site is justification for such a response, then what's to keep people from posting thier own radical sites for their opposition in order to make them a strawman for Wikipedia. (The site linked to in this section is so "over-the-top" that I question if even the most rabid of wingnuts could have published it seriously. It's so outrageous that it makes the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" look like a puff piece. far more likely, it is a fake site designed to "expose" the "hidden agenda" of those dangerous "Dominionists" (a term which is likely defamatory on its face.)) The entire "Dominionist" series is shot through with this sort of hateful non-objectivity, and does not deserve its sidebar status in Wikipedia. This is an execllent example of how writing can be true, but totally biased to misrepresent the facts. I am anything but an expert on Theonomy, but the bias and deliberate misrepresentation exhibited here is staggering - Michael Moore could scarcely have done better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.160.115 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Erik Klafshenkel
Please don't rv this page to link to Erik Klafshenkel without even discussing it here. Who is he? Does he exist? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some vs. most
User:216.232.14.14 and I seem to be at a disagreement over the wording of support for theonomy. The sentence in question is:
- Some in the modern Reformed churches are critical of this understanding,[1] while other Calvinists affirm Theonomy.[2]
I changed the italicized some to most because support for theonomy in the Christian Reconstructionist sense is small relative to the size of the group Reformed churches, which includes mainline denominations that wouldn't touch theonomy (or many other conservative doctrines) with a ten foot pole. Additionally, Reconstructionists are a relatively small (but vocal) group on the fringe of Calvinism today, and none of the major American, conservative, Reformed seminaries (WTS, WSC, RTS, Covenant, etc.) teach theonomy. Indeed, as I understand it, Bahnsen was drummed out of his position at RTS for his theonomic views. Therefore, I propose we change it back to most. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
