A Reformed Response to Theonomy | Theocast
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2023
- In the first of two episodes on theonomy, Jon and Justin seek to generally define theonomy and then respond to it theologically. The guys consider a confessional understanding of the threefold division of the law, the distinction between moral and positive law, and 1689 Federalism as safeguards against theonomy.
Note: Semper Reformanda is included in today’s episode.
SUPPORT Theocast:
theocast.org/give/
JOIN Semper Reformanda:
theocast.org/sr/
FACEBOOK:
Theocast: / theocast.org
TWITTER:
Theocast: / theocast_org
Jon Moffitt: / jonmoffitt
Justin Perdue: / justin_perdue
INSTAGRAM:
Theocast: http: / theocast_org
RELATED VIDEOS & RESOURCES
1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy: www.9marks.org/article/a-1689...
Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?: pastortomhicks.com/2020/11/17...
Is the Law Relevant Today?: • Is the Law Relevant To...
Covenant Theology: Introduction & Overview: • Covenant Theology: Int...
#theonomy #reformedtheology #lawgospel
Theonomy was the majority Reformed confessional view in regards to God's Law until the 18th century. Starting with Calvin, through almost all the Reformed Confessions and until people started retreating from it.
At the very end it was said that Theonomists ask, “Do you want to submit to God’s Law or man’s law?” And the response was, God commands us in the New Testament to submit to man’s law.
Which I would agree and I believe the theonomist would agree too (I don’t claim a title or camp… yet), but I think that stops short of the actual point being made by the theonomist.
In Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 where it says to submit to the government, it also says that the government is responsible for punishing evil and rewarding good as God’s ministers.
And I think it’s a very good question to ask: by what standard should the government be determining good vs evil? It’s own standard or God’s standard.
And as it stands now in my mind, I find the theonomist argument stronger as they say, we should submit to unjust government and laws made by men, yes. BUT we should be proclaiming the truth of God’s word to those men in civil authority that they OUGHT to be determining good and evil based on the standard of God’s Law, in His word, not their own standards.
I’m new to the conversation so I don’t know if theocast would agree but that is what I thought after watching.
The government is to uphold the second table of the moral law .
@@michealferrell1677 thanks for the response. That leads me to some further questions though:
1. Just the second table (commandments 5-10)?
2. What about things not specifically covered under the second table such as assault?
3. What about things included in the second table that I doubt you or others would say the government should enforce: honoring father and mother, coveting, and adultery?
3. How did you come to that conclusion, that it is just the second table of the moral law that the civil government should enforce?
@@alreyindustries
1. These laws deal with the outward behavior of the citizens with a view to protecting life and liberty. To assault is to murder. To honor mom and dad is to respect authority etc .
Now Jesus uses the moral law to expose our thought life and to drive us to the cross for forgiveness but the state has the authority to discipline behavior.
@@michealferrell1677 _"The government is to uphold the second table of the moral law ."_
I don't think this is adequate. I mean, it's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't say much. I would say the same about the first table of the law, governments should "uphold" it. But there is the question of what "upholding" the 10 commandments means for government, and if it is different from other spheres of life.
Are we to infer purely from the 10 commandments and whatever seems right in our own eyes, or can we look at how the OT applies the 10 commandments in the Law for guidance? I think we can look at all of the law and the prophets to see how governments (as well as other parties) are to apply the law. I don't think we have to make it up as we go, God's case law is a great basis for governments to use.
Some cases to consider:
1. Murder is clearly second table, so by this principle government should uphold laws against it. No disagreement so far I'm sure; no one wants to legalize murder. Now, Jesus equated hatred in ones heart for another to murder. Should the government be mind readers and start locking people up for hatred? I think the answer is a no. You certainly won't find laws like that anywhere in scripture, though you will find whole sections of scripture dealing with various ways civil authorities should respond to one person causing another physical harm or death. So that seems to indicate that "upholding" whatever table of the law itself has limits.
2. The OT law has blasphemy laws, and yet it also has numerous laws protecting the sojourner and foreigner in the land. Almost certainly many of these would reject the Hebrew God and worship false gods. As I read the Law, the civil government wasn't to set up heresy hunters and search households for idols or anything like that, so any case of blasphemy that became known civilly had to be big enough and public enough to disrupt the population. If they were just privately worshiping in their homes, it wouldn't be a civil issue, only one of the heart.
I think in these two cases from both tables of the law, we see that there were some violations that the civil government had no business enforcing, and others that it ought to so as to keep the peace. As I read the OT, there are three categories of law: 1. those that were purely moral and violations of the individual towards God, 2. those that are public enough to need correcting by the Church, but don't necessarily have a civil enforcement element, and 3. Those that are public enough to need correcting by the State, but don't necessarily have a Ceremonial aspect to them. Sometimes they overlap, often they don't or only overlap when they escalate to a point.
When that command was written they were submitting to Rome, despite the fact that it was Pagan. The Edict of Milan was welcome, but not necessary for submission.
Your discussion of the moral law vs. positive law and knowledge of the law... Is directly contrary to what Romans 7:7-8 says.
Theocast said - the moral law is contained in the 10 commandments. And that we don't need to be told this law, because we already know it. But Romans says:
"Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead."
Thou shall not covet, is from the 10 commandments. But you emphasize that we don't need to be told it because This is the bedrock commitment of a specifically Radical Two Kingdom view. The intention of that view is to keep the Bible out of the public sphere except for in the church.
Your appeal to the noahic covenant is also based on a novel view put forward but Van Drunen who denies that the noahic covenant was made to his covenant people, but completly gnores all the standard steps of covenant signs used after the flood (sacrifices, promises, seal of promise). The noahic covenant actually works for the theonomic position, God calls all nations to follow his moral law - and nations in the bible are judged for failing in the civil sphere. Was Egypt not judged because of the moral failing of Pharoah - their civil ruler? There are so many instances in the prophets for God judging nations for not obeying God's law - in every instance it is some application of the moral law (whether idolatry, or murder, or particular injustices) but with particular applications in civil situations.
Theonomy relates to the crown rights of King Jesus. All must obey or expect God's judgement upon the nation, especially if it is a covenanted nation. Jesus affirmed theonomy in the Great Commission. All nations must obey or be liable to God's displeasure. That is an essential part of the Gospel, the impending judgement due for disobeying God.
It’s more than that.
It’s the implications of theonomy that is erroneous, and that for the most part, is due to wrong inferences being drawn for what it means for people to obey Christ in a broad eschatological context.
@@Eldot5 What are the implications of Christians demanding all nations submit to King Jesus as Lord?
@@logosnomos3794 it’s pure law. Apart from the gospel, it’s futile and oriented towards curse and judgment rather than redemption and consummation. In this regard, the implications of theonomy falls short of being expressive of redeeming grace.
@@Eldot5 Theonomy leads us to grace. Thus, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Christ shed His blood for the propitiation of sins. Those who hate Theonomy are those who despise the Law of God, i.e. His righteousness and Justice.
@@Eldot5 If you understood the law, you would understand that it is all about grace. You only reveal your ignorance and possible distaste of God's Standards which is Holy, Just and Good.
Sorry for my english. This is a particular baptism response not a reform response to the thenomy. First, i am not theonomist like a reconstructionist, but they are better than christianity today in this point. I don't read Rushdoony but yes Bhansen, and I think that they don't think to apply all civil law but the equity. Second, I will talk like a reformed historically, presbyterians like scott clark are so far of the Westminster confession and the others confessions reformed in this issue (he hates theocrathy), they follow like generally all moderns presbyterians in America a modified version of Confession of Westminster, this is from c. XVIII; I am not postmillenilist but amilenialist. Third, all confesiions reformed believe that the goverment need to take only the law of God, you can check this about goverment civil, all believe the principle of stablishment of the church. 4th in the articke 19.4 of CW they say that we need to use the principle of equity of civil law, and Beza, Gillespie, Rutherford say this special with the punishments of this... for this issue was punish Servet, for heresy, because this is against first table if the Law, snd for the cause was punisheds the remostrans in Holand, the majoriry doesn't understand this pont.5 ) all know the 3 uses of rhe law, one of them is civil, for restrain the sin externaly by the punishes...intetesting is 1 Samuel 28. 6) ussualy when no reformed talk about this issue forget first table of the law, this is the mother of relativism and pluralism. 7) romans 13 the goverments need to be servants of God, not lords, servants, they must to obey to Christ psalm 2, they don't must to create new morals laws, they must to apply the only law of God, what is the same that the natural law. 8) the great comision teach thst we must to discipulate nations, in the reform time nations will be cristianized... then this is so far to be a reformed response. Is a particular baptism response following the great desviation of confession of Savoya... that was diferent that all catholic reformed confessions. I confess like a theocratic like all reformed confessions, and this is an angular stone of apostasy, without this there isn't persecution. But Christ is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings... all must to obey him.
The Noha"s Covenant was made with a family of covenant, you forget the most important point, what us the context in this text. If Adam was made a image of God, and Noha also, and Romans 2.14,15 teach that all have this image, that imply know the natural law, that is the sabe that 10 commanments, and Paul says that the goverment must to punish the evil, then all thing are clear. Be carefull the inconstants twist the scriptures.
You might not say it's theonomy but what was said by historic reformed theologians sounds an awful lot like something very similar to theonomy.
Wholesome Severity reconciled with Christian Liberty by George Gillespie who was involved in creating the Westminster Standards which are defining of what Reformed theology is.
4. If God would have the Moral law transmitted from the Jewish people to the Christian people; then he would also have the Judicial law transmitted from the Jewish Magistrate to the Christian Magistrate: There being the same reason of immutability in the punishments, which is in the offences; Idolatry and Adultery displeaseth God now as much as then; and Theft displeaseth God now no more than before.
This is a historic document of the Reformed faith drafted by John Knox and others which upholds capital punishment for blasphemy, adultery etc.
The First Book of Discipline 1560 The Seventh Head - Of Ecclesiastical Discipline.
As that no commonwealth can flourish or long endure without good laws, and sharp execution of the same, so neither can the church of God be brought to purity, neither yet be retained in the same, without the order of ecclesiastical discipline, which stands in reproving and correcting of those faults which the civil sword does either neglect, either may not punish. Blasphemy, adultery, murder, perjury, and other crimes capital, worthy of death, ought not properly to fall under censure of the church; because all such open transgressors of God’s laws ought to be taken away by the civil sword.
Westminster Confession of faith Chapter 23 Of the Civil Magistrate.
III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:a yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.b For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.c
This teaches the magistrates duty to uphold the first table of the law.
Most so called theonomists reject the reformed faith in this area and don't believe the civil magistrate is to punish heresy and preserve the purity of worship in the church. This only makes sense if it's assumed that OT moral case laws against idolatry, heresy etc are abiding.
Here you can see the the view held by early reformer Martin Bucer.
It sounds more theonomic then many so called modern theonomists who don't believe in the death penalty for sabbath desecration and other first table violations.
Lastly, the well-being of his people also demands of Your Majesty a serious and thorough modification of penalties, by which wrongdoing and crimes are kept in check in the commonwealth. But since no one can describe an approach more equitable and wholesome to the commonwealth than that which God describes in His law, it is certainly the duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over His people that they follow most studiously his own method of punishing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord, so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the way and the circumstances in which they are described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is certainly not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.
Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the Worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God (Deut. 13:6-10 and 17:2-5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn services (Lev. 24:15-16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15, and 35:2; Num. 15:32-36); who rebelliously despise authority of parents and live their own life wickedly (Dt. 21:18-21); who are unwilling to submit to the sentence of a supreme tribunal (Dt. 17:8-12); who have committed bloodshed (Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 19:11-13), adultery (Lev. 20:10), rape (Deut. 22:20-25), kidnapping (Deut. 24:7); who have given false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:16-21).[1] ...
De Regno Christi CHAPTER LX page 226 in this PDF docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjb3ZlbmFudGVydGhlb25vbXl8Z3g6MzM1NTg1NmZkZTg0MDcwNQ
If you look at the first law code of New England called the Massachusetts Body of Liberties it pretty much has all the old testament capital punishments in it.
94. Capitall Laws.
1.
(Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20)
If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.
2.
(Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.)
If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.
3.
(Lev. 24. 15,16.)
If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.
[Page 274]
4.
(Ex. 21. 12. Numb. 35. 13, 14, 30, 31.)
If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.
5.
(Numb. 25, 20, 21. Lev. 24. 17)
If any person slayeth an other suddaienly in his anger or Crueltie of passion, he shall be put to death.
6.
(Ex. 21. 14.)
If any person shall slay an other through guile, either by poysoning or other such divelish practice, he shall be put to death.
7.
(Lev. 20. 15,16.)
If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.
8.
(Lev. 20. 13.)
If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woeman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death.
9.
Lev. 20. 19. and 18, 20. Dut. 22. 23, 24.)
If any person committeth Adultery with a maried or espoused wife, the Adulterer and Adulteresse shall surely be put to death.
10.
(Ex. 21. 16.)
If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.
11.
(Deut. 19. 16, 18, 19.)
If any man rise up by false witnes, wittingly and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death.
12.
If any man shall conspire and attempt any invasion, insurrection, or publique rebellion against our commonwealth, or shall [Page 275] indeavour to surprize any Towne or Townes, fort or forts therein, or shall treacherously and perfediouslie attempt the alteration and subversion of our frame of politie or Government fundamentallie, he shall be put to death.
Read The bloody tenant of persecution
Regarding Sabbath, it changed to the Lord's Day in the NT with corresponding change in the law. Hebrews says "there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God," but there are at least 3 NT passages that say we're not supposed to be judging each other because of days.
Regarding the Massachusetts Body of Liberties they left out the "ransom" principle of Exodus 21:30, which allows for a one-time monetary payment in lieu of death if the victim agrees. Except for 1st Degree Murder. Gary North has a book called, Victim's Rights, which explains it.
Theonomists think that the judicial law is the application of the moral law with wisdom into the civil sphere. General equity guys would look at the biblical applications as normative examples of how this is done in the civil sphere today.
@@ThomasCranmer1959No. General equity is about the principles of justice used in particular case laws. It follows from the 10 commandments, but it is not reducible to the 10 commandments.
What expired is the particular equity tied to a particular nation with it's particular culture, etc, and yet the general equity found in those particular expressions of justice still apply.
Bahnsen would often point to the law of having a fence around the roof of one's house. That makes little sense today as our culture doesn't use our roofs in the same way as Israel did. We don't dine or entertain guests on our roofs. But we might do that with a patio. Or we might have a pool or other potentially dangerous structure. The general equity would be to put a fence or railing around such a dangerous areas so as to look out for the life and safety of our neighbors and guests. The 10 commandments help a little, but it is in the case law that we see this sort of application of the 10 commandments, which is why they shouldn't just be tossed out.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 doesn't the confession speak to the moral law (decalogue), the ceremonial law, and the civil law and then say the civil law is done away with "except the general equity thereof?"
@@rustenharris10 You have it partly correct. The Westminster Confession of Faith deals with the Law of God in chapter 19. The WCF specifically says that the civil laws of the Old Testament nation of Israel passed away with that nation. The ceremonial and sacrificial laws of the OT were fulfilled by Christ in His active obedience and his passive atonement on the cross. The moral law of God is not abolished, or passed away. It was fulfilled by Christ in our place because we could never meet its demands. But the moral law is still forever binding on all to obey. The Westminster Larger Catechism clarifies that the believer is not under the moral law as a covenant of works. However, we are still obliged to obey as our duty of faith in the process of sanctification. Sanctification does not justify us. But those who do not struggle against sin and seek to obey Christ out of gratitude cannot attain assurance of salvation. A careful study of the Larger Catechism would clarify these issues. Theonomists are generally wrong because they try to say that the civil laws of OT Israel are still in effect because they are moral law as well. That's false. The criminal laws of Israel are not the same thing as the Decalogue, which summarizes the moral laws of God.
@@rustenharris10 WCF Ch. 19. Of the Law of God
V. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;h and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it.i Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.k
h Rom. 13:8, 9. [See above in letter b.] Ver. 10. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Eph. 6:2. Honour thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment with promise.) 1 John 2:3. And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. Ver. 4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Ver. 7. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning: the old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. Ver. 8. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
i James 2:10, 11. [See in letter b.]
k Mat. 5:17. [See in letter g.] Ver. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Ver. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. James 2:8. [See in letter b before.] Rom. 3:31. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851. Print.
Bahnsen taught/teaches general equity, so I think it's just splitting hairs
You're 1689 Baptists, right? Because your position seems to differ from the 1689 and its accompanying catechism in some important points:
* The 1689 equates the law written on Adam's heart (not the law written on all men's hearts, a concept which is conspicuously absent in its discussion of the law) with the Ten Commandments, and calls that the moral law--ch. 19, ¶¶ 1-3.
* It further states that that moral law--the one expressed in the 10C--is binding on all men in all places at all times, not merely on believers--ch. 19, ¶ 5
* The Catechism (Q47) identifies the 10C as summarizing the entire moral law. This, for example, the Seventh Commandment forbids, not only sex with a woman other than your wife, but all sexual immorality (Q77-78).
The 1689 simply does not teach that the "moral law" is limited to what's "innately known" (leaving aside the question of "by whom?"); it rather equates it with the positive moral law that's expressed in the OT. It does, of course, recognize the distinction (which you blur at times) among the moral, civil, and ceremonial law, but it recognizes no distinction between the binding character of "what's innately known" (or "the natural law") and the positive moral law of God.
And, of course, the Reformed understanding of the first use of the (moral) law is that it is to be a basis for civil law.
This has been so extremely helpful for me! Thank you for that. It made things so much clearer for me - especially how Baptist federalism changes our view on theonomy.
you've been reading too much Van Drunen
Van Drunen is deeply in error like his mentor, Kline.
red herring
@@logosnomos3794 this may be too long of a question to answer. What would be his biggest errors?
Appreciate the work, guys. Here is a question (ones like it are making their rounds): let's assume for a moment God grants revival and repentance to a particular city, state, or even our country. All of a sudden, the civil authorities are converted and they want to know how to please Christ. They ask, "How ought we to establish righteous laws?" Does the civil code of the Mosaic covenant have any bearing whatsoever on answering that question?
Here is a pretty relevant example. The Mosaic covenant speaks specifically to the punishment for homosexuality. Romans 13 argues the state ought to punish evildoers. Is homosexuality evil? And if so, what will that punishment be? The options seem to be: (a), use our own opinion; (b), implement what God told Israel. I think it really boils down to: by what standard?
Again, I appreciate all you two are doing to further the conversation.
I think option (a) would be better worded as "do whatever seems right in your own eyes."
Why should sodomy or other sins that obviously violate natural law be legal, leaving aside the Mosaic civil laws? This is another point where the Escondido guys' silence is deafening.
I just have a feeling it's like that was Jesus's Vision he one either would have just went to all the kings in the world himself and made them his disciples and then setup lineages for all these Kingships and Nations and we wouldn't have issues today right? Or two he would have sent the disciples to the Kings you would have something to the nation's but he didn't he sent them to Israel. Only Paul went to the gentiles. If the commission was to establish government establish Kingships. Jesus would have done so or he would have specifically trained us to do so. His entire Ministry would have been a boot camp for conquering Nations not fishing for men
@@ThomasCranmer1959 _"Why does Jesus command us to teach the nations to obey his commandments?"_
That's the question I have for you from two months ago. Two months ago you insisted that only the 10 commandments apply, now you are quoting verses that say "teach them to obey _all_ I have commanded." Is this a change of mind? Didn't notice the contradiction?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Are you having a conversation with imagined replies to your posts? You are replying to me, but responding to things I never said.
I agree with Westminster that we should apply the general equity of the Law, tou seem to reduce that to just the 10 Commandments. Read over the Larger Catechism's treatment of the 10 commandments. It fleshes them out to far greater detail than one could ever get from just Ex 20 or Deut 5. Where is it getting all that extra stuff from? From the whole law. But that seems illicit if we take your perspective that the law isn't binding and we can just make whatever logical deductions ungrounded in the rest of the law we want from the 10 commandments. So as such, you seem to have an obvious contradiction that isn't easily resolved with your "no, you" style responses.
so nations can govern rightly apart from special revelation?
ALL are to obey as per the Great Commission.
@@logosnomos3794 The Great Commission is predicated on the sending out of missionaries. Therefore, the results vary according to circumstances, which in turn are under the providential guidance and control of Almighty God. Not everyone has heard the Gospel. Romans 10:14ff. Therefore, it cannot be a universal command given to everyone, though I concede that all who have heard are responsible to obey the Gospel. The problem is that natural or general revelation does not inform anyone of their accountability. Special revelation is necessary for saving faith. It simply leaves them without excuse. Romans 1:18-32.
@@logosnomos3794 Romans 13 would be a better appeal for theonomists. The civil governments of the world have a responsibility to uphold the moral law. God will hold them accountable because the moral law is written in their hearts. Romans 2:14-15.
@@cranmer1959 romans 13 the goverments must to be servant not lords...servants of God, like a servants they must to obey Him, psalm 2.
Baptists were chastised for their rejection of covenant baptism by the Reformers and the Puritans. Some were even recipients of "the third baptism" for openly and rebelliously breaking the Fifth Commandment.
I'm not sure what you mean by the 3rd baptism? I don't agree with Baptists on baptism because every time you join one of their churches they want you to be rebaptized again. I have been baptized 3 times already. Twice in Pentecostal churches and once in a Baptist church. Not doing it again. I'm a Presbyterian now.
@@cranmer1959 What made you become Reformed?
@@logosnomos3794 Reading the Bible from cover to cover many times for several years in a row, for one thing. For another, when I was a very young teenager I researched the Pilgrims and learned that they were Calvinists. In those days we didn't have the internet, but my father had purchased the Encyclopedia Brittannica. I used the chain index to read every possible article relating to Calvinism, including the sections on supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. Although later in life I went through a Pentecostal phase, God used the empty talk of the sovereignty of God, in regards to modern miracles, to call me back in the direction of biblical sovereignty. I was in seminary at Asbury in Wilmore, KY when I heard Dr. Jerry Walls disrespecting the Calvinist view and his arguments actually proved to me that Arminianism is irrational. After reading Dr. Gordon H. Clark's apologetic work, Predestination in the Old Testament, I became a traditional and classical Calvinist, unlike most of these semi-Calvinists today.
@@logosnomos3794 These two men in this podcast remind me more of a church growth seminar, where accommodations are made to unbelievers, than genuinely Calvinist ministers. Tim Keller is probably roasting in hell, imo.
@@cranmer1959 Your pride is evident. Your claim about a minister of the gospel being in hell is proof. Whatever seminary you were in or church they didn't teach you much about humility. I would read a puritan on Humility and not make harsh judgments on invisible things which you cannot know and only God knows. Claiming to know the invisible truths of regenration of a confessional minister who was ordained in a reformed presbytery is so dangerous. Tim Keller was confessionl regardless of his flaws. If he's not saved many of us may not be either including yourself. Be careful before pride destroys your faith.
You realize the death penalty was never abolished in the New Testament era, nor until 1976?
Discontinuity is the root of Anabaptist and dispensational heresy.
Perhaps, but Theocast is neither Anabaptist nor dispensational.
@@TheMaineSurveyor Still with the same bad Anabaptist, credo hermeneutics...Reformed theology is BOTH spiritual and physical. The promises of blessings or curses still apply in all nations. Continuity is the hallmark of Reformed theology. Discontinuity is what Arminian, dispensationalist cults all hold on to.
@@logosnomos3794 Jon and Justin affirm the 1689 London Baptist Confession. This is a Particular Baptist confession, not an Anabaptist one.
@@TheMaineSurveyor But they are Baptists. There is a connection there whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
@@cranmer1959 This video is neither by nor about Anabaptists.
Look up the debate between Roger Williams and John Cotton.
"Will The Real Greg Bahnsen Please Stand Up?" ( The Trinity Foundation. John W. Robbins.
Dr. Robbins does a review of Bahnsen's 1991 book " No Other Standard" which was his attempt to answer his critics. In this third book Greg Bahnsen was de-emphasising his theonomic views.
Very like Robbins to accuse Bahnsen of not being the real Bahnsen when he didn't live up to Robbins's slander of him.
@@oracleoftroy Greg Bahnsen was an ordained OPC minister. His beginning theological views were not inline with the OPC.
@@carmensiekierke3579 Ok, interesting juxtaposition. So why did they ordain him and never revoke that ordination?
Can you clarify, you said God’s law says to submit to our authorities??
At 37:33, Jon says, "You even have Paul and Peter telling the church that they are to submit to their governing bodies."
The reference is to Paul and Peter's writings, specifically, Romans 13:1-7, and 1 Peter 2:13-17, respectively.
*Romans 13:1-7* _ESV_
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
*1 Peter 2:13-17* _ESV_
13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Only so far as the government is obeying God.
Acts 5:29
[29] But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
Very well done! This was a good overview of the matter. The way I've heard theonomists speak about this makes it clear that they have a completely different understanding of the Great Commission than I do. Where I read Christ saying to make disciples of all nations, some theonomists are taking that to mean "Christianize all governments, institutions, and cultures." I'm simply baffled by that.
This is emphasized when I look at Scripture: we specifically don't see the First Century Church doing or teaching the Christianization of any governments, institutions, or cultures.
Instead, we see them preaching the gospel, baptizing new believers, discipling them, and urging them to walk in the Spirit and avoid sin.
The criticisms of theonomy are legitimate and mostly on the mark. What is lacking is a similar critique of the radical two kingdoms theology which says that conservative churches should not challenge the culture or the government when the government is promoting the legitimization of pure evil. This is how we got the LGBTQIA+, mutilation of children, and brainwashing little kids into gender dysphoria. It's also how we got abortion and infanticide. Do nothing preachers who only care about church growth are nothing more than hirelings.
Why would you be baffled that God holds nations as well as individuals accountable? Even the German nation was held accountable for the Holocaust after WWII.
Isaiah 2:4 (NKJV)
4 He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore.
Psalm 2:1-5 (NKJV)
1 Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The LORD shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure:
Acts 5:26-29 (NKJV)
26 Then the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned.
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!”
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.
@@cranmer1959 That’s not what I said I’m baffled by.
@@TheMaineSurveyor Why would you be baffled by the idea that nations should be primarily Christian in their worldview? Try moving to a communist country and see how that works out for you.
I’d love to hear what y’all think. This is not an attack on both of y’all’s personhood. Best regards in Christ.
I watched the entire video. I did not come away with a single argument as to why God's law *ought* not be applied today. Y’all argued for a threefold division of law (ceremonial, moral, and civil) + the distinction between moral law and positive law (that positive law does not transcend) + the aspect of covenant separation as well.
I disagree with all three of these statements. For example, many (but not all) civil laws reflect moral imperatives and precepts. Moreover, positive law can codify moral law for the purpose of enforcing it. In that case, it would be transcendent. This is, in my view, a category error. Nevertheless, even if I agreed with the arguments, the conclusion y’all are trying to make does not follow from the premises. At best, one could say that the law does not *need* to be transposed into modern application. However, one cannot say that it *should* not be. (“we ought not to apply them to people holistically and we should not seek to overlay those principles onto nation-states today like theonomists attempt to do”). This is a normative/prescriptive statement based on opinion, not on authority or on Scripture.
I don't think that they're saying that it *should* not be. Only that any "pet cause" that diverts the church from being the church and the spread of the gospel is error on the Christian's part. Not that we can't address and tend to things that God places into our lap, but the gospel should stay the main thing. It should eclipse any secondary concerns. Theonomy is also suspiciously self-serving for the Postimillennial viewpoint when Postmillennials don't see the world fitting their paradigm of the endtimes and moving into a christianized nation/world. Jesus submitted himself to a unlawful trial and never said to his disciples that they had to topple the powers that be, end slavery, etc, etc.
Is this statement I was sent accurate ??
“From what i understand Biblically the church consists of those who have received the promise of spiritual blessing that was originally given to Abraham, we today are part of that covenant through faith in Christ. The third chapter of Galatians spells this out carefully, concluding, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).
This means that the covenant that God made with Abraham remains in effect today (in its “new covenant” form, of course). Otherwise, we could not be Abraham’s offspring, receiving what was promised to him and his descendants.
The Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-7; 17:1-14) was confirmed to his son Isaac (Gen. 26:1-5, 23-24) and his grandson Jacob (Gen. 28:10-15; 48:15-16; 50:24). It continued with the nation of Israel (Ex. 2:24; 6:2-8), for whom the Law of Moses was added (as the Mosaic or “old” covenant) until the time of Christ (Gal. 3:17-19), in whom the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled (vss. 16, 22-28).
After Abraham exercised faith in God’s covenant promises (Gen. 15:6), the Lord added the rite of circumcision to the covenant arrangement (Gen. 17:9-14). He received “the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he already had while uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:11).
Because Abraham was righteous his sins were forgiven as the result of his faith, he was circumcised as a sign given by God that sealed that righteousness. Physical, outward circumcision signified spiritual, inward cleansing of the heart (Ezek. 44:7; Rom. 2:28-29), a spiritual reality for Abraham and all his true, believing descendants.
This was God’s way of signifying that the promises given to faithful Abraham extended also to his children (and anyone else who came under and accepted his authority). Some of those, like his son Ishmael, left the covenant community and renounced the faith of Abraham.
It is part of the teaching of Colossians 2:11-12, then, that baptism has replaced circumcision for the covenant community. The Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in the new covenant, and circumcision has been replaced by baptism as the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith.
From what I can understand under the Abrahamic covenant, those who were born within the covenant community received the sign of the covenant as infants. Yes ? Because the Abrahamic covenant remains in effect, but with the sign of it having been changed, it follows that those who are born within the covenant community should be baptized as infants ? just as they were formerly circumcised as infants. Should they not be baptized at the start of the discipling process, as outlined by Jesus ?
I understand biblically that the Abrahamic Covenant is called ‘eternal’ in Genesis 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Chronicles 16:17; Psalm 105:10. The original promises were given to Abraham without any conditions whatever. The covenant was confirmed by subsequent reiteration and enlargement. It was ratified by an oath of God (Gen 15:7-21), solemnized by the recognized method of confirming an oath (cf. Gen 15:18). It was given a visible symbol in the rite of circumcision (Gen 17:9-14). It was confirmed by the birth of Isaac, by the reiterated promises given to Isaac (Gen 17:19) and to Jacob (Gen 28:12, 13). I believe (Jer 31:35-37) speaks to this also.
If God had intended to convey the impression that the covenant was eternal and unalterable, He could not have used more express and specific language. It is stated that His promises stand in spite of Israel’s sins, and that they are unaltered by them. His promise is declared to be immutable: “Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us” (Heb 6:17, 18; 6:13-16 ).
The individuals in the church enter into the promises of blessing given to those in Christ and to this extent are the spiritual children of Abraham. This is expressly stated in Scripture: “Know therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:7). The basis for this statement in Galatians, however, is not on any promise given to Israel-and this is very significant. The passage continues: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham” (Gal 3:7-9). In other words, the portion of the covenant specifically given to Israel is not transferred to the church. Only the portion of the covenant dealing with universal blessing such as extended beyond Israel is applicable to the church. Or are you saying that’s done away with a new covenant ? “”
@@HJEvan well I’m a simpleton too that’s why I asked )))) it’s hard stuff to get my little pea noggin around. From what I understand the Jews are God’s chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6-7). Through the Jews, God demonstrated His love and holiness to the world: “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah” (Romans 9:4-5). It was through the seed of Abraham that “all peoples on earth will be blessed” (Acts 3:25; cf. Genesis 22:18; 26:4). That promised blessing came through Jesus Christ, as explained in Galatians 3:16. Jesus was born as a Jew under the Law, fulfilled the Jewish Law perfectly, and died as a once-for-all sacrifice on behalf of all who would put their faith in Him (Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 9:14-15, 23-28).
In His public ministry, Jesus spoke of being sent to the Jews, and He focused His efforts on them. He was the Jewish Messiah, and He had come, in part, to “strengthen Judah and save the tribes of Joseph” (Zechariah 10:6). On one occasion, Jesus seemed to rebuff the pleas of a Gentile woman (though He later helped her) in Matthew 15:21-28 (also see Matthew 10:5). Jesus predicted that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in [Christ’s] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47, emphasis added). The gospel of the kingdom was to be a blessing to the whole world, but it was natural that it be first proclaimed to Israel.
When Paul speaks of the gospel bringing salvation “first to the Jew” in Romans 1:16, he alludes to the special relationship the Jews had to the Messiah. The Christ was the Son of David, and the hope of the Messiah had long been held by the Jews (see Luke 2:38). So, when the gospel of Christ was first proclaimed, the Jews had priority. We see this prioritization in Paul’s first missionary journey. Every time they would come to a new city, Paul and Barnabas would preach in the synagogue to the Jews in that city. In Pisidian Antioch, they were so opposed by the unbelieving Jews that the missionaries said, “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). The persecution in Antioch continued, and Paul and Barnabas were eventually expelled, so they went to the next town (verse 51).
There are several important things to note about Paul’s statement that the power of God in the gospel “brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.” First, God did not cease saving Jews in order to save Gentiles. In all of his missionary journeys, Paul continued to preach first in the synagogues. God continues to desire the salvation of all the world (John 3:16-18; 1 Timothy 2:4).
Second, Jews are neither better nor worse than Gentiles. All need the Savior, and, in Christ, all are on equal spiritual footing. Colossians 3:10-11 reminds us we “have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” The believing Gentile is just as welcome in the family of God as the believing Jew. The Jew who has faith in Christ Jesus is just as secure in his salvation as the born-again Gentile.
Finally, salvation comes the same way to both Jews and Gentiles. It is for “everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). Jesus is the only way of salvation (Acts 4:12; John 14:6) regardless of one’s heritage. Paul said, “I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:21). Galatians 3:26-28 says, “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” All must come to Jesus in faith for salvation, and all are equally accepted by Him when they do.
I more align with Amillenialism in a view that the Jews just like the gentiles will be saved over centuries not en masse when Christ returns and sets up at Jerusalem-for 1000years etc so if you aren’t in Christ before he returns that’s it, there’s no second chances. So I see that we are all saved the same way via faith.
Deuteronomy 28 doesn't play on believers today ?
Is Deuteronomy 28 addressed to all believers for all time, or is it addressed specifically to Israel, prior to Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection?
@@TheMaineSurveyor By implication the curses can also happen today. If you refuse to serve God, you could suffer insanity among other things.
@@cranmer1959 That’s Not what I’m talking about.
@@TheMaineSurveyor Hint: By good and necessary consequence we can deduce that God curses the reprobate. Maybe you should study the Westminster Confession of Faith more carefully?
Chapter 1:6 of the WCF says:
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.m Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word;n and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.o
m 2 Tim. 3:15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Ver. 16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Ver. 17. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Gal. 1:8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Ver. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 2 Thess. 2:2. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled neither by spirit, nor by word, not by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
n John 6:45. It is written is the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 1 Cor. 2:9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. Ver. 10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. Ver. 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Ver. 12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
o 1 Cor. 11:13. Judge in yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Ver. 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 1 Cor. 14:26. How is it then, brethren, when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation? Let all things be done unto edifying. Ver. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order.
Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851. Print.
@@cranmer1959 I don’t hold to the Westminster.
Do you affirm the 4th commandment is known innately?
No. Even if the moral law of God is written in the hearts of men, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:19-32 NASB1995
Worthy of death here isn't implying by who's hand. We are all worthy of death. It doesn't mean put to death.
I think an error these guys make, and that Theonomists gain a point, is that they define moral/natural law as something written on the hearts of men, and sufficient for government. “Everyone knows you shouldn’t murder”. But everyone DOESNT know you shouldn’t murder. Child sacrifice has been a practice through hundreds of pagan cultures over the centuries. What these guys are adopting is a Catholic view of natural law that man can with certainty know the moral law apart from Scripture, while the Theonomists redirect their understanding of natural law back to Scripture.
I guess Paul who wrote Romans one to a culture that was doing child sacrifices was wrong in concluding this: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
(Romans 1:18-21)
@@THEOCAST No, Paul was correct. Here, I can be more clear- some people silence their conscience such that it no longer afflicts them. One thinks of the thief who no longer feels guilt over theft but thinks it owed to him, or the Aztec who thinks he is bringing the rain by murdering a child. These all call good evil and evil good, and on some level believe this to be true.
It comes down to "how do you know what are the natural laws". If its not Special Revelation, as the Theonomists claim, then you have to make the claim from, essentially, democracy: "looking at fallen humanity, can we reverse engineer what the moral law is by what most people have claimed is immoral?" That works well for theft and murder in some cases, but there are plenty where it just falls apart. Child sacrifice, communism, California's legalisation of theft up to a certain amount. It also gets you in trouble with things most cultures have defined as evil you would not, such as miscegenation. Human hearts are fundamentally unreliable when determining right and wrong, while God's Word is fundamentally reliable. So you need Scripture to inform you what the principles of the moral law are, and how they ought to be applied for the good of the people, aka the general equity thereof. Thats the point the Theonomists have in their direction, and its a return closer to the standard Reformed position than the modern Thomistic understanding of natural law.
Ok but what if instead of "Kingsmen" for your brand new podcast you gave it a name with some reference to where the Kingsmen hang out? Like, idk, "The King's Hall" or something like that. Just a thought.
11:37 - the most valuable part of this video might be the example Justin and Jon set in praising God for our brothers who hold to theonomy & commending those brothers for their faithfulness to our Father, before addressing critiques regarding teachings of theonomy.
This is speaking the truth with love and showing grace in disagreements. Praise God for you brothers!🖤
Fake and disingenuous praise doesn't impress anyone. Instead they should just tell us what they really think about theonomy. Theonomists have a wrong headed goal of making America a Christian nation by governmental force. That's not the way to do it. On the other hand, the Marxists and leftists have no problem with using force against Christians and political conservatives. Hiding your head in the sand only accelerates the coming persecution of Christians. The only way to protect the freedom of religion is to take a political stand, and that includes churches. Romans 13 does not mean we should acquiesce to the political left.
Thank you for making this. Very helpful.
Theonomists are big into educational curriculum publishing. Any pilgrim publishers? I'm wondering how much theonomy is structured into the curriculum of these publishers. I usually buy from anabaptist publishers but im not anabaptist. Are there some other publishers holding to a pilgrim worldview?
Jeff Durban is the best Baptist, theonomist out there today. He is so close to being truly Reformed.
The problem with theonomists is that they believe in common grace, which itself is not a Reformed doctrine.
@@cranmer1959 Common grace is a very Biblical and therefore Reformed doctrine based upon Covenant theology. Obedience brings forth blessings to any nation and curses likewise for disobedience. Only pseudo-Reformed Hoeksema, Amillennial, pietists claim otherwise. Such are little different from Dispensationalists, Gnostics and Anabaptist pessimists.
@@logosnomos3794 Most Amillennialists and pietists also teach common grace. But, pray tell, where is this mysterious doctrine of common grace in ANY of the Protestant Reformation confessions of faith? I only know of the Christian Reformed Church's Three Points of Common Grace in 1924. That denomination and their college and seminary are now completely liberal because of common grace. It leads to accepting both lower and higher criticism of the Bible and scholarship done by liberal critics of the Bible for one thing. For another it exalts empirical science above the Bible as an equal authority with the Bible. This is how you get textual criticism which bases its conclusions on committee votes, which is very similar to the Jesus seminar approach to biblical truth.
Common grace is not only unbiblical but it is a downgrade that most often leads to worse errors. It is a compromise with Arminianism and it leads to a secularized ecumenicalism which makes liberal Christianity the civil religion of America. This is how you get the social justice movement in Evangelical churches and colleges and seminaries. It's also linked to the acceptance of the so-called "celibate" homosexuals who cannot possibly repent of the illicit sexual orientation, i.e. lust for the same sex.
I could go on but I would suggest to you that Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler and Chuck Schumer are doing no civic good whatsoever. There is none righteous, no not even one. To suggest that God has some sort of favor toward obviously reprobate government leaders is just plain heresy. There is only one kind of grace. It is effectual, efficacious, and irresistible.
@@cranmer1959 What utter rubbish. You have nothing but a slanderous strawman of what you think common grace is. I was just noting to my Shorter Catechism students today that common grace is taught in the First and Second Commandments as per Q48-49. God blesses nations who obey and punishes those who don't. Ezekiel wrote: 8:6 And he said to me, “Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see still greater abominations.” God is grieved by willful disobedience and withdraws His Spirit from such who rebel bringing judgement upon themselves. It was taught by the Reformers and, clearly understood by Knox and implemented by the Covenanters and the Puritans.
@@cranmer1959 I’m honestly just trying to learn… I have heard common grace spoken of as good and bad by different people. Could you define it for me as simply as possible?
And with regard to your statement that there is one kind of grace (saving I’m assuming), at the end of Matthew 5 where Jesus says to be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect which includes loving your enemy - God shines the sun on the wicked and sends the rain on the wicked… is that love for enemy and God caring for their daily needs not His grace, yet not saving grace?
26:04 - I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding of Theonomy and Bahnsen in particular to say that he is denying the threefold use of the law by affirming that the civil law is application of the moral law. All crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes, and Moses and Jesus and Bahnsen all recognized that. That gets at the very distinction Reformed theologians (including Bahnsen) have always made between civil and moral law.
Take Jesus with regard to hate. He likened it to murder. Does that mean we should lock people up for murder if they hate someone? Should we stone them? Should we report them to the Roman magistrate to be dealt with? No, and neither Moses or Jesus advocated such an action, nor did Bahnsen add to the word of God to make it say such a thing. That's because he had a proper distinction between moral and civil. But to invert the scenario as well, since civil laws concerning murder are found in Moses, does that mean Christians should reject civil laws concerning murder? I think everyone instinctually recognizes that civil society needs a law to function. Really then, it comes down to whether we think God was onto something when he gave a civil law and we should look to that as an objective standard for how government ought to conduct itself, or if we are left to look at whatever seems right in our own eyes. If Jesus can affirm the OT when it says that all the law and the prophets is about loving God and loving our neighbor, why can't we? That doesn't reduce Jesus' use of the law to a one-fold division, but recognizing a harmony in purpose of the law as it unfolds in three different aspects of life: personal morality, civil morality, and ceremonial morality.
The beauty of the OT law is somewhat lost when you describe it as "positive law". It's not wrong per se, but it would be more accurate to call it a case law. It isn't trying to exhaustively cover every single positive case of criminal activity; it is giving realistic examples and the proper equity to restore what was lost and bring justice to the situation. It doesn't cover every situation, but it covers a wide enough variety of situations that judges can derive the general equity of the law and apply it to the particular case being judged.
28:52 - And this is where you really lost me. Earlier you seemed to rightly establish that the theonomic position is that the so called "Law of Moses" isn't just something for Israel, but something for all people of all times, and that is the position your side takes issue with. Yet here, all of a sudden, you highlight a principle of the so called "Law of Moses" and show that indeed, the theonomists are right, this isn't just some one-off parenthesis of God, but God is God and always has been even before Moses and always will be even today, and so this "Mosaic" principle applied even before the Law was given to Moses. You seem to thoroughly capitulate to the theonomic principle here, and yet do a little victory dance as if you just held one over on theonomy. I really need that broken down, because the argument made zero sense to me. Yes, the theonomists are right and those who try to isolate the law of Moses into some separate category are the ones denying the classic Reformed threefold use of the law and the moral, civil and ceremonial distinction found throughout scripture from Gen to Rev.
~44:15 God is teaching that violations of the moral law deserve death.
Two thoughts:
1. YES! So why do non-theonomists seed to treat the law cavalierly and not with the deadly seriousness God does? Why aren't we learning the lesson God gives us? Has modern man obtained such perfection that we no longer need the moral and/or civil law to teach us how to love God and love our neighbor? It doesn't look that way to me. And yet it seems the mere suggestion that God might have good ideas about how to run a nation is met with such repulsion, and that doing what seems right in our own eyes will work out better than anything God could suggest.
2. To bring it home to the theonomic thesis, it isn't true that all violations of the moral law had civil penalty associated with it, and of those that did, they did not always have capital punishment associated with it. Even laws with capital punishment as an option, we see other punishments alongside. Examples: hatred is murder according to Jesus, but hatred was never a crime and never had a civilly applied penalty associated with it, whereas actual murder does. On committing adultery, both the guilty man and woman were to be put to death, and yet we see allowance for divorce in the case of adultery. Why is that needed if the cheating spouse is dead? There is mercy and grace built into the law.
By taking the civil law and reducing it down to the moral component and arguing that we all deserve ultimate judgement for our sin seems to be denying the civil use of the law entirely. It wasn't clear how you were doing what you were accusing Bahnsen of doing, who was as far as I am aware remained a minister in good standing in the OPC until he died, which does take the Westminster Standards and the three fold use of the law seriously. I know he was accused along these lines, but the OPC never took those charges seriously. Reformed Theology has always recognized a place for the general equity of God's civil law for governments today.
45:52 _"Where they [our theonomic friends] are going to disagree is where they are going to seek to apply the civil code and say that's not been clearly abrogated. And we are saying, "Yes it has.""_
What does that mean though? Spell it out because this is where your side loses me. Should murder not be a crime? Rape? Theft? Or just the particular sins modern man loves to take pride in? What is your vision for this crimeless society? Is it fantasy based, a Star Trek utopia? Because the Bible says we are sinners.
In reality, I'm sure you wouldn't want everything to be legal. So what is the standard? Not God apparently, he is a moron when it comes to civil law. So that leaves whatever seems right in the eyes of man, right?
Surely you can see that if Theonomy is wrong, and this other extreme is wrong (I assume you'll grant it) then great care needs to be made to lay down a Christian theory of civil law that makes sense of dismissing God's civil law without falling into not just antinomianism, but complete societal lawlessness. And we are Reformed, so it needs to be based on the reality of man's total depravity, not the fantasy of Socialists who thinks man is innocent.
I don't see how 47:20 and on makes what you would do very plain. You'll appeal to the moral law and to natural law. But not God's application of that in the civil law. So if we know murder is wrong, and the 'light of nature' tells us that just punishment is to execute capital punishment not just for the murderer, but every immediate family member, parents, siblings spouses and immediate children, how do you push back and say no? "Well, my light of nature tells me otherwise?" My answer would be that God clearly tells us *in his Law* that you don't punish the children for the sins of the father, that it is eye for eye, not a whole family's eyes for eye.
Or the other extreme, the moral law says murder is wrong, so we will punish it by fining 5 dollars. How do you argue that the light of nature says that isn't a good enough punishment? What objective standard do you have? I can point to how serious God takes the crime of murder and walk through the case law to determine which punishment seems most suitable to the situation before the court. You seem to be left with a form of relativism, at least when it comes to applying what would truly be honoring to God at a civil level.
48:35 _"We are called to submit to the law of men unless it contradicts the Bible."_
What does this mean? The Bible (De 4: 2): "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." If we follow the principle you laid out, does this not mean that we don't obey where they add a law that is contrary to Scripture as well as when they remove law where scripture speaks?
In other words, obey God's law regardless of what men say, for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. So do what is good, love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. On these two commandments depend *all the Law* and the Prophets.
I trust you see what I did there, citing highlights from Romans 13, but not just stopping at verse 7 where most to justify following man's law over God's, but looking at where Paul directly appeals to God's law using the same logic Jesus uses in Matt 22 (even quoting a bit of it at the end). The Bible has a wholistic view of the law that doesn't allow for cherry picking this moral law but not its civil application, all the law and prophets are about how to love. Leaving it up to whatever seems loving in the eyes of society that increasingly sees grooming children and brainwashing them into not knowing their own sex as the moral thing doesn't sit right with me even as I am sure that's what the light of their nature is tell them is right.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Did you misspell 'true' when you wrote 'false'? Cause you seem to agree with what I wrote: "all crimes are sins, not all sins are crimes."
@@oracleoftroy I disagree that the judicial laws of Israel apply today. I am a Clarkian Scripturalist. I agree with Gordon H. Clark that the Bible is propositional revelation. Therefore, when the WCF refers to general equity it is talking about the Decalogue. We can use the universal absolutes of the Decalogue to make logical deductions for today's civil laws. I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality being a capital offense; however, there is nothing morally wrong with Uganda's making homosexuality a capital offense. The SCOTUS is promoting anti-Christian bigotry by making homosexual/sodomite marriage a federal law.
@@oracleoftroy I think you should spend more time studying the Westminster Larger Catechism instead of the writings of the theonomists. One small sin deserves eternal punishment. That being said, not all sins are deserving of capital punishment. Not all sins are equal. Some sins are more heinous than others. See WLC Q149-Q151.
@@cranmer1959 I think you should spend more time reading people you disagree with instead of assuming everyone who disagrees with Clark is wrong and it doesn't matter what wrong you input to them. Violating the 9th commandments is also bad, don't you think?
Yes, my post is predicated on not all sin being the same and explicitly stated that both in my op and my reply. I don't know why you insist on the 10 commandments while violating them so blatantly, read what the larger catechism says is the duties of the 9th commandments before replying again.
@@oracleoftroy Have you read Clark? Maybe you should take your own advice? Besides, I have done extensive reading of theology I don't agree with. I did both of my theological degrees at Arminian schools. My undergraduate degree was done at a Pentecostal college. I did my master of divinity at Asbury, a Wesleyan and Arminian seminary. And I have read a couple of Van Til's books as well as Scott Oliphant. I also read a couple of Greg Bahnsen's apologetics books. He totally misunderstood Clark.
I've read Mike Horton's systematic theology and R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions.
I've read Frame's online articles, though I don't own any of his books.
I don't feel the need to buy every theological book on the market. But I have Robert L. Reymond's systematic theology and Louis Berkhof as well as Charles Hodge. Do I need to list my entire library?
Oh, and I don't agree with common grace. I've read Hoeksema and David Engelsma as well.
I wish I could attend one of your churches but how to manage that from Montana seems to be a significant problem., I need reformed teaching, now that I see that dispensationalism is wrong. i'm 69 and I eat up the Word. What books should I order from you and I'll need a mailing address because I don't use credit cards. I never believed the pre trib rapture in Calvalry chapel churches but I didn't know there was another truth. I liked that they went verse by verse and worship in singing was spiritual. i really like you two, and your mouthes are devoid of bad words which is reallt IMPORTANT to me. Thank you, Rebecca
Fantastic podcast...fair to both sides of this debate. Thank you for clarification of positions that doesn't characterize the opposite side as juvenile i.e. straw man arguments. You have also given me clarity on how to respond to the christian man and politics in a theologically robust manner as well as a practical, man in the trenches understanding.
Refreshing comment 💯
Both sides? There was only one side of this discussion and there were no representatives of the theonomic view on the podcast.
This was very gracious.❤
When you say Reformed, does that mean Covenant Theology? As I understand it. It means mixing both Covenants?
True the civil law is abrogated but much can be deduced from the ten commandments.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 agree. unfortunately they've add their own clause to one of the commands. Congress shall not steal (except by majority vote)
One thing that i seriously appreciated in the episode is Noah. I was beginning to think I was the only one who recognized the importance of the Noahic covenant to this discussion. I've pressed theonomists on it before:
"If God intended for the entirety of the moral law to be enforced by all civil magistrates, then why didn't God give the 10 Commandments to Noah?"
Crickets every time.
It is nice to see that when it comes to this topic, the 1689 and the WCF agree, even though we disagree on the progression and relationship between the covenants.
I am inclined to push back against the claim that the Covenant of Grace(CoG) was only promised and revealed before Christ. If that were truly the case, then you would have people being saved in the Old Testament times through a covenant that didn't exist yet. A covenant must be administered to be in effect.
The Baptists' dis-administration of the CoG, paired with its over-conflation with the New Covenant, is the very thing that laid the foundations for the total denial of a CoG by the dispensationalists.
I also have to push back against the claim that Abraham was an Old Covenant figure. Not only does the Bible never make that connection, but it unashamedly sets up Abraham and Sinai as being opposed. Paul's whole argument in places like Galatians 3 and 4 is the church's continuity with Abraham despite the disconnection with Sinai. The New Testament consistently refers to the Old Covenant as the covenant of Sinai, never Abraham, never Noah. You cannot make Abraham OC without also making the promise that he would father many nations OC as well. Abraham was clearly an administration of the CoG.
“whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.”
(Romans 3:25).
How then was Noah or Adam saved before Abraham? Rom 3 explains.
@@THEOCAST i appreciate your response..
I would follow by asking, upon what basis did He pass over former sins? See the previous verse:
"being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;" Romans 3:24.
Their sins were not passed over arbitrarily, but by the same grace in Christ. Not just a "promised" grace, but an actively administered grace.
Romans 4 only expands on this point by distancing Abraham's faith from the Mosaic law, and proclaiming Abraham to be the father of all who believe, even Gentiles. The continuity of God's people is yet another defense for the fact that all of God's people were under the same CoG. To suggest that Abraham could be a citizen of a covenant people before the covenant was administered is like suggesting that someone living in 1200ad could claim to be an American citizen just because their distant offspring would be.
Again, I can only emphasize how glad I am that we are brothers in arms against the rising fad of theonomy. I also believe that a proper understanding of the CoG administered outwardly by OT covenants enhances the arguments against theonomy.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 no one is suggesting that the moral law didn't exist yet. Rather, we are distinguishing between natural revelation of the moral law and special revelation of the moral law. I would be quick to argue that thr 10 commandments existed before Noah in nature, and man was aware of them by natural revelation in his conscience. The point we are making is that God did not give it to man and magistrate to enforce all of the moral law.
This is the operating presupposition in 1 Corinthians 5, when Paul told the church, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." 1 Corinthians 5:12-13.
@@jasoncorkran6169 The only natural revelation mentioned in the Bible is in Romans 1. The fact that all mankind is created in the image of God means that men are rational and moral creatures. It's not the same thing as natural revelation even if does not equate to special revelation. Man is the image of God. Animals cannot sin against God because animals are not rational nor are they originally holy or good.
The idea that the church is some hidden enclave, where believers hide from the culture and the world, is alien to the Scriptures. We are called to challenge evil wherever it exists, not just preach some pie in the sky version of the Gospel where heaven is some escape hatch for the afterlife. The seed bed of the church was the blood of the martyrs. The modern concept of church growth and meeting felt needs is foreign to the Gospel.
God held all men and nations accountable to the moral law even before Moses was given the Decalogue and the civil/judicial laws of Israel as well as the sacrificial laws. We know this because Romans 5 tells us so:
Romans 5:12-14 (NKJV)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-
13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
There is nothing in Scripture that even remotely says that God does not judge nations and rulers and governments:
Psalm 2:1-6 (NKJV)
1 Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The LORD shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion.”
@@jasoncorkran6169 How do you get the 10 commandments from rocks, tree, and stars in the sky?
Would all posited/ positive laws as relating to old covenant Israel be abrogated when the New Covenant was inaugurated?
I have in mind the positive law concerning the proper day of the weekly sabbath.
WLC 95 Of what use is the moral law to all men? A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience. (WLC 1:95 WCS)
13:27 I disagree very much with what you say right here. Most theonomists just haven’t wrestled honestly with the fact that Theonomy requires obedience prior to grace as a way to attain that grace.
Doug Wilson, as chief among them, has clearly stated that top down enforced Torah observance is required to have the kingdom and that nations are transformed by observance of the Law, though he only does this when he’s speaking to ‘his own’.
Even if a theonomist doesn’t believe that Law transforms nations to be Christian, they clearly believe that having an unregenerate obey the Law at the cost of their salvation is better than an unregenerate not obey the Law.
Greetings,
If you don´t mind, do you have any evidences that Mr. Wilson and other thenomists are teaching what you said? Thank you in advance.
This wrong for the simple reason that Doug Wilson is not just a theonomist. He is also an advocate for the Federal Vision heresy. While it is true that theonomy produced the Federal Vision heresy, not all theonomists are Federal Visionists.
@@cranmer1959 exactly... but I think that the theonomist, I am thinking in recontructionists must to separate of this heresy publicy and condem this.
I agree with you and I would be probably more against theonomy - i consider it to be false teaching, that in practise focuses more on law and this world, than gospel and kingdom of God. It is not serving to God to promote theonomy. It is completely man-made concept. That actually in practise takes focus from gospel. Chaging of government is by product in christianity, not main product. When there is revival, there will be changes in thinking of people and in laws. But carnal men who promote christian nationalism always focus on worldy things and try to change society by implementing laws. I always wonder whether they are christians at all... To affirm sola fide or sola gratia does not make someone christian. Their true belief is seen by what they are about. Like Washer used to say if I could enter into your mind, I would know who your God is... And those reformed concepts (not biblical) like covenant of grace and covenant of works are not helping clarity of scriptures either. But at least it is not damaging to gospel as theonomy is.
Why is the term "new covenant" not found in the confessions of Reformed Covenant Theology? It is found in the Bible.
Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Watch the CZcams videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
===========================================================================================================
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit)
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church?
The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again)
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
(KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
(KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357
(NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
(NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established.
(YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .
I think you need to study the Westminster Standards.
Abraham (Abram) was made righteous prior to circumcision. Meaning while he was a Gentile. By FAITH. Righteousness is a gift. When Christ fills you with His Spirit, He changes your nature to LOVE. You become a new creation in Christ. God is Love. No LOVE no Holy Spirit. Love is the fruit.
WCF 7.6 Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations. (WCF 7:6 WCS)
John Frame understands this in a way yall need to grasp:
"Theonomy is not absolutely different from other reform positions, but only relatively so. Theonomy is a school of thought within reformed theology... The differences between theonomist and other reformed thinkers are not sharp but somewhat fuzzy. Theonomy... Is an emphasis, a tendency... Historically, reformed thought has shown elements of both relatively theonomic and relatively non-theonomic emphasis. I do not believe that either approach May unequivocally to be "the reformed position."
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Frame's point is that Theonomy is more a tendency with a spectrum than a monolithic system.
@@rustenharris10 I agree that theonomy is not just one school of thought but many different ones. I disagree with Frame's triperspectivalism because it smacks of relativism, though. It's also an adaptation of the Wesleyan quadrilateral. I agree with what the Westminster divines said in the Westminster Standards, not with Bahnsen or North or any of the rest of the radical theonomists. Their postmillennialism tends to compromise the Gospel in favor of a civil and cultural Christianity, not a biblical or confessional Christianity. I object to the radical two kingdoms theology for the same reasons. Their amillennialism amounts to a toleration of evil with the hopes that the wicked world will tolerate Christianity. That sort of thinking leads to the marginalization and oppression of the Christian churches. The R2K crowd tends toward liberalism, imo. Part of the problem is an accommodation to culture because of common grace. The three points of common grace lead straight to liberalism eventually. One needs only look at the devastation of Princeton and the PCUSA, the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin Seminary and Princeton Seminary to see that. There must be a recovery of a civil magistrate that enforces biblical morality at the very least. I am not optimistic, though. I am a premillennialist. That does not mean that I think Christians should be isolationists, dispensationalists, or separatists. We must fight back against the evil of this present darkness.
Horrible critique
If the moral law is not binding on secular nations, why preach the Gospel to them? After all, they would not be held responsible for what they do. Also, how would you preach the Gospel without preaching the first use of the moral law as well as the 2nd and 3rd uses of the law? There would be anarchy without the moral law of God to determine what is morally right and wrong.
WLC 53 How was Christ exalted in his ascension? A. Christ was exalted in his ascension, in that having after his resurrection often appeared unto and conversed with his apostles, speaking to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and giving them commission to preach the gospel to all nations, forty days after his resurrection, he, in our nature, and as our head, triumphing over enemies, visibly went up into the highest heavens, there to receive gifts for men, to raise up our affections thither, and to prepare a place for us, where himself is, and shall continue till his second coming at the end of the world. (WLC 1:53 WCS)
Confused as termites in a yo-yo
Oh I thought you guys were theonocast lol 😂 jk
Theonomists say that God gave the law to Israel as a universal standard of political ethics for the nations but Israel herself was a rather poor representative of how the law could bring righteousness to a nation. They were more despicable than the Gentiles surrounding them. How do theonomists suggest it will work any better for America?!
I find your question confusing.
Israel failed because they did not love God enough to keep his commandments. It will work out as well for us if we reject God and his standards as it did when Israel did so, and it will work out as well for us as it did when Israel did keep God's statutes. Ultimately Israel failed when they disobeyed and rejected God, not when they loved God and obeyed his commandments.
The bit I don't get when the non-theonomist raises this point is that they seem to be saying America ought to imitate Israel's disobedience and do whatever seems right in their own eyes. But when did that ever work out well for anyone?
Three fold division of the law is a myth. Its the whole law 613. You break one you break them all. You keep one, you need to keep them all. We are not under law but under grace. If you bring yourself under law you are bewitched. You have fallen by grace. Your confessions are traditions of men. No divisions. 613 all. Please stop following Luther and Calvin. Follow Jesus.
Ill pray for the puritains. From the reformation to the colonies the pilgrim and the authority he falls under is misunderstood by theonomist puritans. I don't know they would ever understand what a pilgrim is. Their view is one they must clean everything around them and that includes seeing some pilgrims hanging out together and any difference between the pilgrim and the puritan they want to wash away. What is a Protestant without protest? Just curious really because under theonomy if pilgrims are not allowed and bashed as they are ...there will be no protest, no protestants, the church wouldn't be anymore. A pilgrims life is testimony and protest and worship and sharing the gospel. Under theonomy thats not possible. But they go easier on the pilgrims or the unbelievers? Talk they have about a prince is down right scary. My only prince is Christ. Ill die standing by that ill never deny him and claim some man a orince if some human kingdom. They're not even set on individual salvation they're going straight for all the institutions and organizations. you can even see that by the fact that their National not even trying to just take one state and turn one County or state into their vision they want the whole thing they're after the power they want the name they want to have their own denomination their own church put their name on it Crown their own Prince. Its weird and scary. Its fearful. Its faithless its ignoring the gospel and neglecting the brothers. Its self agrandizing. And if you watch real close they're going to structure the same way that your culture has been shifted through education and media they will put all their money behind educational institutions and they will wait long enough until they raised enough people in their schools, to hold the same beliefs as them because if they come out and talk too much about this Christian Prince there's people will freak out. So these fancy words, talk them self-enclosed loops, they use a whole lot of word salad. This very specific words that they use in place of what they mean as Prince but they choose different words while they're speaking to you and training you to speak that way, when they know they've written this, that their intentions is a prince. But they are surely not going to use that word everytime they talk about it, because they say people misunderstand and that it's the fault of those who misunderstand. They use loop enclosed dismiss anything that they have an enclosed loop, use their Loop to justify itself, replace words tgat sound less scary and train ppl in this word manipulation and to go after felliw Christians. Do you see how their direct Target is immediately is immediately inside the church it's not outside they talk about the world all day long they're not going out to the world they're going after the church and it's so clear as day they say Oak the world the world the world know what they're really saying is them pilgrims those protest against those people who are not willing to stand behind us and ready to Crown our Prince. The word manipulation they're playing borders on witchcraft if not already definitely witchcraft. Its manipulation. So they teach others these cue cards. These words salads, these manipulations instead of actually teaching them the Bible teaching them the gospel doubling down on indoctrination instead. No Grassroots out in the streets on the corners, not sitting with the homeless and going to the nursing home but platform building and education building and plans to dominate institutions. We are ask to fish for men not governments and institutions. Id relate it to an insubordinate bride usurping her husbands authority and rule. She is to be his helper. The church has no place as anything except the humble wife of Christ.
This isn’t a reformed response
Jesus could have taken all the nations if he wanted he could have just gone and commissions the kings instead of his disciples. he could have sent his disciples to the kingdoms, to the Nations. He could have spent his ministry training us to conquer Nations instead of fish for men. He could have saved his own life and just offered the Pharisees all the kingdoms of the world because in their view Jesus wouldn't have needed to die he just needed to teach the law to all the kings and that would just save the world everybody I mean I'm not really sure what they're getting at going after institutions. Sad really
The law is veil. Religion is veil. Slavery, bondage. The old covenant isn't carried over. Its abolished. We have a better covenant. Its a new heaven and earth. New creation. Second Adam. Not all Israel is Israel.
The law covenant was given Jews. Not Gentiles.
Theonomy died about 25 years ago. There is no theonomic movement today - people who are advocating the abiding validity of the Mosaic judicial law contra WCF XIX.iv. Rather, Christian people want some moral sanity from the government. Your Westminster profs need to get out and talk to some real people who simply want the insanity to stop.
Excellent point!!!!
Although I don't think theonomy is dead.....
@@cranmer1959 Which is a bigger priority right now - theonomy or the leftward drift of the church on sexual ethics? Which has more-serious consequences? We know God destroyed cities for their sexual ethics (Genesis 19, Judges 19).
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Citations needed. Where did Bahnsen, Rushdoony, or North cite Norman Shepherd?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 At best, this discussion over theonomy - a historical battle which was fought and won 25 years ago - is a way of evading our duty to deal with problems we have now. At worst, it's a way of aiding and comforting enemies to the Left which are far more serious and making far more progress.
It’s weird you guys claim to speak on behalf of a deity you can’t demonstrate exists. Let’s face it, if you could demonstrate it exists you wouldn’t need “faith”.
I’m not convinced you guys could grasp the thought process or opinions of a deity. Let alone interpret what it means when it communicates.
I think it’s only right to go in this order: 1. Demonstrate the Jewish deity Yahweh actually exists in reality in the way it’s described in the books.
2. Demonstrate to other people 16:32 you can actually communicate back & forth with this deity.
3. Prove you can grasp its thought process & opinions, and correctly interpret when it communicates.
This has to be done to distinguish yourself from a bunch of other completely bogus religious nonsense. What’s the difference between you & an old Greek citizen speaking & legislating on behalf of Poseidon or Zeus?
Repent and believe in Jesus! Faith and observing the world around us are our arguments.
@@user-jq8pd1xy3c interesting how you think faith is an argument. I could take it on faith that white people are superior to black people. I could take it on faith that women are inferior to men. I could take it on faith there are dragons who grant wishes in the universe. It doesn’t mean you’re correct in any meaningful sense🤷♂️ and since you told me to repent, I’ll gladly use my freedom of speech to instead once again proclaim, Fuck Jesus Christ, Fuck the Bible & Fuck a deity. If it exists, it’ll do something about me 🤷♂️ you won’t be necessary whatsoever.
@@user-jq8pd1xy3c faith isn’t an argument, it’s gullibility👍 there’s no position I can’t take on faith. I could assume white people are better than black people, that men are better than women, I could take any position on faith, which demonstrates faith is as useful as being gullible. 👍
I hate talks about….religious terms….thank GOD that JESUS did not use this ludicrous language and terms….the Old Testament is a mirror….IT SHOWS SIN….when we believe in JESUS and HOLY SPIRIT is in us we obey because we love god not as works to look good…because we are sinners in this life….the commands to LOVE….will lead us to choose what is right. All of these religious terms really turn me off. SPEAK PLAINLY … especially for people who are poorly educated. So many people have been ‘dumbed down by society.
Theonomy? This term is not being used in any significant way right now. At least not as a lead title. Christian nationalism is the new buzz phrase. Who even thinks of its first 20th century movement originators like RJ Rushdooney and Greg Bahnsen Gary North Marcellus Kik James Jordon etc. Institures Of Biblical Law, Rushdooneys legal equivalent to Calvins Institutes. Theonomy And Christian Ethics Greg Bahnsen theonomic philosophy to advance the program. Interesting that no signer of the 1689 designated themselves aa " Reformed" Baptists despite their adaptation of the Westminster. The most ardent and dedicated adherents of Reformed Theology do not consider Baptists as Reformed. Soteriology notwithstanding. While Reformed believers have had to readjust their beliefs and covenant thought because of the Baptists who truly bequeathed to the world liberty of conscience in any matter of faith and practice Reformed people in America by and large reevaluated and adopted a different mentality from their Reformed brethren in 16th century western Europe. The freedom the English Puritans experienced in Holland was short lived as the history of the Massachusetts colony showed. Because we were introduced to Christian culture which replacecd non Christian culture after Constantine became Emperor we are so used to the idea, and it is a good idea that coming from a Christian consensus and base the governing authorities of any particular western nation must and should look to the law of God to base its moral and legal system in the political sphere. The truth is law will of necessity will be determined in any political arrangement conceived so why not the laws of God ratter than the mere laws of man which will be based in mans sin and moral relativism if not directly obtained and infered by the law word of God. To what length and degree is any socierty in its civil institutions and legal authority use the Bible to achieve any legal structure? Here is where the arguments begin. The first century apostolic church did not have to face such a dilemma due to the times and political arrangement they lived under when pagan Rome ruled over the world they inhabited. All good Christians believe unequivocally that infanticide ought to be illegal and a crime against God and his image bearers. But what of Homosexuality? We all recognize the crime of murder beside infanticide ought to have laws which threaten severe punishment even capital punishment when violated but what of a willfully and openly rebellious disobedient teen? Should adultery be treated as a crime of only as a sin and dealt with only by a church? Should adulterous people be arrested and receive capital penalty? They had such a law in Geneva when Calvin and the consistory existed. The records of Geneva confirmed this absolutely even though the few who were arrested were not exected. The law and penalty for violation was on the books. That is a fact. The arguments and dilemmas that can arise are many and men like Rushdooney and Bahnsen were very eager to point this out when in debate. If you can see RJ Rushdooney's interview with liberal and former Baptist minister Bill Moyers aired on PBS in the 1980s.