General Equity Theonomy | Douglas Wilson (Reformed Basics #13)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- The law of God is not a static thing, suspended from a great celestial sky hook. God’s law is given to men, in time and history, and what happens in that history is relevant to the application of the law. The law of God is structured in such as to take history into account. This is not relativism. It is one of the law’s perfections.
This includes the development of the law over the course of Old Testament history, and it of course includes the cosmic culmination of the law in the events of the Incarnation.
-
Download the ChristKirk app: bit.ly/christk....
For more information about Christ Church please visit our website: christkirk.com.
To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.(Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4).
Whoever the graphics guy is, he is worth every penny you pay him.
This is soooo good! I get the idea that evangelicals generally lack a nuanced view of the biblical legal system and the modern legislative/judicial process, and so lack the communicative equipment to apply the OT to our NT era in a way that honors what Christ fulfilled in his work and ministry and what God intended for us to love him and our neighbors.
Luke 11:52: Often I think that many ministers are somewhat ENVIOUS of those who teach how deep, glorious and Christ honoring the scriptures can take us into “walking in the spirit” and observing all God has for us! TGBTG(To God be the glory)
OK boys; Wilson is talking theonomy again, using reason, logic and impeccable exegesis. Time to get out the torches and pitchforks :-)
Don’t they always? Lol
At least within Reformed circles, none of what he's said here should raise any eyebrows. But (as he says in this video), the "general equity" is where the proverbial rubber meets the road, and it's where you see such great variation among Westminster-confessing Presbyterians (and 1689 Baptists, whose confession on this point reads almost identically)--and it's on that point that I wish he'd gone into more detail. On the one hand, the series is "Reformed Basics," so a deep dive into the nuance might not be that appropriate. On the other hand, though, he mostly hand-waved away two thirds of the title of the video.
@@JonJGuev91 Friend, might one suggest that doing a little more research may help in making a more coherent argument? There is no such thing as "Reformed Calvinist." The adjective "reformed" refers to that branch of theology, coming out of the reformation, most closely associated with Calvin. Hence, saying, "Reformed Calvinist" is (1) redundant or (2) someone who once was a Calvinist, but gave it up - as in a "reformed alcoholic."
The "theonomy movement" as you call it, ended with the deaths of Rushdoony, North and Bahnsen; if in fact there ever was a "movement" in the first place. Instead, thanks to these men, Post-millennialism became a part of mainstream evangelicalism, for the first time in almost a hundred years. "Theonomy" was simply an attempt to figure out, Biblically, what a post-millennial culture would look like; i.e., what does the fulfillment of the Great Commission actually require if all the nations are to be taught how to obey Christ?
Or to put it another way, Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commands." So, what are the commands that Jesus expects His people to keep? Specifically, what does He require of doctors, lawyers and yes, Indian chiefs? The answer, in some form, is a right understanding and application of the Moral Law.
"Calvinism," properly understood is simply the sovereignty of God; His total rule over all His creatures and all their actions especially the Lord Jesus sitting at His right hand, subduing all His enemies beneath His feet, the last one being death. Hope that helps.
@@JonJGuev91 First, what in my prior post did you find "esoteric?" The history part? The grammatical mistakes I pointed out where you did not seem to understand what the words actually meant? Secondly, what part about discipling the nations to obey Christ in everything, do you find ungodly?
I prefer guillotines, ideally with blunt blades
I'm downright mad I never got this teaching from a pulpit. How hard is it really? Thanks for the explanation
I know, right?
Same here. And I'm Presbyterian!
Keeping God’s law is basic way of life of Christian and Rushdoony in the 80s he was established what is Christian Reconstruction.
and this Reconstructionism is not just movement , summarizes of Calvinist thought .
It didn’t finish or ended in the 80s , it’s still on going process until all the nations are praising the Lord Jesus .
Amen. All you need is Love. 2 John 1:6 🙂✌️❤️
Thank you for this. I have watched message several times already and will continue to look up Scripture, check the WCF, and give this a "good think." It's videos like this that made me subscribe to Canon +.
And keep the cartoons. They're fun.
This is awesome!!! The wisdom of Samuel!
💜💜💜Walk by Faith in Love of God through Christ Jesus.
I’m so thankful for Christ church putting together these incredible teaching videos. They are so well done well produced and the teaching is so easy to understand and is very illuminating.
So much content!
Great work on the video.
Blessings Ken!
I agree with you Doug, that all Christians should love or want "God's law" in regards to "we are all Theonomists"
And I admit that .. as a Theonomist (in more of an American Vision type way) there can be additional discussion(s) needed. God bless you and please please please keep these videos coming. I love using them as a series to help with my kids and the youth (and Christians young in their faith).
Question for Doug: Would it be safe to say that, if you believe that the Judicial Law (in accordance with WCF) has expired that you also believe that the penal sanctions against such case laws have also expired? How would you establish a just recompense in the establishment of a general equity theonomy were it to be put in place today?
I guess this was always my understanding. I just didn't know the specific terms for it.
I find the best way to distinguish what parts of the law are of the old law and which carry over to the new covenant are that which God judges all nations for, not just Israel.
It seems fairly consistent with this idea. I think?
Out of all the things that are morally wrong, how do you know which of those things should be prohibited by the civil government?
Define love. 17:26
There are three kinds of people.
1) The people who are just in their pro-theonomy stance
2) The people who unjust in their attack and misrepresentation of theonomy
3) The people who are unjust in their hatred of God and thus their hatred of Theonomy
This is really great, but I did spot a couple of typos.
Matthew 5:17-19 is teaching that all of God's laws have abiding validity. Of course the ceremonial laws have been put out of gear, but even those we obey in principle.... (which is what you essentially go on to say).
I'm not sure why you reject reconstructionism. Reconstructionists wouldn't disagree with anything you said. The "bottom-up approach" that you referred to is simply the position that we don't change society by merely getting into office and enacting/imposing these sorts of laws (i.e., a "top-down approach"). Rather, as the gospel goes out and hearts and minds are changed, people will *want* God's Law. And reconstructionists do believe in the general equity of the law.
having men determine the general equity of the 613 laws, as well as which of the three categories (could there be more categories?) they each fit into - or maybe more than one, I'd like to know who do I go to as my authority for this massive task? as much as I respect Douglas Wilson and his very precise understanding of the principle of boiling baby goats, and the Westminster confession of faith, I will look to the apostles as my authority to determine the general equity thereof.
It was the purpose of the NT letters to expound on the general equity, but they do provide about 8 examples. Also interesting to note when you remove the ceremonial laws and those judicial specific to Israel we are left with less than 250. Quite compact when we are looking to define civil laws for a nation as we should be.
@@andinorth1507 yes but that doesn't answer the foundational question - who determines that? How do you know which laws are ceremonial, or judicial. Could some fit into more than one category? Could there be additional categories who decided there are 3? Don't all laws have some moral component to them? It seems to me the system divides up God's good law and commands into a man-made system imposed on the Bible that has no biblical basis. And I have not heard yet who the ultimate authority is in this matter, who has determined the definition of moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws.
@@johnsteindel5273 that is a straw man argument. The only one who uses it hasn't seriously looked at the Laws and seen how relatively easy it is to distinguish which are ceremonial and civil. That's not to say that there isn't a lot of work to do to adapt them to our modern society, but we need to get started.
Genuine question:
At 8:27, why shouldn’t we also enforce the particulars of that law? Were the particulars never meant to be enforced? If the particulars were meant to be enforced under the old covenant, then why should those particulars (in addition to the greater principle) not still be enforceable under the new covenant? This has puzzled me for a while.
The Bible is clear that Christians are not under law but under grace. In Romans 6:14, Paul writes, "For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace." This means that we are no longer bound by the Old Testament laws, but that we are free to live a life that is pleasing to God through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Theonomy is a belief that is incompatible with the New Covenant. It is a legalistic system that tries to force people to obey God's laws by fear of punishment. But the New Covenant is based on grace, not law. It is a system of love and forgiveness, not fear and punishment
It's very evident that you haven't studied prophecy. The day of the Lord is a great and fearful day.
@@levilueth7778 yes 70AD
@mjack3521 If we are in the millennial reign, where is the messiah? Why is the devil still walking about causing people to sin. 70 ad was not the day of the lord. You have to ignore basically all the prophets to come to that conclusion.
@@levilueth7778 The Messiah is high and lifted up. The King is the King of the Kingdom.
✝️=❤️
@mjack3521 Isaiah 4:2, that's the time you are saying that we are in. Is nation not rising up against nation right now? That's how the millennial reign will be. Has judgment been brought upon the gentiles by Messiah himself? Isaiah 42:1.
Really good stuff! I might note that citing the WCF may dampen the impact of this video among creed-wary Christians (we baptists get a little nervous around those things even when we agree with them). Still good sound teaching
The LBCF is identical on the same section
@@JoeyBartlett Oh cool I didn’t know that! I have nothing against creeds generally, just many of our SBC brothers get put off by them in my experience
another question from this video, if Christ said that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away until it be fulfilled, but he had just said that he had come to do that - to fulfill the law, that would mean he fulfilled it all through his life and death, that's what he said he came to do right? or perhaps he has some of it yet to fulfill in the future, but the point being that Jesus does the fulfilling, not us.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. *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.*
That word above "fulfill" is this same word:
John12:3
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was *filled* with the odour of the ointment.
Mat28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all gentiles, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
8:12 What does 1 Cor. 9;9 have to do with the point you were making about the 'goat's milk edict? ' I'm not tracking.
Somewhere R.Scott Clark just punched a hole in a wall
I can agree with most of this video, except God's moral law is not both changing and immutable. Psalm 119:89.
So if the loving God and loving neighbor summarizes the 10 commandments (which I always thought was the law) but if the 10 commandments ALSO summarizes the law, then what exactly is the law in full? An infinite regress of summaries?
The law or ,Torah , in full is the first five books of the bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
There's 613 "sundry laws" in the books of Moses which are being summarized. Given that God is infinite and the law of based on his nature, the law is theoretically infinite, but also because there's infinite application
Theonomy is the other gospel Paul speaks about in Galatians. It’s Jesus + Law. Paul curses those who promote it.
Nope.
You need to watch the video, boomer.
You seem to be ignoring the prediction in Deut 17:14b, that appears to anticipate the "like the other nations" that in this talk you push out only. as a future event. Is 18 proscriptive or descriptive of a future event?
Christianity who teaches to protect laws that conflict with God's will is not Christianity. The position that biblical law applies only to past Israel and cannot be applied in today's churches and secular worlds is not Christianity. Such a position is a natural religion that puts human reason on the Bible because it insists on things other than the law revealed to the Bible.Christians who accept and disagree with the concept of natural rights that are based on modern society cannot be called Christians because they do not recognize God's sovereignty. A real Christian who recognizes God's sovereignty should think that only biblical law based on God's "creation from nothing" should be the true foundation of society.
The only way to rebuild this world is to apply the law given by the Lord, and it is Christians who put it into practice.
10:06 Doug claimed that the Law was raised from the dead, but gave no Scriptural support.
Romans 7:4-6
Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another-to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
Galatians 2:16-21
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
Romana 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law
It doesn't say the law ever died. This is speaking of us dying to the law as Christians.
Prager U is gonna have a kiniption fit😂
Great graphics by the way
Why, cause they promote an imaginary secular conservatism?
It's clear from this video that theonomist leaders don't just want God's law on the books. They also want to go full Griswold v. Connecticut on God's law, finding all manner of penumbras formed by emanations from every jot and tittle. It's not like they're even shy about this. They make it a selling point.
The answer to 1 is yes. And Doug Wilson desires it too, but he’s trying to be politically correct.
The problem with the concept is right at the beginning. We are not saved by faith alone. This is manmade Protestant doctrine. The Bible is clear that baptism, repentance, confession of Christ, and obedience are all necessary for salvation. The good thief in the cross is merely an exception to the rule, not the standard. We must put aside the doctrines of men and follow the Bible. Luther and Calvin are merely men, so they can be ignored. Simple as that.
Well, the point James, John, and Paul make is that through faith one gets the Holy Spirit and becomes a new creation, turning from his sin, and, finally able, seeks and obeys God, his works making his faith compete. When you do away with the initial step of faith, you have no need for what Christ did because it's only through faith in Christ' blood that a man can follow God. There's nothing inside a man that can save him, and that's why they over emphasize the first part most of the time which leads to the confusion.
Certainly true faith is made complete through works, but these weeks are from the Spirit. The Spirit is our guarantee of salvation, but the Spirit is not given to an unbeliever. One must repent and turn to Christ to be saved in order to receive the guarantee. The thief on the cross did just that. His presence is a fulfillment of what v the Lord had said earlier, "If I tell a wicked man that he will die, and he turns from his wickedness, he will live. He shall not die." Just because he had no life left doesn't do away with God's promise. He looked to Jesus and was saved. However, James speaks to those who would merely through chatter assume they are Abraham's children. Or, as the Lord also said long ago, "If I tell a righteous man they he shall live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and does evil, that man will not live. He shall die."
Or, rather, as Jesus says, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do as Abraham did." The current church lives to claim, "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.", while ignoring the verse, "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord must turn from wickedness." It is clear throughout scripture that if you only do one of them, you've done neither.
Complete*
Well so is Bergoglio aka the Pontifex Marximus.
Faith without works is dead, yes.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16