Years ago when the Patriot act was signed into law I said to some of my friends that's going to come back and bite us in the butt. It's only a matter of time until they turn and use it against christians. They gave me a very strange look and thought I had lost my marbles. But low and behold look what time has wrought.
Why I said years ago that we need to be careful about the laws we applaud--because they can be used by whomever is in power--and can be used against us!
Wow, I wish the church at large was on board with what has been said. Top drawer study and thought coming out here. And no thanks to these mindless superficial trolls in the comments below who just have to say something demeaning.
Thank you for posting this--I was questioning how the Old and New Testament laws connected! This made it so much clearer! Lots of mental meat here to chew on....but that message was instantanious!
What do you think about law beyond free speech? Using homosexuality as an example: Should gay marriage be criminalized? Should gay relationships entirely be made criminal? How far would you go?
Rare miss from Doug. It seems to me the state will always enforce blasphemy laws. The question is blasphemy against what god? I'd rather it be the One True God Jesus Christ than the pagan idols of a declining America.
Giving the state the ability to enforce blasphemy laws requires the state define blasphemy. When you give fallible men that sort of power they will abuse it. This is why a far more Christian nation than we are today came up with the First Amendment.
It’s a no from me on the post-millennial view of restorationism. Jesus himself will do away with idolatry when He returns and tosses the evil powers, dominions, thrones, rulers (spiritual wickedness in high places) into Hell. Not before. Scripture is pretty explicit that the world is going to get worse the time leading up to Christ’s return. Idolatry and blasphemy will be rampant. I’m not sure why so many within the reformed camp hold to post-millenialism.
Sadly I think much of the reformed views on millennialism stem from holdovers from the catholic poisoning of the dark ages. The entire vision of satan for the catholic church was an absorption of the church by the state. The very notion that anything theo and political are in the same sentence is at odds with everything Jesus taught. Most recently its simply a pendulum swing away from the errors of dispensationalism. Post-millennials and pre-tribbers are about to have a very rude awakening.
I love how he showed Handmaid's Tale in the video thumb. I know some Christians would take offense with that fact that my wife and I watch the show but Doug Wilson is right. The fictional Gilead is a perfect example of trying to use the Old Testament Mosaic laws in society. It doesn't work. It causes man to be legalistic/religious instead of changing a man's heart. As Paul said, it causes man to sin all the more (Rom. 8:20).
Gilead is based on Islamism, not Christianity. Margaret Atwood thought she could critique the radical takeover of the middle east in the 70's by using a religious structure westerners understood. It is only now that woke is in vogue that she is pretending her novel has always been a prophetic critique of a conservative Christendom to come (because of Trump). I read the book; however, I've avoided the series because of this fundamental dishonesty. From what I remember, the only thing similar to Christianity or the Old Testament are the names of the institutions. None of the actual social conventions *originate* from Christianity -- because, once again, the book is actually about Islam.
He probably wrote a script using ChatGPT and is reading it off a teleprompter throughout the video. You can clearly see by the look on his face that these thoughts are not originating in his head, but he is reading something out loud.
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight" Attempting to establish the Kingdom of God on earth IS blasphemy.
Enforcing law while sitting on his throne sounds like Pharisees that persecuted Jesus. I'd say it's beyond blasphemy and draws more of the image of antichrist sat in the temple. Devil knows we r under grace... oh but to lure ppl into works and imposing a world government in his name wud be a clever trick.
Would it be ok if I uploaded a 10 min excerpt from this unedited, to my Yt channel, if I linked the full vid in the description? Good stuff, I'd like to advertise your channel and the specific stuff/thoughts shared.
Problem is they killed themselves with socialism and a few other problems. Committed to Biblical law but sporadic follow-through. For example, 50 years of off-and-on price controls. Gradually the covenanted Puritan was transformed into the independent Yankee. Public Commons also a problem. Trying to fathom why? Part of it was Cotton Mather was relying on Newton to prove God's existence. Part of it I think was by the time of the Great Awakening, the evangelists like Edwards stressed personal relation with God exclusively, which weakened covenantal ties to the church and other societal institutions, which gradually morphed toward government with patriotic civil religion. Sorry, just rambling.
@@waltermcfarland4912 wow... Sounds like the same problems with Israelites and Canaanites merging and getting overtaken by their godless lifestyle. Book of Judges... They erroneously compromised..... It always ends badly.
There support for government is limited because they want to be the government and not in a way that you have some freedom they only like power when they have it don’t be fooled
Dear Pastor Wilson, As always, thank you for the thoughtful presentation. I do have a question: you made the point that in your "Mere Christendom" there would be no positive law requiring parapets on every roof (cf. Deu. 22:8), but rather the spirit of the command -- i.e. protection of human life, particularly on your property -- would be embodied in a modern equivalent such as holding homeowners responsible for damages to persons or property that was due to lack of proper safety features (rails, etc.). The example makes sense, but is a softball. If the principle of Biblical case law requires the spirit of the Law (as reflecting the character of the Triune God) to be identified and then re-inculturated, what do you do with the prohibition against blasphemy -- the very issue that prompted this post? How would the Old Covenant prohibition (and consequent capital punishment that resulted from it) change under your vision of Christian theonomic culture?
If I’m not mistaken, I believe his argument was that, acknowledging total depravity, the most realistic way to deal with blasphemy is to limit the power of government from punishing it in the first place. This is due to the fact that, historically, it has been those in power who have typically been the biggest purveyors of blasphemy. Therefore, first restraining a government’s ability to punish blasphemy is the best way to minimize it.
@@BillKron That is a big idea that rings true but has very little actionable, boots-on-the-ground value. In "conservatism", "limited government!" has long been a stump cry. But how? The Law of God, Kingdom Ethics, the Royal Law, etc. were not given to policy hacks and legislators. God's Law certainly instructed policy in the theocracy, but it ran bottom to top and top to bottom in application: limited government at the top (don't collect horses, etc.), not mixing the name of Yahweh with the pagan gods at the bottom. There is a glorious consistency in the Law of God that what applies to one sphere applies to all, only scaled properly. Practically, people don't vote what they don't practice. If the leaven principle is the right one, then right-speak (or righteousness talk) in the home, school, and local church is the lump of spores that will spread to the state contra blasphemy. But if we explain the heart of the blasphemy commands as primarily limiting the power of sinful men, women, and children who can potentially increase sin and corruption in the sphere of their influence, then there are logical conclusions that can come from that that we recognize are incoherent with not only a Biblical worldview of family and church but also directly contradict what Doug teaches on a regular basis. Limit the role and authority of parents and pastors because their fonts are dirty ones and the dirt could spread. I am fairly certain this is not where Pastor Wilson would go, but more should be said about the practice of this leaven principle with regards to blasphemy where it takes root, which is primarily in the home and ecclesia.
@@1RunAmerica I agree that what applies to men in one sphere should apply to all (properly scaled, as you said). But is it the burden of the state to prosecute or penalize blasphemy? Shouldn’t that role belong to (again, properly scaled) the church and the family?
@@jrb2565 Ha! That’s not how the church (or the family) deal with blasphemy, silly. We have a little something called church discipline (for dealing with this in the church) and parents have instructions on how to raise their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Both have been vastly underutilized and neglected. How much better would the state of affairs be if only parents and the church took their responsibilities before God more seriously. The thing under discussion here was whether the state should, with the power of the sword, penalize blasphemy and the answer is clearly no.
Imagine being so clever as to form a new Theocracy under the guise of Secularism with So called Progressive ideas that actually date back to antiquity!
Thank you pastor Wilson for the insightful talk. I've got some doubts however. 1 - If it's better that the government doesn't punish blasphemy because this would cause the government to have the right to blaspheme, why doesn't this principle apply to other sins, for exemple, stealing? 2 - Do you think the fact that monarchy (absolutism) was God's model in the Old Testament had to do with the "defense" position of God's people, and the "offense" position is better portrayed in a republican government? Could you comment that please? I'm listening from Brazil
Agree with you, Luis. I don't think his argument makes any sense. His argument is that such authority can be abused, and yet look at how the govt is abusing every little piece of authority we give it. By his standard, we ought to do away with the death penalty, as so many innocent people are convicted annually. By his standard, we ought not lock anyone up (All for that actually), lest they be abused by the govt, even as those people associated with Jan 6 ARE being mistreated - For blasphemy, nonetheless. All govt is religious by nature and enforces its own blasphemy laws. Ask Ed Snowden William Binney, Tom Drake, or the people from Jan 6. Only Christian nations allow for free speech. Name the secular humanist / communist country that has allowed free speech...... Who, China? The Soviet Union? Do any of the Muslim countries allow for free speech? How about the Hindu nations? If there is any openness in any of those places, such as India, it is because Christians brought it there and enforced such tolerance. Only Christian nations allow for freedom of conscience. Not the right to openly practice things that are abhorrent to Christianity, such as human sacrifice, or even open proselytizing. But you would not have to convert to live in the country. We are so ignorant in the US that we are like those bragging Corinthians telling everyone how tolerant we are, and in the mean time, the ship is sinking because we have allowed people hostile to the ship to run it. Remember how Obama would sign some piece of legislation that was antithetical to the Constitution, and he would mock, (like the Egyptian in this story), that "the world hasn't stopped" "No earthquakes". Remember that? The man who took an oath to uphold the Constitution was busy altering the laws and destroying the Constitution, while the nation applauded. Why is the US in the trouble its in right now? Is it not BECAUSE we have allowed God to be blasphemed? We are finding out who the gods of this nation have become, and Christians better be prepared to be charged with blasphemy.
@@janszeneri3572 Very very thoughtful -- and thought provoking -- post. In the spirit of what you have said, I suggest that you read a book by W. Cleon Skousen entitled, "The Cleansing of America". I believe you would find it also very interesting. Thank you for your post and God Bless America!
Question is: What set of laws from the Bible should be enforced by the government and what set of laws from the Bible should be not be enforced by the government?
As a general rule, if the Bible has a civil enforcement element, that would be a good candidate for civil government. If it has a priestly enforcement element, that would belong to the church. If it has neither that neither sphere should enforce it.
@@oracleoftroy Roger Williams (founder of Providence, and the colony of Rhode Island after leaving Massachusetts) argued that the church had the authority to rule on the first four commandments and the state the last six. As spheres of influence at least. But, common law was held as the judicial prudence in the west until the golden calf worshippers got control. Sir William Blackstone was the standard.
@@IronCavalier I'd be curious to hear more. My first thought is that Jesus equated hate to murder, but hate was never criminal in the Bible. So this example of a violation of one of the last 6 commandments falls to the church and not the state. I'd say offhand that both the church and the state are to rule on all of the 10 commandments, and it would be better to look at the general equity of God's law to understand which remain at a moral level that the church handles, and which rises up to a criminal level that the state ought to handle. I wouldn't say the church shouldn't rule on e.g. a murder charge, but the sentences a church can issue (church discipline, excommunication) are different from the state (fines, labor, death, etc). Or take covetousness. Most of the time that is a matter of the heart that the church should rule on. The state would probably not be interested in one's covetousness unless it rises to a disruptive level like trying to undermine the state by publicly pushing socialism or instigating a communist takeover. Usually, it's only when covetousness leads to theft that the state gets involved, yet the church should absolutely be involved in working through the covetous person's sin. So while the 10 commandments are great, I don't think they can easily be split like that. The case law God provided are a more specific guide as to how one should navigate various applications of the 10 commandments and whether they should be handled at an interpersonal level, a church level or a state level.
Questions in America when we r the authority and self govern whom exactly, what authority will be placed between man and God to govern morality instead of the self-governance Jesus asks of us... if I'm free and the ppl r tge authority who imposes messianic law exactly? That's the question no one asks as if we already have a king but we don't.
If you're enjoying this video, check out Doug's book, "Refuting the New Atheists" today!
canonpress.com/products/refuting-the-new-atheists/
Thank you so much for this. I've been searching for answers regarding these topics exactly, and they were wonderfully answered. Thank the Lord.
Doug is such a great teacher
His voice, language & explanations answer every question I think of as he goes along.
Bro, I was just talking this morning about how I would love a corned beef hash omelette. This must be from the Lord..
Eggs up grill’s Patty ‘O Sullivan
Years ago when the Patriot act was signed into law I said to some of my friends that's going to come back and bite us in the butt. It's only a matter of time until they turn and use it against christians. They gave me a very strange look and thought I had lost my marbles. But low and behold look what time has wrought.
Yeah, but a Christian theocracy would turn people against Christianity.
I would not respect Bible Law because Mosaic law is oppressive
Why I said years ago that we need to be careful about the laws we applaud--because they can be used by whomever is in power--and can be used against us!
Wow, I wish the church at large was on board with what has been said. Top drawer study and thought coming out here. And no thanks to these mindless superficial trolls in the comments below who just have to say something demeaning.
Much good here, and some that I disagree with. The only unforgivable portion, however, was the lack of the oxford comma at 8:39.
Thank you for posting this--I was questioning how the Old and New Testament laws connected! This made it so much clearer! Lots of mental meat here to chew on....but that message was instantanious!
Doug Wilson is the bomb. Whether atomic or hydrogen...time will tell.
I appreciate your use of "plenipotentiary" rather than a word many historians consider an overused red herring, "absolute" powers.
Commenting for algorithm
Governments - how I distrust them because I trust God - how I despise tyranny is in direct relation with how I love God. See Jesus Christ 🤗
The casualness of the phrase "check out" in the description seems beneath Canon Press.
What do you think about law beyond free speech? Using homosexuality as an example: Should gay marriage be criminalized? Should gay relationships entirely be made criminal? How far would you go?
Yes. They should.
This comment section is truly terrifying.
Agreed.
I know. No one is saying free speech is bad. Free speech allows you to call out for the allowance of sodomy.
This stuff is gaining more ground than I'd prefer.
Thanks, Doug. Enjoyed the initial verbal flourishes. made me laugh. Good teaching. Whole grain Theology.
DW is the goat!
Why is this guy so smart.
Rare miss from Doug. It seems to me the state will always enforce blasphemy laws. The question is blasphemy against what god? I'd rather it be the One True God Jesus Christ than the pagan idols of a declining America.
Jesus isn't God. He's the son of God.
@@exorius Jesus is divine!
@@gerarddlima6838 the divine son of God
Giving the state the ability to enforce blasphemy laws requires the state define blasphemy. When you give fallible men that sort of power they will abuse it. This is why a far more Christian nation than we are today came up with the First Amendment.
Did you know the Puritans in Massachusetts hanged a Quaker for blasphemy?
It’s a no from me on the post-millennial view of restorationism. Jesus himself will do away with idolatry when He returns and tosses the evil powers, dominions, thrones, rulers (spiritual wickedness in high places) into Hell. Not before. Scripture is pretty explicit that the world is going to get worse the time leading up to Christ’s return. Idolatry and blasphemy will be rampant. I’m not sure why so many within the reformed camp hold to post-millenialism.
Sadly I think much of the reformed views on millennialism stem from holdovers from the catholic poisoning of the dark ages. The entire vision of satan for the catholic church was an absorption of the church by the state. The very notion that anything theo and political are in the same sentence is at odds with everything Jesus taught. Most recently its simply a pendulum swing away from the errors of dispensationalism. Post-millennials and pre-tribbers are about to have a very rude awakening.
I love how he showed Handmaid's Tale in the video thumb. I know some Christians would take offense with that fact that my wife and I watch the show but Doug Wilson is right. The fictional Gilead is a perfect example of trying to use the Old Testament Mosaic laws in society. It doesn't work. It causes man to be legalistic/religious instead of changing a man's heart. As Paul said, it causes man to sin all the more (Rom. 8:20).
Gilead is based on Islamism, not Christianity. Margaret Atwood thought she could critique the radical takeover of the middle east in the 70's by using a religious structure westerners understood. It is only now that woke is in vogue that she is pretending her novel has always been a prophetic critique of a conservative Christendom to come (because of Trump). I read the book; however, I've avoided the series because of this fundamental dishonesty. From what I remember, the only thing similar to Christianity or the Old Testament are the names of the institutions. None of the actual social conventions *originate* from Christianity -- because, once again, the book is actually about Islam.
He probably wrote a script using ChatGPT and is reading it off a teleprompter throughout the video. You can clearly see by the look on his face that these thoughts are not originating in his head, but he is reading something out loud.
I can get behind that
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight"
Attempting to establish the Kingdom of God on earth IS blasphemy.
Enforcing law while sitting on his throne sounds like Pharisees that persecuted Jesus. I'd say it's beyond blasphemy and draws more of the image of antichrist sat in the temple. Devil knows we r under grace... oh but to lure ppl into works and imposing a world government in his name wud be a clever trick.
Would it be ok if I uploaded a 10 min excerpt from this unedited, to my Yt channel, if I linked the full vid in the description? Good stuff, I'd like to advertise your channel and the specific stuff/thoughts shared.
I left Evangelicalism because it has been tainted by Trump and MAGA. I'm out, period.
I'm beginning to have a new respect for the puritans. I recently learned their support for limited govt.
Problem is they killed themselves with socialism and a few other problems. Committed to Biblical law but sporadic follow-through. For example, 50 years of off-and-on price controls. Gradually the covenanted Puritan was transformed into the independent Yankee. Public Commons also a problem.
Trying to fathom why? Part of it was Cotton Mather was relying on Newton to prove God's existence. Part of it I think was by the time of the Great Awakening, the evangelists like Edwards stressed personal relation with God exclusively, which weakened covenantal ties to the church and other societal institutions, which gradually morphed toward government with patriotic civil religion. Sorry, just rambling.
@@waltermcfarland4912 wow... Sounds like the same problems with Israelites and Canaanites merging and getting overtaken by their godless lifestyle. Book of Judges... They erroneously compromised..... It always ends badly.
@ApplesWithPeanutButter You admire government, do you not?
There support for government is limited because they want to be the government and not in a way that you have some freedom they only like power when they have it don’t be fooled
Do not confuse puritan for pilgrims...... puritan and separatist(pilgrims) not the same group of ppl.
Dear Pastor Wilson,
As always, thank you for the thoughtful presentation. I do have a question: you made the point that in your "Mere Christendom" there would be no positive law requiring parapets on every roof (cf. Deu. 22:8), but rather the spirit of the command -- i.e. protection of human life, particularly on your property -- would be embodied in a modern equivalent such as holding homeowners responsible for damages to persons or property that was due to lack of proper safety features (rails, etc.). The example makes sense, but is a softball. If the principle of Biblical case law requires the spirit of the Law (as reflecting the character of the Triune God) to be identified and then re-inculturated, what do you do with the prohibition against blasphemy -- the very issue that prompted this post? How would the Old Covenant prohibition (and consequent capital punishment that resulted from it) change under your vision of Christian theonomic culture?
If I’m not mistaken, I believe his argument was that, acknowledging total depravity, the most realistic way to deal with blasphemy is to limit the power of government from punishing it in the first place. This is due to the fact that, historically, it has been those in power who have typically been the biggest purveyors of blasphemy. Therefore, first restraining a government’s ability to punish blasphemy is the best way to minimize it.
@@BillKron That is a big idea that rings true but has very little actionable, boots-on-the-ground value. In "conservatism", "limited government!" has long been a stump cry. But how? The Law of God, Kingdom Ethics, the Royal Law, etc. were not given to policy hacks and legislators. God's Law certainly instructed policy in the theocracy, but it ran bottom to top and top to bottom in application: limited government at the top (don't collect horses, etc.), not mixing the name of Yahweh with the pagan gods at the bottom. There is a glorious consistency in the Law of God that what applies to one sphere applies to all, only scaled properly. Practically, people don't vote what they don't practice. If the leaven principle is the right one, then right-speak (or righteousness talk) in the home, school, and local church is the lump of spores that will spread to the state contra blasphemy. But if we explain the heart of the blasphemy commands as primarily limiting the power of sinful men, women, and children who can potentially increase sin and corruption in the sphere of their influence, then there are logical conclusions that can come from that that we recognize are incoherent with not only a Biblical worldview of family and church but also directly contradict what Doug teaches on a regular basis. Limit the role and authority of parents and pastors because their fonts are dirty ones and the dirt could spread. I am fairly certain this is not where Pastor Wilson would go, but more should be said about the practice of this leaven principle with regards to blasphemy where it takes root, which is primarily in the home and ecclesia.
@@1RunAmerica I agree that what applies to men in one sphere should apply to all (properly scaled, as you said). But is it the burden of the state to prosecute or penalize blasphemy? Shouldn’t that role belong to (again, properly scaled) the church and the family?
@@BillKron
When "Christians" start stoning their children because of blasphemy, you can be sure it is now a dominionist cult like Catholicism
@@jrb2565 Ha! That’s not how the church (or the family) deal with blasphemy, silly. We have a little something called church discipline (for dealing with this in the church) and parents have instructions on how to raise their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Both have been vastly underutilized and neglected. How much better would the state of affairs be if only parents and the church took their responsibilities before God more seriously. The thing under discussion here was whether the state should, with the power of the sword, penalize blasphemy and the answer is clearly no.
Imagine being so clever as to form a new Theocracy under the guise of Secularism with So called Progressive ideas that actually date back to antiquity!
Oh If hypocrisy would be seen worst than blasphemy
Thank you pastor Wilson for the insightful talk. I've got some doubts however.
1 - If it's better that the government doesn't punish blasphemy because this would cause the government to have the right to blaspheme, why doesn't this principle apply to other sins, for exemple, stealing?
2 - Do you think the fact that monarchy (absolutism) was God's model in the Old Testament had to do with the "defense" position of God's people, and the "offense" position is better portrayed in a republican government? Could you comment that please?
I'm listening from Brazil
Just in regards to point 2, I remember God in the Bible being apposed to monarchy but the jews really wanted a king.
Agree with you, Luis. I don't think his argument makes any sense. His argument is that such authority can be abused, and yet look at how the govt is abusing every little piece of authority we give it. By his standard, we ought to do away with the death penalty, as so many innocent people are convicted annually. By his standard, we ought not lock anyone up (All for that actually), lest they be abused by the govt, even as those people associated with Jan 6 ARE being mistreated - For blasphemy, nonetheless.
All govt is religious by nature and enforces its own blasphemy laws. Ask Ed Snowden William Binney, Tom Drake, or the people from Jan 6.
Only Christian nations allow for free speech. Name the secular humanist / communist country that has allowed free speech...... Who, China? The Soviet Union? Do any of the Muslim countries allow for free speech? How about the Hindu nations? If there is any openness in any of those places, such as India, it is because Christians brought it there and enforced such tolerance.
Only Christian nations allow for freedom of conscience. Not the right to openly practice things that are abhorrent to Christianity, such as human sacrifice, or even open proselytizing. But you would not have to convert to live in the country.
We are so ignorant in the US that we are like those bragging Corinthians telling everyone how tolerant we are, and in the mean time, the ship is sinking because we have allowed people hostile to the ship to run it. Remember how Obama would sign some piece of legislation that was antithetical to the Constitution, and he would mock, (like the Egyptian in this story), that "the world hasn't stopped" "No earthquakes". Remember that? The man who took an oath to uphold the Constitution was busy altering the laws and destroying the Constitution, while the nation applauded.
Why is the US in the trouble its in right now? Is it not BECAUSE we have allowed God to be blasphemed?
We are finding out who the gods of this nation have become, and Christians better be prepared to be charged with blasphemy.
@@janszeneri3572 Very very thoughtful -- and thought provoking -- post. In the spirit of what you have said, I suggest that you read a book by W. Cleon Skousen entitled, "The Cleansing of America". I believe you would find it also very interesting. Thank you for your post and God Bless America!
Read Frederic bastiat the law
SUCH a BOSS. ♥️
Question is: What set of laws from the Bible should be enforced by the government and what set of laws from the Bible should be not be enforced by the government?
As a general rule, if the Bible has a civil enforcement element, that would be a good candidate for civil government. If it has a priestly enforcement element, that would belong to the church. If it has neither that neither sphere should enforce it.
@@oracleoftroy Roger Williams (founder of Providence, and the colony of Rhode Island after leaving Massachusetts) argued that the church had the authority to rule on the first four commandments and the state the last six. As spheres of influence at least.
But, common law was held as the judicial prudence in the west until the golden calf worshippers got control. Sir William Blackstone was the standard.
@@IronCavalier I'd be curious to hear more. My first thought is that Jesus equated hate to murder, but hate was never criminal in the Bible. So this example of a violation of one of the last 6 commandments falls to the church and not the state.
I'd say offhand that both the church and the state are to rule on all of the 10 commandments, and it would be better to look at the general equity of God's law to understand which remain at a moral level that the church handles, and which rises up to a criminal level that the state ought to handle. I wouldn't say the church shouldn't rule on e.g. a murder charge, but the sentences a church can issue (church discipline, excommunication) are different from the state (fines, labor, death, etc).
Or take covetousness. Most of the time that is a matter of the heart that the church should rule on. The state would probably not be interested in one's covetousness unless it rises to a disruptive level like trying to undermine the state by publicly pushing socialism or instigating a communist takeover. Usually, it's only when covetousness leads to theft that the state gets involved, yet the church should absolutely be involved in working through the covetous person's sin.
So while the 10 commandments are great, I don't think they can easily be split like that. The case law God provided are a more specific guide as to how one should navigate various applications of the 10 commandments and whether they should be handled at an interpersonal level, a church level or a state level.
Questions in America when we r the authority and self govern whom exactly, what authority will be placed between man and God to govern morality instead of the self-governance Jesus asks of us... if I'm free and the ppl r tge authority who imposes messianic law exactly? That's the question no one asks as if we already have a king but we don't.
@@oracleoftroy bible has plenty of examples of self-governance too.
Pastor, why is it necessary to mock mentally ill people (Safeway analogy)? I’ve noticed a common theme of making fun of people with mental illnesses.
I don't think you heard correctly. But, are you saying it's a good thing if someone is off their meds and being tormented?
Did this guy really just say shucking and jiving
This is all very horrible and terrifying!
I think he uses writers, some of the dialogue doesn’t seem like his style.
Theonomic monarchy > theonomic democracy
I see they removed you fake vagscene passport video.
Does his speech seem slurred and slow? Is he on meds?