We live in such ignorant times that Christians who apply God's law in society are smeared as theonomists. Actually from about 400AD to 1850 there was a name for people who applied God's law to the culture(society), Christians.
They weren’t called Christians, they were called Roman Catholics. Killing and torturing those who who read the Bible or preached the Gospel, and burned the Bible, believing that no one could understand the Bible. True Christians are concerned with reconciling man to God through Jesus Christ and for eternal life through the Gospel.
They (including this RUclipsr) are the ones that call themselves theonomists. If it’s a smear, why do theonomists smear themselves? And if they are doing what Christians have done historically, does that mean they don’t criticize any of the Christian approaches during that time period? (1) This seems to be the the motte-and-bailey fallacy.* Conflating the general principle of applying God‘s law to culture (society) with the specific, narrower views of theonomy. (2) And is like Calvinists calling their doctrine of the atonement “limited atonement“, even embedding it in TULIP. And then complaining when people call it “limited atonement.“ They were the ones who promoted the name. They are the ones that use it. The same with theonomists. *The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").
@@paulchamberlain4810 Eh, there's some truth to it. I recall in Bahnsen's book that for him Theonomy started out as a discussion of how to apply the Reformed understanding of the threefold use of the law in society. It was built on the historical and confessional foundation of Reformed theonomy and was assumed to be rooted in common ground. But very quickly many christians opposed any notion of looking to God's law even for general equity in how to conduct civil society. I don't get the impression that the early church or the church during the reformation way anywhere near as antinomian as most of the church is today. As For "Limited Atonement" I just dislike TULIP because modern people see a two word phrase and think whatever pops into their head must be what is meant by the words. Why would people say "Limited Atonement" if their exact idea wasn't what was meant? Because of this, people try to "fix" the problem by using a different phrase, but it doesn't solve the anti-intellectual and antinomian root that people don't care about bearing false witness these days if it is against something they disagree with. They don't care that those phrases point to the Canons of Dort and are meant to be understood in that context, and that actually addressing the Calvinist position requires actually looking at the Calvinist position in full. I avoid any Motte and Baily by pointing to the original confessional documents that lay out the thesis and still serve as standards within Reformed churches to this day. Yet even asking to be held to account to the confessions, anti-Calvinists would still rather argue cherrypicked quotes and bad philosophical conjectures that don't follow or address the real issues.
Some of it has to do with the fact that theonomists have an awful reputation for their conduct. I know among my friends that is the number 1 complaint. There are 2 main groups on my block lists on social media. They are atheists and theonomists. I'm not sure which group is the most obnoxious.
WOOT! My first exposure to someone having an issue with Aquinas was while watching Schaeffer's How Then Shall We Live and the idea that Reason isn't fallen. While it didn't make sense at the time it has come to the forefront with curious church experiences and the lack of agreement that, for example, lying isn't an acceptable pattern to use in the Christian life.
Francis Schaeffer's point about Aquinas in How Should We Then Live was completly lost on me but the Lord was merciful and brought me out of my Rationalism using Bahnsen's debate with Stein as a gateway to just how sovereign God is. Grateful for Sproul but I'm now happy to declare God's kingdom without getting stuck in debate in the effort to move or prep others.
I don’t think most theonomists have read their critics just based on the fact that theonomists throw out accusations and charges against classical apologists that are designed to make them look less faithful. I would still call myself pressup, but this video along with many videos from Joel, James White, and Apologia studios, just make pressups look arrogant because you do not represent the opposition accurately
Wow! Thank you! You have cleared the debris from so many thoughts. It gives more depth to the answer of the Syrophonecian woman's answer to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Joel does a great job simplifi-splaining the difference between presuppositionalism and classical apologetics. Is there a cut of this anywhere? Figured I would ask before trying to do it myself. I want to share it with my brothers and sisters.
I usually like your show and I am a fan of Van Til, but I also am a fan of "steelmanning" the opponent. Sure, Aquinas teaches a conflation of scriptures, Aristotle, and church fathers (tradition), but I question whether your guest knows how to read the Summa. I recommend people take up John White's invitation to read Summa Part 1, question 1, article 1 "Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?" is a mere proposition. The first 2 objections are NOT the views of Aquinas, its not until the "On the Contrary" does Aquinas express the his views, followed by "I answer that", then "Reply to Obj 1 and so on. Right out of the gate in "On the Contrary" he cites 2 Tim 3:16, and Aquinas goes on to articulate that divine revelation is needed for salvation and that reason is not sufficient. While I agree with the general premise of the show this evening, and agree that your guest understands Van Til, I don't believe he gave Aquinas a fair representation when starting his argument with Article 1. I recommend "Van Til, Thomas Aquinas, and the Natural Knowledge of God" on Reformed Forum RUclips channel that promotes Van Til more effectively than your guest while at the same time, provide a fairer and more accurate depiction of the teachings of Aquinas. Like I said, I like your show, and John White gets Van Til, but he lost me with his interpretation of the Summa.
You guys should really try to accurately describe the Thomist position before attempting to dismantle it. It’s just a bad look and only people who are already on board going to get anything out of this.
Im postmil and approching Theonomic (i have specific reservations a little larger than a YT comment board) but I take a few issues with whats said here. 1) to address the big issue first, I'm completely ignorant as to who is using John Locke to base an argument for Christian doctrine on. I'm a big fan of English Common Law, but ECL was just a kind of application of the general equity principle, which is closer to my position. 2) my rejection of Van Til has nothing to do with my eschatology, but has similarly to do with the rejection of Locke. Van Til just reframes Kant's categorical imperative into a Christian context. In fact, my love for Van Til came originally because I thought Kant was on to something, and Van Til used the same framing. My rejection of Van Til came after my rejection of Kant, and for the same reason. Its based merely on the assumption that presuppositions are formed first and then comes knowledge, without having categories for innate knowledge, which we all have. While this is true for repentence, repentence isn't rewuired for the recognition of patterns, or even a creative Deity from which all things come from. We can see other religions like the Hermeticists, the Greeks, the Hindus, etc for that. The special knowledge is required to give God due Honor and Glory, but not to know, as such. 3)accepting Thomistic Metaphysics doesn't require an undermining of Biblical authority, at all. The difference would center around how we know what the Bible says nore than the Bible being the ultimate authority of faith and practice. A lot of this conversation seems to speak to things that arent being said, and its weird. I have respect and love yall, but this isn't what any Thomists, especially within the Reformed camp, are even saying.
I really enjoyed this conversation. I've watched several postmil vids from RRM, but this conversation was very helpful for my understanding. I do have a question though: How does Daniel 12 fall into this mindset. To me, Daniel 12:7 seems to argue in favor of premil dispensational when it says "When the power of the holy people is shattered, all these things will be completed." Is this referring to Christ relieving them of their status as He takes His Kingdom? Perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding the context of the text. It feels to refer to the end times by referencing that "Michael will rise up and there will be a time of distress such as never has occurred since nations came into being until that time." And it feels as though that time of distress refers to the time of tribulation. Any explanation is greatly appreciated, thank you for your effort and ministry.
33:00 I fundamentally disagree with the characterization of Locke. Locke appeals to God's authority as the highest authority in _Two Treatises of Government._ The theonomy argument proposed in this video would be better served by admitting that Locke founded his arguments in _Two Treatises of Government_ solely on Scripture, but that Joel and John simply disagree with Locke's conclusions. It would also be best to refer to a specific chapter or even paragraph of _Two Treatises_ with which either Joel or John disagrees and explain why they think Locke's application of Scripture to that particular concept is incorrect. One of Locke's main purposes in _Two Treatises_ is to show from Scripture why absolute human authority (eg. absolute monarchy by a human monarch) is wrong. He also shows how to biblically resist tyranny, very much in the same way that Matthew Trewhella does in _The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates._ I think Locke succeeds at Scripturally supporting his position. Do Locke's arguments somehow oppose theonomy? They must, for Locke is dismissed in this video promoting theonomy. I oppose the application of theonomy as proposed by Boot and Rushdoony for several reasons. None of them are based on Locke. All of them are based on Scripture.
Well, in Chapter 8 of The Second Treatise of Government, Locke stated "And thus that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and THAT ONLY, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world." No mention of God's Word whatsoever. The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution follows that formula precisely. They don't call John Locke "The Father of the Enlightenment" for nothing.
What are the top five historical examples of long-term theonomy that did not persecute Baptists? Like Socialism, it seems to be a system that has never been properly implemented. Maybe that’s because it won’t be properly implemented til God in the flesh comes and set up his kingdom? Yes, now we can work to make a better country, and in my experience, non-Calvinists, baptists and premillennialists are often among the ones working hardest of that.
There are shadows of the Gospel in natural revelation, as in the natural world. Garden and you'll learn some more about it. It also testifies to the triumph of the Church in this world.
If one believes that God is not an authority unto Himself, if taken to it's farthest conclusion, one would have to deny justification by faith alone. Presuppositional belief requires faith.
It’s really not that Aquinas must be embraced fully or anything like that. My sincere beef (primarily directed at James White before this video) is that you guys are criticizing his “views” with very little familiarity with what he actually taught. They are very surface level critiques that seem to pop up more and more in those unfamiliar with the depth of his writings. Your “critiques” are addressed in great detail by Thomas himself and yet completely overlooked and not discussed. Critique Thomas if you wish but why not deal with his actual teaching on this topics instead of these bizarre misreadings of his material.
If Thomas is so great and deep why did he repudiate the entire Summa 3 months before his death. He closed the book and refused to finish it based on what he claimed was a revelation from God. Perhaps he abandoned works salvation and became a Christian by sola fidi. Who knows? But it was too late - the cat was out of the bag. Summa Theologica was placed on the lecturn right beside the Bible -- implying equal authority -- at the Council of Trent. Is there any doubt that Aquinas was commissioned by the Pope to integrate Aristotle with the Bible. That alone is enough to condemn his writing.
Through lots of your teaching I became stronger in my conviction of Amill. I seriously think you guys have a missunderstanding of the word ethnos, and of the concept discipling, teaching (and baptizing) the nations. Jesus sits now on a heavenly thrown and the world is under his control. But obviously, when Christians are in power it it very good for the people, always and whereever.
You might be interested in this rr-audio-files.s3.amazonaws.com/audiobooks/Kuyper-Foundation-Library/Disciple-the-Nations/Disciple-the-Nations-V2.pdf, particularly page 13.
Maimonides used Aristotle to prove Judaism, Averroës used Aristotle to prove Islam, and Aquinas used Aristotle to prove Christianity. The problem is Aristotle's law of non-contradiction.
@@cosmictreason2242 Aquinas would not have seen his work as supplanting Scripture, but its use by the Jesuits suggests to me The Glass Bead Game by the German author Hermann Hesse
Does being, for example, half way pregnant not a problem? The law of non-contradiction would state that there is no such thing as being half way pregnant...
Joel, don't you know that we should preach the gospel at all times and only use words when necessary? :D ...which means no one preaches the gospel because they all think they can be the source of salvation by their person rather than being the means.
Put down Van Til...and learn about R.C. Sproul and John Gertsner, and there gentle refutation of Van Til's presuppositionalism, in their book "Classical Apologetics"...
The Trinity is only a CONVENTIONAL doctrine that was agreed - in a first form - in the Nicaea CONVENTION. According to the Trinity doctrine the "triune God" is an EXTREMELY TIGHT UNION of three divine persons. Thus, the four gospels should extensively disclose Jesus who CONFIRMS to be in such a very tight union with the TWO other divine persons. But on the contrary that NEVER HAPPENS! Jesus NEVER states in hundreds of verses of the four gospels to be in a trinity with other TWO divine persons. Jesus should ALWAYS state that, on the contrary He NEVER states that. Jesus - who is the DIRECTLY CONCERNED PERSON - DISPROVES the existence of the trinity because He states to be ONLY WITH THE FATHER, not in a trinity. Jesus reiterates that DOZENS of times in all different ways, e.g., "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me." Jesus does not say "I am not ALONE because the Father and the Holy Spirit are with me," as He would have to say if the doctrine were true. Since the Person directly concerned has nothing to do with a trinity, never seen it, knows nothing about it at all, this means that the doctrine of the trinity is just an INVENTION, it does not exist. This all is very clear, when do we decide to place that doctrine in the right place where it belongs? Further, if Jesus says He is always only with the Father, this directly implies that NO FURTHER DIVINE PERSON EXISTS: there's no way that Jesus ignores a divine person! This means that even the Holy Spirit who is disclosed by the gospels CANNOT be a FURTHER divine Person. Well, it's exactly like that. You know that the Father is God and Jesus tells you that "God is a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). This means that Jesus' Father IS A SPIRIT. "HOLY SPIRIT" is simply THE NAME given by Jesus to that SPIRIT who is with Him and who is the FATHER. Otherwise that "Spirit" would remain without a name, without a possible way to be identified. "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Father" are thus only two EQUIVALENT names for identifying the same ONE Father who is with Jesus. No one else is there with Jesus. The two names are thus practically interchangeable in the gospels (except in the baptismal formula for another reason): blasphemy against the Holy Spirit thus means blasphemy against the Father, the Holy Spirit speaks at Jesus' baptism (and is also responsible for the other events in the sky), the Father leads Jesus into the wilderness, the Father makes the miracle of Mary's pregnancy (obviously Jesus' Father can be no other than.... the Father).
If we agree that the Father is divine, and the NT clearly states that Christ is divine, the game is over. It's a small step to also prove the deity of the Holy Spirit (from Genesis through the NT) and we then have a trinitarian revelation of God. Do you stumble over the Trinity because you're unable to rationally grasp it? Welcome to humanity.
@@mchristr When you decide to listen to Jesus' words, rather than to the nonsense of Nicaea, then there is no doubt that: 1. Jesus is ONLY WITH THE FATHER, it's reiterated by Him 50 times (!!) through the four gospels, Jesus does not even KNOW what a triune God is! 2. Jesus surely also states that the FATHER IS A SPIRIT (Jn. 4:23,24) 3. Since NOBODY ELSE IS THERE, this means that the Holy SPIRIT - who is with Jesus - can only be "the Father who is a SPIRIT", they are NOT TWO DIFFERENT SPIRITS! The "Father who is a spirit" is sometimes called "Holy Father" by Jesus, sometimes "Holy Spirit" according to circumstances: they are just TWO EQUIVALENT NAMES. (You get a confirmation of that from the speech about the two blasphemies, where the second one is of course directed to the Father: He is called "Holy Spirit" by Jesus.) 4. The Comforter CANNOT BE THE HOLY SPIRIT because he has NOTHING TO DO with Jesus' life. Jesus is ONLY with the Father, thus not with the Comforter. It's clear that verse 14:26 of John's has been TAMPERED WITH by a trinitarian supporter: three words, "ho hagios pneuma" (the Holy Spirit) have been added to it, after the word "The Comforter." 5. From what above, it's clear that JESUS IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, WHO IS A SPIRIT. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT !!! 6. Furthermore, being a "spirit" means that the FATHER is actually MISSING, nobody is here. This is why JESUS IS THE KING OF HEAVEN, not God. In fact Jesus sits in heaven next to the POWER, not next to God. The baptismal formula includes both the names "Father" and "Holy Spirit". The first ONE refers to the Father who is NOT A SPIRIT. About Him Jesus says "the world has not known you" (Jn. 17, 24-26), thus "nobody has seen God at any time" . The Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit) of course COMES from Him, in other words that distant God is able to be here now in the form of a spirit.
Christ is the Logos. We are made in his image rather than Christ's humanity made in our own. It is totally apparent from Genesis that God made Adam and Eve WITH language. If made with language, they were made with knowledge. There's your chicken and egg issue solved.
We live in such ignorant times that Christians who apply God's law in society are smeared as theonomists. Actually from about 400AD to 1850 there was a name for people who applied God's law to the culture(society), Christians.
Fantastic comment.
They weren’t called Christians, they were called Roman Catholics. Killing and torturing those who who read the Bible or preached the Gospel, and burned the Bible, believing that no one could understand the Bible. True Christians are concerned with reconciling man to God through Jesus Christ and for eternal life through the Gospel.
They (including this RUclipsr) are the ones that call themselves theonomists. If it’s a smear, why do theonomists smear themselves? And if they are doing what Christians have done historically, does that mean they don’t criticize any of the Christian approaches during that time period?
(1) This seems to be the the motte-and-bailey fallacy.* Conflating the general principle of applying God‘s law to culture (society) with the specific, narrower views of theonomy.
(2) And is like Calvinists calling their doctrine of the atonement “limited atonement“, even embedding it in TULIP. And then complaining when people call it “limited atonement.“ They were the ones who promoted the name. They are the ones that use it. The same with theonomists.
*The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").
@@paulchamberlain4810 Eh, there's some truth to it. I recall in Bahnsen's book that for him Theonomy started out as a discussion of how to apply the Reformed understanding of the threefold use of the law in society. It was built on the historical and confessional foundation of Reformed theonomy and was assumed to be rooted in common ground. But very quickly many christians opposed any notion of looking to God's law even for general equity in how to conduct civil society. I don't get the impression that the early church or the church during the reformation way anywhere near as antinomian as most of the church is today.
As For "Limited Atonement" I just dislike TULIP because modern people see a two word phrase and think whatever pops into their head must be what is meant by the words. Why would people say "Limited Atonement" if their exact idea wasn't what was meant? Because of this, people try to "fix" the problem by using a different phrase, but it doesn't solve the anti-intellectual and antinomian root that people don't care about bearing false witness these days if it is against something they disagree with. They don't care that those phrases point to the Canons of Dort and are meant to be understood in that context, and that actually addressing the Calvinist position requires actually looking at the Calvinist position in full.
I avoid any Motte and Baily by pointing to the original confessional documents that lay out the thesis and still serve as standards within Reformed churches to this day. Yet even asking to be held to account to the confessions, anti-Calvinists would still rather argue cherrypicked quotes and bad philosophical conjectures that don't follow or address the real issues.
Some of it has to do with the fact that theonomists have an awful reputation for their conduct. I know among my friends that is the number 1 complaint. There are 2 main groups on my block lists on social media. They are atheists and theonomists. I'm not sure which group is the most obnoxious.
WOOT! My first exposure to someone having an issue with Aquinas was while watching Schaeffer's How Then Shall We Live and the idea that Reason isn't fallen.
While it didn't make sense at the time it has come to the forefront with curious church experiences and the lack of agreement that, for example, lying isn't an acceptable pattern to use in the Christian life.
Thank you so much for your faithfulness to the Word. God bless.
Thank you very much for such an enlightening and uplifting discussion. Much love from Ghana 🇬🇭🔥. God bless you
What an incredibly encouraging discussion, listening to this really got me excited to be living at the begging of the third millennium of Christendom!
Great video! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Spread Jesus on the Internet and the world.
We have a platform where we can reach millions in hard to reach places.
I LIKED Dr. Robert A. Morey book ,The Bible, Natural Theology,And Natural Law, Conflict or Compromise? Very Good Book.
Francis Schaeffer's point about Aquinas in How Should We Then Live was completly lost on me but the Lord was merciful and brought me out of my Rationalism using Bahnsen's debate with Stein as a gateway to just how sovereign God is.
Grateful for Sproul but I'm now happy to declare God's kingdom without getting stuck in debate in the effort to move or prep others.
I really liked your intro. Didnt realize that the thrust behind Aquinas' resurgence was a denial of postmill and theonomy.
I don’t think most theonomists have read their critics just based on the fact that theonomists throw out accusations and charges against classical apologists that are designed to make them look less faithful. I would still call myself pressup, but this video along with many videos from Joel, James White, and Apologia studios, just make pressups look arrogant because you do not represent the opposition accurately
Wow! Thank you! You have cleared the debris from so many thoughts. It gives more depth to the answer of the Syrophonecian woman's answer to the Lord Jesus Christ.
What would you say about the Reformed Forum folks who are experts in Van Til’s theology and apologetics and deny theonomy and post-millennialism?
Pietists.
Excellent Discussion! I did not realize Ref Baptists are drawn to Aquinas - so sad. Very meaty discussion on CHR Recon! Press on on bros!!!
Joel does a great job simplifi-splaining the difference between presuppositionalism and classical apologetics. Is there a cut of this anywhere? Figured I would ask before trying to do it myself. I want to share it with my brothers and sisters.
I usually like your show and I am a fan of Van Til, but I also am a fan of "steelmanning" the opponent. Sure, Aquinas teaches a conflation of scriptures, Aristotle, and church fathers (tradition), but I question whether your guest knows how to read the Summa. I recommend people take up John White's invitation to read Summa Part 1, question 1, article 1 "Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?" is a mere proposition. The first 2 objections are NOT the views of Aquinas, its not until the "On the Contrary" does Aquinas express the his views, followed by "I answer that", then "Reply to Obj 1 and so on. Right out of the gate in "On the Contrary" he cites 2 Tim 3:16, and Aquinas goes on to articulate that divine revelation is needed for salvation and that reason is not sufficient. While I agree with the general premise of the show this evening, and agree that your guest understands Van Til, I don't believe he gave Aquinas a fair representation when starting his argument with Article 1. I recommend "Van Til, Thomas Aquinas, and the Natural Knowledge of God" on Reformed Forum RUclips channel that promotes Van Til more effectively than your guest while at the same time, provide a fairer and more accurate depiction of the teachings of Aquinas. Like I said, I like your show, and John White gets Van Til, but he lost me with his interpretation of the Summa.
You guys should really try to accurately describe the Thomist position before attempting to dismantle it. It’s just a bad look and only people who are already on board going to get anything out of this.
Honest question: what is the telos for a theonomy? Can unregenerate men offer what is pleasing to God by obedience to God's law?
Thank you so much, do you have any book recommendations on this topic?
Im postmil and approching Theonomic (i have specific reservations a little larger than a YT comment board) but I take a few issues with whats said here.
1) to address the big issue first, I'm completely ignorant as to who is using John Locke to base an argument for Christian doctrine on. I'm a big fan of English Common Law, but ECL was just a kind of application of the general equity principle, which is closer to my position.
2) my rejection of Van Til has nothing to do with my eschatology, but has similarly to do with the rejection of Locke. Van Til just reframes Kant's categorical imperative into a Christian context. In fact, my love for Van Til came originally because I thought Kant was on to something, and Van Til used the same framing. My rejection of Van Til came after my rejection of Kant, and for the same reason. Its based merely on the assumption that presuppositions are formed first and then comes knowledge, without having categories for innate knowledge, which we all have. While this is true for repentence, repentence isn't rewuired for the recognition of patterns, or even a creative Deity from which all things come from. We can see other religions like the Hermeticists, the Greeks, the Hindus, etc for that. The special knowledge is required to give God due Honor and Glory, but not to know, as such.
3)accepting Thomistic Metaphysics doesn't require an undermining of Biblical authority, at all. The difference would center around how we know what the Bible says nore than the Bible being the ultimate authority of faith and practice.
A lot of this conversation seems to speak to things that arent being said, and its weird. I have respect and love yall, but this isn't what any Thomists, especially within the Reformed camp, are even saying.
See T. David Gordon in Creator Redeemer Consummator. Van Til questioned thenomy.
I really enjoyed this conversation. I've watched several postmil vids from RRM, but this conversation was very helpful for my understanding.
I do have a question though:
How does Daniel 12 fall into this mindset. To me, Daniel 12:7 seems to argue in favor of premil dispensational when it says "When the power of the holy people is shattered, all these things will be completed." Is this referring to Christ relieving them of their status as He takes His Kingdom? Perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding the context of the text. It feels to refer to the end times by referencing that "Michael will rise up and there will be a time of distress such as never has occurred since nations came into being until that time." And it feels as though that time of distress refers to the time of tribulation.
Any explanation is greatly appreciated, thank you for your effort and ministry.
Will be listening on my travels to work! Can't wait! Where can I get one of those right response stickers from?
That’s the only one! Haha. But our 5 Solas shirts are super cool!
@@RightResponseMinistries lol thanks brother!!
I was wondering about the sticker too
This was good. Joel, what book(s) would u recommend that would discuss these doctrines on an intermediate level?
The scripture plus illumination of the Holy Spirit.
AHA! I didn't like aquinas anyways because he was a catholic so it works out better
33:00 I fundamentally disagree with the characterization of Locke. Locke appeals to God's authority as the highest authority in _Two Treatises of Government._ The theonomy argument proposed in this video would be better served by admitting that Locke founded his arguments in _Two Treatises of Government_ solely on Scripture, but that Joel and John simply disagree with Locke's conclusions.
It would also be best to refer to a specific chapter or even paragraph of _Two Treatises_ with which either Joel or John disagrees and explain why they think Locke's application of Scripture to that particular concept is incorrect.
One of Locke's main purposes in _Two Treatises_ is to show from Scripture why absolute human authority (eg. absolute monarchy by a human monarch) is wrong. He also shows how to biblically resist tyranny, very much in the same way that Matthew Trewhella does in _The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates._ I think Locke succeeds at Scripturally supporting his position.
Do Locke's arguments somehow oppose theonomy? They must, for Locke is dismissed in this video promoting theonomy.
I oppose the application of theonomy as proposed by Boot and Rushdoony for several reasons. None of them are based on Locke. All of them are based on Scripture.
Well, in Chapter 8 of The Second Treatise of Government, Locke stated "And thus that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and THAT ONLY, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world." No mention of God's Word whatsoever. The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution follows that formula precisely. They don't call John Locke "The Father of the Enlightenment" for nothing.
What are the top five historical examples of long-term theonomy that did not persecute Baptists? Like Socialism, it seems to be a system that has never been properly implemented.
Maybe that’s because it won’t be properly implemented til God in the flesh comes and set up his kingdom? Yes, now we can work to make a better country, and in my experience, non-Calvinists, baptists and premillennialists are often among the ones working hardest of that.
I had been reading Gary North via Lew Rockwell for YEARS before knowing he was theonomic.
Hello brothers
There are shadows of the Gospel in natural revelation, as in the natural world. Garden and you'll learn some more about it. It also testifies to the triumph of the Church in this world.
If one believes that God is not an authority unto Himself, if taken to it's farthest conclusion, one would have to deny justification by faith alone. Presuppositional belief requires faith.
We need to put down the doctrine of the family, especially as it relates to salvation and our children.
Remember that the valley that Lot went was prosperous and plentiful which led to their idleness
The Reformation was not the only reformation in history and there are reformations to come.
Aquinas is very tempting to libertarian Christians.
I don't know much about this Aquinas fellow. Never heard of him outside of this channel, that I'm aware of.
Please, what organization is John White with?
It’s really not that Aquinas must be embraced fully or anything like that. My sincere beef (primarily directed at James White before this video) is that you guys are criticizing his “views” with very little familiarity with what he actually taught. They are very surface level critiques that seem to pop up more and more in those unfamiliar with the depth of his writings. Your “critiques” are addressed in great detail by Thomas himself and yet completely overlooked and not discussed. Critique Thomas if you wish but why not deal with his actual teaching on this topics instead of these bizarre misreadings of his material.
They'd have to read his works. Also, I doubt they'd take the time to read the Summa. I've heard it's quite hefty.
If Thomas is so great and deep why did he repudiate the entire Summa 3 months before his death. He closed the book and refused to finish it based on what he claimed was a revelation from God. Perhaps he abandoned works salvation and became a Christian by sola fidi. Who knows?
But it was too late - the cat was out of the bag. Summa Theologica was placed on the lecturn right beside the Bible -- implying equal authority -- at the Council of Trent. Is there any doubt that Aquinas was commissioned by the Pope to integrate Aristotle with the Bible. That alone is enough to condemn his writing.
Through lots of your teaching I became stronger in my conviction of Amill. I seriously think you guys have a missunderstanding of the word ethnos, and of the concept discipling, teaching (and baptizing) the nations. Jesus sits now on a heavenly thrown and the world is under his control. But obviously, when Christians are in power it it very good for the people, always and whereever.
You might be interested in this rr-audio-files.s3.amazonaws.com/audiobooks/Kuyper-Foundation-Library/Disciple-the-Nations/Disciple-the-Nations-V2.pdf, particularly page 13.
MATTHEW Ten,MATTHEW Thirteen has been beneficial for me for the last Twenty - Six years
✍🏾 📖 🕊
Joel invited a guest on to talk about an issue. Proceeds to do a majority of the talking
I hear straw burning
Put down Van Till and read VOSS
Van Tillians are Kantians.
Maimonides used Aristotle to prove Judaism, Averroës used Aristotle to prove Islam, and Aquinas used Aristotle to prove Christianity. The problem is Aristotle's law of non-contradiction.
Problem?
@@cosmictreason2242 Aquinas would not have seen his work as supplanting Scripture, but its use by the Jesuits suggests to me The Glass Bead Game by the German author Hermann Hesse
Does being, for example, half way pregnant not a problem? The law of non-contradiction would state that there is no such thing as being half way pregnant...
@@adrianpasillas3832 Yup. That is why Scripture, not Aristotle must be the standard I.E. Sola Scriptura. Blessings.
Joel, don't you know that we should preach the gospel at all times and only use words when necessary? :D ...which means no one preaches the gospel because they all think they can be the source of salvation by their person rather than being the means.
To suggest that 2nd Timothy is really talking about every aspect of existence is such a gross twisting of scripture. False teacher
Why Thomas Aquinas is so important: ruclips.net/video/dcYcgPzwk5Y/видео.html
Put down Van Til...and learn about R.C. Sproul and John Gertsner, and there gentle refutation of Van Til's presuppositionalism, in their book "Classical Apologetics"...
I’m aware.
When asked if I'm a presuppositionalist or a evidentialist, I pause for effect and answer "yes."
The Trinity is only a CONVENTIONAL doctrine that was agreed - in a first form - in the Nicaea CONVENTION.
According to the Trinity doctrine the "triune God" is an EXTREMELY TIGHT UNION of three divine persons. Thus, the four gospels should extensively disclose Jesus who CONFIRMS to be in such a very tight union with the TWO other divine persons. But on the contrary that NEVER HAPPENS! Jesus NEVER states in hundreds of verses of the four gospels to be in a trinity with other TWO divine persons. Jesus should ALWAYS state that, on the contrary He NEVER states that. Jesus - who is the DIRECTLY CONCERNED PERSON - DISPROVES the existence of the trinity because He states to be ONLY WITH THE FATHER, not in a trinity. Jesus reiterates that DOZENS of times in all different ways, e.g., "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me." Jesus does not say "I am not ALONE because the Father and the Holy Spirit are with me," as He would have to say if the doctrine were true. Since the Person directly concerned has nothing to do with a trinity, never seen it, knows nothing about it at all, this means that the doctrine of the trinity is just an INVENTION, it does not exist.
This all is very clear, when do we decide to place that doctrine in the right place where it belongs?
Further, if Jesus says He is always only with the Father, this directly implies that NO FURTHER DIVINE PERSON EXISTS: there's no way that Jesus ignores a divine person! This means that even the Holy Spirit who is disclosed by the gospels CANNOT be a FURTHER divine Person. Well, it's exactly like that. You know that the Father is God and Jesus tells you that "God is a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). This means that Jesus' Father IS A SPIRIT. "HOLY SPIRIT" is simply THE NAME given by Jesus to that SPIRIT who is with Him and who is the FATHER. Otherwise that "Spirit" would remain without a name, without a possible way to be identified. "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Father" are thus only two EQUIVALENT names for identifying the same ONE Father who is with Jesus. No one else is there with Jesus. The two names are thus practically interchangeable in the gospels (except in the baptismal formula for another reason): blasphemy against the Holy Spirit thus means blasphemy against the Father, the Holy Spirit speaks at Jesus' baptism (and is also responsible for the other events in the sky), the Father leads Jesus into the wilderness, the Father makes the miracle of Mary's pregnancy (obviously Jesus' Father can be no other than.... the Father).
If we agree that the Father is divine, and the NT clearly states that Christ is divine, the game is over. It's a small step to also prove the deity of the Holy Spirit (from Genesis through the NT) and we then have a trinitarian revelation of God. Do you stumble over the Trinity because you're unable to rationally grasp it? Welcome to humanity.
@@mchristr
When you decide to listen to Jesus' words, rather than to the nonsense of Nicaea, then there is no doubt that:
1. Jesus is ONLY WITH THE FATHER, it's reiterated by Him 50 times (!!) through the four gospels, Jesus does not even KNOW what a triune God is!
2. Jesus surely also states that the FATHER IS A SPIRIT (Jn. 4:23,24)
3. Since NOBODY ELSE IS THERE, this means that the Holy SPIRIT - who is with Jesus - can only be "the Father who is a SPIRIT", they are NOT TWO DIFFERENT SPIRITS! The "Father who is a spirit" is sometimes called "Holy Father" by Jesus, sometimes "Holy Spirit" according to circumstances: they are just TWO EQUIVALENT NAMES. (You get a confirmation of that from the speech about the two blasphemies, where the second one is of course directed to the Father: He is called "Holy Spirit" by Jesus.)
4. The Comforter CANNOT BE THE HOLY SPIRIT because he has NOTHING TO DO with Jesus' life. Jesus is ONLY with the Father, thus not with the Comforter. It's clear that verse 14:26 of John's has been TAMPERED WITH by a trinitarian supporter: three words, "ho hagios pneuma" (the Holy Spirit) have been added to it, after the word "The Comforter."
5. From what above, it's clear that JESUS IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, WHO IS A SPIRIT. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT !!!
6. Furthermore, being a "spirit" means that the FATHER is actually MISSING, nobody is here. This is why JESUS IS THE KING OF HEAVEN, not God. In fact Jesus sits in heaven next to the POWER, not next to God.
The baptismal formula includes both the names "Father" and "Holy Spirit". The first ONE refers to the Father who is NOT A SPIRIT. About Him Jesus says "the world has not known you" (Jn. 17, 24-26), thus "nobody has seen God at any time" . The Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit) of course COMES from Him, in other words that distant God is able to be here now in the form of a spirit.
Christ is the Logos. We are made in his image rather than Christ's humanity made in our own. It is totally apparent from Genesis that God made Adam and Eve WITH language. If made with language, they were made with knowledge. There's your chicken and egg issue solved.