Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Highlight: Phil Johnson & Theonomy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 янв 2022
- This is a highlight of our premiere webcast Apologia Radio. In this highlight Jeff and Dr. Joe Boot respond to some comments Phil Johnson made about theogony in a recent article.
Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video.
You can get more at apologiastudios... :
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get our TV show, After Show, and Apologia Academy, etc. You can also sign up for a free acount to recieve access to Bahnsen U. We are re-mastering all the audio and video from the Greg L. Bahnsen PH.D catalogue of resources. This is a seminary education at the highest level for free.
#ApologiaStudios
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Instagram: www.instagram....
Do you want more like this from Apologia Studios? Subscribe to Apologia All Access! Click here for more info.
ean.link/bahnsenu
Brother Phil’s statement is a common caricature of theonomy that I once believed also. I think it’s common because it plays to our yet to be mortified sinful desire to be autonomous. I pray that our brother comes to a better understanding of theonomy. Thank you Joe, Jeff and Luke.
I would give Phil Johnson the benefit of the doubt, trusting that he meant theocracy, not theonomy.
What’s the difference?
@@JohnGodwin777
Have you figured out the difference yet?
I would add by the way they handled their church closing. The way they stood up to the government and preached the Word and truth them; deep down they are theonomist at heart?
I'm a 1689 Federalist, so I would see classical theonomy as being inconsistent with baptist covenant theology, however, I do refer to myself as a "general-equity theonomist" in that I think theonomists get a lot of applications from the general equity of the judicial laws correct. Sadly, most baptist covenant theology today has fallen prey to a faulty and new understanding of 2-Kingdom Theology, but I believe "general-equity theonomy" to be perfectly in line with the 2K and covenant theology of the 1689 and its writers. I would love to see more baptists discuss this, or basically just anything that isn't the mangled version of 2KT you see from guys like Tom Hicks. Jared Longshore back in his baptist days wrote a good article on Founder's on learning from Israel's judicial laws, and Craig Carter has had some comments more in line with what I see as a proper understanding of general equity which we find in the Reformers, but besides that, I haven't seen much serious discussion of this from among baptists.
Calvin said, “Let whoever therefore is desirous of having a plain and honest understanding of the Gospel, test everything by the above descriptions of the Law and the Gospel. Those who do not follow this method of treatment will never be adequately versed in the Philosophy of Christ.”
It’s all just a big misunderstanding. He needs to be asked personally what he meant.
No he doesn't
How do you know which sins should be crimes committed against the state? Not every sin is a crime committed against the state.
I would like Psalm 1:2 would be a good text for theonomy. Granted, I’m still learning about this as well as post-millennialism.
Spot on theonomy talk!
I disagree with the posting of this segment regarding Phil Johnson’s comments without speaking to Phil directly. It appears Jeff holds Phil in high regard and I would encourage him to reach out for a further explanation rather than this “one-sided” form. (Again, I reiterate Jeff and Dr Boot are correct in their discussion of theonomy)
I mean there could of been a number of reasons for his response.
1. He does not have a clear understanding of theonomy (which I highly doubt…and I know you do too)
2. He was misquoted (which can happen…the Dailywire is by no means a Christian organization…it is conservative…but not Christian)
3. Perhaps Phil said what he said and didn’t realize what or how he said it.
I don’t know the answer and I’m not saying anyone is perfect here. But I would encourage you to reach out to Phil personally.
Regards!
If I had to guess, I'd actually go with 1. Misunderstandings of theonomy are legion, and as a guy who's pretty familiar with the Master's/MacArthur camp that Phil is a part of, their understanding of it generally isn't that good.
I don't see an issue. It's not rebuking him as if he sinned. It's not a violation of Matthew 18 therefore
Mischaracterizarions of theonomy by Christian pastors and scholars is incredibly common. In fact it's exceedingly rare that a non-theonomist theologian accurately characterizes it.
@@EmissariesoftheGospel There are different understandings of what it is. I don’t think there is one person who speaks for the pro-theonomy camp.
Rushdoony/Chalcedon Foundation, Jeff Durbin, Joe Boot, and James White seem to be advocating the implementation of the law and its punishments (capital & corporal) as the civil laws of each nation, once that nation has a majority of Christians. It is at least implied, if not expressly stated, that each nation is obligated to do this.
I thoroughly disagree with this, as it flies in the face of Scripture, as I understand it. The punishments (eg. death for adultery, a woman’s hand cut off for grabbing a man by the testicles in a fight) are part of the Old Covenant. We are under the New Covenant, and have the Law written on our hearts. The Holy Spirit informs us for our personal conduct. We can glean useful principles from the Law for the civil realm, but we are not required to reinstate the Law and it’s punishments.
What book would you recommend on Theonomy?
I've started with Mission of God by Joseph Boot (the gentleman on the zoom call on this video). I've heard materials by Rushdoony and Bahnsen are very helpful as well.
Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Greg Bahnsen
Law and Liberty from R. J. Rushdooney is very insightful
By This Standard by Greg Bahnsen
Rushdooney wanted to bring back the Mosaic law and reinstate public stoning for blasphemy. Theonomics is rebranded Christian Reconstructionism. It’s based on bad theology and bad eschatology. It’s going to happen though, led by the antichrist.
3:44 I have to disagree with Boot on an important point: Joe said that Theonomy is not a political philosophy. Actually, it is. The way in which Joe Boot and Jeff Durbin, talk about it, is primarily a political philosophy. The entire concern is making people obey _their_ interpretation of God's Law, reordering the civil code and civil government to their vision. That is political philosophy, through and through. And if you don't agree with their understanding, they will brand you an autonomist, as one who rejects God's Law.
10:04 Jeff cites the Great Commission as the reason governments must be reordered and realigned to fit his understanding of God's Law. Because Christ said to teach new disciples to observe all that He has commanded, Jeff interprets that to mean reestablish God's Law. This hermaneutic falls short when we see the Great Commission in action in the rest of the New Testament.
We don't see Paul, James, John, Peter, etc., teaching people to become the majority of the magistrates in various civil governments and reestablish the Law. We don't see the New Testament writers advocating for the execution of sinners for offenses that carried the death penalty in the Law. Paul calls for the removal of the fornicating brother, but does not call for his death. Why is this? In 1st Corinthians 6, Paul says some of the believers there were idolaters and adulterers before being saved by Christ. Weren't these punishable by death under the Law? Why was he not calling for the death of these people? Could it be, then, that Jeff's hermaneutic--his means for understanding and applying the Great Commission--is flawed?
We who are in Christ have only been _declared_ righteous. We are not actually righteous until we are glorified by Christ after this life. Until then, *any* government we set up will be flawed, will be tainted by sin. We see this in the Puritans, which were mentioned more than once in this discussion. They couldn't do it. What makes us think we can?
The framework on which the United States has been established is a fairly decent one. It makes allowances for differences of opinion, meaning that Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Amish, and Catholics can live next door to each other, without trying to kill each other, or outlaw each other's beliefs. It means Christians can spread the Gospel without fear of persecution. It means we can express different ideas without fear of civil punishments. It graciously allows people to live and make choices for themselves, while outlawing murder (with the exception of abortion, but that's improving), theft, and bearing false witness against our neighbors, which is theonomic already. What more do Boot and Durbin want? Do they want to execute fornicators? They seem to want civil authority, and they mean to have it, or have it given to like-minded people. That's concerning. I'm suspicious of those seeking to have power over others. But I'm concerned that brothers in Christ who are captivated by the gleam of theonomy, are being swept up by mistaken motives.
The whole point is the our nation was founded on Biblical principals and worldview and that's the reason it's has been so successful. There is a reason why immigration from all over the world want to move to the US. Given that our country is now on a downward trajectory, doing everything possible to go against God's law and a Biblical worldview, talking about Theonomy is most crucial.
If you are a Christian, why would you not want our country to be based on Biblical principals? Perhaps it's because you have been living under the blessings of such a government structure and have not cherished it or understood this fact. What kind of government would you prefer then? A pagan atheistic government?
@@smt0202 You said, _"If you are a Christian, why would you not want our country to be based on Biblical principals?"_ This question is flawed; I never said I don't want our country to be based on Biblical principles. I am a Christian and I do, in fact, want my country's laws to be based on Biblical principles. I simply differ with Durbin and Boot in how that would be done.
Then you asked, _"What kind of government would you prefer then? A pagan atheistic government?"_ Why is that the only choice you offer? I already made it clear that I do not subscribe to Durbin or Boot's interpretation of God's Law. Please note, this does not mean that I reject God's Law. I do not reject God's Law. I believe the best way to incorporate God's Law into a political philosophy is already well-established in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, the Declaration borrows heavily from Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which is drawn entirely from Locke's understanding of Scripture. (The Bible was Locke's only source for this work.) Locke's ideas are much more aligned with my understanding of Scripture than Durbin or Boot's.
After interacting with numerous theonomists online, that is exactly the impression they give off. My theonomists friends say to take over government.
That’s right. Dominionism, Seven Mountain Mandate, theonomy Christian reconstructionism - I don’t see much of a difference. And they’re all in mixed in with a gnostic/new age Christian movement today to overthrow the current woke/Marxist/godless government and/or expose the new world order/deep state.
Only "take over" in the aspect of "do justice, live mercy, and walk humbly." To "live at peace with all men, if possible.". To punish wickedness and praise good works. Anyone following Messiah that doesn't first want to obey God, and want to love their neighbor by protecting life, liberty, and property, is truly a lawless son.
@@johnwurfel2862 It is how the “do justice” part plays out in reality. From my interactions with many of my theonomist brothers, if they actually got power I’d pick up arms against them. Some of the theonomy I read is fine. Other aspects of theonomy find purely tyrannical and would go to war against it, by arms if necessary.
Jeff, you sound like Michael Brown. NAR, what NAR? Theonomy, what Theonomy? Let’s just own up to some things. In a modern day Theonomist form of government, who gets to be the earthly leaders, and how are they chosen? As a Reformed Christian, those are scary questions. Jeff, do you see yourself leading such a government? Someone would have to do it. The elephant in the room is the fact that it didn’t work in the Old Testament days, but it could work now. How so? I am having a hard time seeing any difference between Post millennial Theonomy, and NAR Dominionism.
Theonomy is another name for Christian Reconstructionism. I think Phil Johnson may know something about it that you seem to have missed.
As a "post-millennialist" school of thought, Reconstructionism holds that believers should work toward achieving God's kingdom on earth in the here and now, rather than expect its advent only after a second coming of Christ. Some are in a bit of a hurry about it, too. "World conquest," proclaims George Grant, in what by Reconstructionist standards is not an especially breathless formulation. "It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice… not just influence…not just equal time. It is dominion we are after."
"The Christian goal for the world," Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics."
So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."
Sorry, I don’t want to live under the rule of “Christians” that think we should bring back Mosaic law. Jesus freed us from the law. I will happily live in the future Earthly kingdom that Jesus rules with an iron rod. But any time men use the power of the government in the name of God it goes terribly wrong very quickly. Just read the Old Testament and see.
Premil pretrib and I have absolutely no issue with executing people like Adam Lanza , ChrisChan, Miley Cyrus or Colin Kaepernick
@@horrificpleasantry9474 could you imagine Jesus saying that?
@@isaiasortiz100 these people are delusional. They're just here to slander Jeff Durbin 🤦♂️
So is Phil Johnson MacArthur's PR guy? Everytime MacArthur is in hot water Phil has to be one to give a quote or interview.
Phil runs GTY which is John MacArthur's ministry, separate from his role as pastor of Grace community church. He edits John's books etc and also engages with other ministries. PR is an indirect role within the scope of his responsibilities. A pastor should not be a pugilist
The disciples of Christ are supposed to shepherd over the family government and the Civil government, teaching and criticizing both according to the full Scripture. Light only came to the Gentile nations when this happened. Light has flickered out now that mist don't. Christ followers only "take over government" in the aspect selecting and preferring leaders to "do justice, live mercy, and walk humbly." To "live at peace with all men, if possible.". To punish wickedness and praise good works. Anyone following Messiah that doesn't first want to obey God, and want to love their neighbor by protecting life, liberty, and property, is truly a lawless son. And any rulers who choose to bless evil and persecute good are criminal and of right ought face damnation by both man and God. Psalm 2. Psalm 149. Revelation 19. However, the people of society are not to be coerced into claiming to be "Christians."
Bro Phil almost seems to confuse Theonomy and Dominism it sounds like
In the thousand year reign of Christ as King of kings and the Lord of Lords, from the throne of David in Jerusalem, is when you will see theonomy in full operation and not until then. Jesus will rule the nations with the rod of iron. Why with the rod of iron, to enforce the keeping of His law. No rebellion allowed for a thousand years, every tribe and tounge, every nation all governments all peoples will obey the law of God, that is why it is called the Kingdom of righteousness, peace, and joy.
How does one explain one god, Father, Son , Holy Spirit to people??
Why is it that theologians have no ability to simplify the explanation of ANYTHING? I watched this whole video and I still have no idea what Theonomy is... Somebody PLEASE give me a one or two sentence definition.
Hey Lawrence, I can sympathize lol. Obviously this is only a summary that is attempting to give a definition that the various schools of theonomy could generally agree to, so if you begin looking into it and find a difference please be charitable to me.
I would define Theonomy as the doctrine that asserts that the Law of God is the manifestation of God’s righteousness and transcends any of the covenantal structures in which it is found (be it Mosaic Covenant or New Covenant) and consequently ought to be applied to every sphere of government (Family, Church, Civil) for all time. So theonomy assumes the abiding validity of God’s Law even into the New Testament (I.e. today).
HOWEVER! Theonomy/theonomists takes into account the Covenant that we are in (New not Mosaic) and so it/they acknowledge certain differences (for example ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ and consequently is no longer able to be practiced in the old way.) That sounds very arbitrary/pick & choosy at first but as you get into it you will find there are various principles and mechanisms in place to offer structure and rules on how to determine these sort of things and obviously this is where it gets somewhat complicated.
So, Theonomy assumes the abiding validity of the law unless explicitly stated otherwise in the New Testament. That is woefully simplistic but I hope it helps!
@@shale9515
Thank you. That helps; I wish they had done that. That was one of my biggest lessons that my students taught me when I was teaching Sunday School - simplify it!
Theonomy- Gods Law
Autonomy- self law
Those are our options. Most Christian’s are theonomists and refuse to acknowledge it as they think the old covenant laws are not for today. But as a Christian we are to love all of Gods laws- everything he has down is for our good. Do we stone a woman caught in adultery? No. However, she should repent and go forth and sin no more. The law is relevant it’s a matter of understanding the application.
@@p.brooks Some theonomists believe that we need to reinstate the Old Covenant punishments for sin, including execution of rebellious children and adulterers.
Could you guys get subtitles in Spanish?
I thought You all went over this topic already like last week with Dr. Boot"
It's just a highlight. Easier and more to the point to share to others.
Why would Christians believe there is a better "law" (Criminal justice system, justice system etc.) then God's? That is not possible. I think this guy is conflating aspects of the law that are not in effect anymore with those aspects that are eternal and he doesn't know how to separate the different tiers of the law.
Hey Jeff,
If Phil Johnson is truly a “sharp, sharp” man then there is no excuse for this kind of gross misrepresentation. If he is so brilliant and well-read then my only conclusion is that this is an intentional misrepresentation.
That's not fair. Couldn't it be that proponents have done a bad job of messaging?
It’s not a misrepresentation. We’re being puffed up to assume we know all the ins and outs of God’s governance.
How unsearchable are His ways by you and I and Phil Johnson and Jeff Durbin alike.
I love MacArthur and Johnson, but Dispies gonna diss. lol
Boom
Maybe he was misquoted? Idk
My question is why this emphasis on the law, yet you all keep Sunday Instead of Saturday, and why not keep the feasts and eat biblically clean? These are all in the law. The early Christians keep these things. For at least the first two centuries. These things were not only for the Jews. They are for His covenant people. Some law for the native born and the sojourner among your midst. They are not Jewish laws they are Gods laws, Gods feasts. I e been keeping the feasts, eating clean and worshipping on the Saturday Sabbath for 6 years now and it has been an abundant blessings for me and my family. I'm not talking about Hebrew roots. I'm talking about traditional, reformed theology but also with the feasts and the Sabbath. That's why I call myself a pronomian christian. I am a reformed, trinitarian, postmillennial christian who loves Gods law and understands that it is for all His people, both Jew and Gentile. Not a crazy Hebrew roots conspiracy nut.
Sorry, Lutheranism has the superior understanding of this. The Two kingdoms doctrine. Theonomy violates the true nature and mission of the Church.
Christian anarchism > theonomy or theocracy. No king but Christ, no kingdom but Christ's. #1Samuel8
So Theonomy is just another name for Christian worldview? Or is it something else?
A very simple definition is that it's the idea that God's law should be the standard for society. Government should submit to and enforce God's law
@@horrificpleasantry9474 that’s a theocracy
@@JohnGodwin777 a theocracy is when the clergy are the executive political authority. This isn't describing that. The leadership of the country wouldn't be limited to pastors
@M G we vote against abortion because God commanded us to protect the innocent and he said we shall not murder
@@horrificpleasantry9474 the body of Christ is a universal priesthood
I have to find that dude in somewhere like the Dakotas for you. Or Idaho. He most certainly is more political than scriptural.
Doug Wilson? 💯
Misrepresenting the doctrines of others is dangerous grounds…like what I have seen cultish do with Hebrew roots.
Can you expand?
I have tried understanding the Hebrew roots movement, but having seen so many variants.
@@wylian84 Christianity, is the objective of the Hebraic narrative. By design they are not two things , but one. When people abandon western Christianity for a cohesive understanding of the Gospel and all the “OT” messaging, there is a tendency to label them as a fringe group , Hebrew roots. But this is a error. Read Roman and Hebrews . The moedem doesn’t save anyone, acknowledging and agreeing with the one who established and fullfilled them does , Yeshua (what people actuall said when they talked to Him, not Jesus) is the Lamb of God who takes away the sun of the world….without understanding our Hebraic root, that phrase is meaningless. With that understanding, that statement is overwhelming.
Cultish (which I love and appropriate) did a segment and it was a terrible disservice to this reality, painting the Hebrew roots by referencing the worst case examples of one pastors experience. You could do this with anything you don’t understand and want to discredit. I hope this answers your question.
Communion was a Passover celebration
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree
Unfortunately it didn't answer.
I didn't see their cultish on Hebrew roots.
I saw Jim Stanley's take on it, 119 ministries, and some other channels, and i could not find a linear thought.
We have pentecostal, reformed, Arminian vs Calvinism, Lutherans and etc, but they follow a linear thought within their systematic.
I wasn't able to find that with the Hebrew Roots, it seemed to be all over the place
I got the obvious notion that it's about following the law, but that's about it.
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree "you shall call him Jesus"
"There is salvation in no other name but Jesus, for there is no other name given under heaven by which at must be saved." Acts 4:12
You're the one outside orthodoxy
@@wylian84 it’s not a denomination. It’s a renaissance back to The understanding and Worship God intended.