Boy, This was rough. most paleo conservatives I’ve heard, including you, don’t sound like this guy, imo. Sounds like relativism, especially when you get to the general equity theonomists being “universal.” When there’s pushback, like “what about laws that are obviously universal,” the reply, I’m talking politics, not legal code, doesn’t actually answer the question. Yes, in politics we have to work with where we are now, agreed. An exhortation away from idealism is good. But that is what GE theonomists already say. And definitely what Christian nationalists already say.
Fantastic and insightful dialogue and nudge needed and vital conversation and topical analysis, largely entailing the execution of real politik Also for better understanding and historic context, associational republicanism/voluntary associations as a sociopolitical structure explains the merge and harmony between conservatism and libertarianism
### Tautology In logic, a tautology is a statement that is true in every possible interpretation. For example, "It will either rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow" is a tautology because it is always true, regardless of the actual weather. ### Relationship to Axioms - Axioms are foundational statements assumed to be true without proof within a specific system. They are not necessarily tautologies because they are not universally true in every interpretation; they are true within the context of the system they define. - A tautology, on the other hand, is true in all possible contexts and interpretations. While axioms are the starting points for building logical systems, tautologies are statements that hold true across all logical systems. ### Relationship to Universalism - Universalism posits that certain principles or truths apply universally, across all contexts and cultures. In this sense, universalism shares a conceptual similarity with tautology, as both deal with truths that are universally valid. - However, universalism is more philosophical and ethical, focusing on moral principles and values, whereas tautology is a logical concept dealing with statements that are always true. Summary - Axioms: Assumed true within a specific system, not necessarily universally true. - Tautologies* Universally true in all interpretations. - Universalism: Philosophical stance on universally applicable principles. Source: Microsoft Copilot
For the General-Equity Theonomists struggling with this: C. Jay believes that culture is worth preserving in itself, whereas Theonomists tend to look at culture as simply medium to navigate in order to translate and apply God's law into. Theonomists don't tend to value culture for culture's sake. That may be major the dividing line. General-Equity Theonomy is a big tent from people who simply want to treat God's law as authoritative to people who think we must fight for all the universal principles in our context. Conservatism is simply an approach to politics that says we have true, beautiful and good things worth keeping and we need to stop the threats that would destroy them. To make it concrete: conservatives want to preserve architecture and cuisine from being destroyed. Traditions are important, even local ones. Theonomy doesn't really take this into account. That's ok so long as Theonomists don't assume that theonomy is a total theory of everything. Unfortunately, theonomy tends toward ideological thinking so over time Theonomists can tend to become rigid and narrow. They can lose applicability to current situations and get stuck on things that aren't always important for such a time as this. There are things in our legal code like voting at 18 and enforced monogamy that one cannot derive strictly from theonomy but they are important and guided by tradition over time. They are necessary for current social function and organization. I think conservatives can cooperate with Theonomists. Theonomy is a good start, but it doesn't go all the way and it can easily lead to an ideology that doesn't work well with others. I could provide examples but I don't want to start unnecessary fights 😝. The bottom line is we must think prudentially about what threatens our civilization and then fight that with the tools we have available.
Yes - I liked your comment about dueling (and even *that* practice has some Old Covenant legitimacy - at least compared to our own current assumptions about law enforcement), and how that would be one of those areas where a hard-and-fast application of theonomy *may* not be prudent. Count me as a continuing G.E. theonomist, but one who is also very much a paleoconservative. Great episode, Jon.
This was super helpful explanation because I would say I definitely hold to general equity theonomy, but I am also a paleo conservative because I think culture is vital and needs to be preserved even through law protecting architecture. That particular mindset totally makes sense. I love Greg Bahnsen and I love Paul Gottfried and while I was listening to CJ I couldn’t see the clash at first because I agreed with all of it. Thanks Jon for this breakdown.
A Protestant Franco! I've been thinking of that for years. But then again I was profoundly influenced by the Paleo-cons since the late eighties. As fine a scholar as Paul Gottfried is I preferred the more racially edgy Chronicles of Sam Francis and Tom Fleming.
A lot of what Engel is advocating reminds me of things I’ve heard Michael Knowles say (i.e. conservatives should not be afraid to wield political power).
This was so frustrating, hearing C Jay mangle the arguments both from & against a libertarian approach. Any chance you can bring on a good libertarian like Jacob Winograd (@thebiblicalanarchypodcast) to discuss this? He’s very aligned with the Mises Institute folks. It would be extremely helpful!!
Jacob is good but he is an anarchist which is one flavor of libertarian but not the only kind. That might explain the difference between the two. I do agree that CJ didn't spend much time with the mises crowd so he doesn't give the ideas the weight they should. I am a huge fan of the mises institute and Mises writings himself.
To continue this political conversation it would be good to talk to a couple from this list: Tom Woods, Dave Smith, Tho Bishop, Bob Murphy, Ryan McMaken. They are all either Christian or complementary of Christian influences in life.
This is a very useful discussion. I gotta consider some of this. Ideals have their place, especially the Gospel, but politics is a matter of coping with and adjusting to and bettering the realities around us. Also, the Gospel itself is the most powerful political force for good, and we don't want to slip from that. Politics is essentially what people in numbers do and allow; the Gospel is the best force to have people in larger numbers doing better and disallowing what is worse. Not that anyone is suggesting we neglect the Gospel, but I think there is a drastic underestimation as to the extent to which false christianity has allowed for our present decay, and I suspect the Gospel is the only way to genuinely turn the political tide.
I haven't listened yet, but one thing many of these "new breed" Christian nationalists don't seem to get is that paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians have always been closely aligned. For example, Lew Rockwell (the man and website) was always a fan of Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. Some of the more modern libertarians (as seen by recent Libertarian presidential candidates) are nothing like guys like Rockwell, Ron Paul, etc.
Some theonomists may be ok with mass immigration, forced multiculturalism, etc but that is not characteristic of theonomy as a system of biblical ethics.
Hey guys I loved this conversation snd I think it was an important one to have. When I was listening to you guys I kept thinking about where we are now politically speaking. There are news reports that 50% of Americans are not certain they believe in God. The problem with dealing with political solutions is that Christians are a shrinking piece of the pie. When you get down to biblical Christianity it’s even smaller. I think 30 years ago a lot of this could have been prevented but I wonder if it’s too late on the Federal level. Maybe the fight for Christian values would be more feasible on the state level.
Politics of Prudence by Russell Kirk covers your last point of discussion about the baptist fears and such. It’s not a top down ideology that ignores all racial, cultural and historical aspects.
I think that one important thing to note is that fundamentally God is a conservative. He doesnt change and thus the truth Divinely revealed in Scripture doesn't change. The principles of traditional conservatism are derived straight out of the pages of Scripture: Gen. 1-12, Rom. 13, the 10 commandments etc... Also, inasmuch as conservatism upholds God's natural law, it lays a down fertile soil for the Gospel to work effectively on hearts. When right and wrong are testified on a national conscience people are more ready to see their need to repent when the Gospel message is proclaimed to them.
I'm going to listen again. However, this came across as exceedingly unprincipled. Also, it seeks to place justice and ethics beneath the concept of national identity and custom...neither of which are a Biblical priority, at least not when outside of or divorced from biblical ethics and standards of justice. I also found his critique of theonomy to be so incredibly lacking, where he essentially copped out of actually engaging what is really meant by General equity theonomy. Even when people claim to have read theonomic authors and theologians, it always seems like they either avoid the actual position in the critique or they present something that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the topic or sometimes even both. I was really disappointed with that because there were elements of the podcast that were good. But I outright reject his relativism when it comes to defining what is actual Justice, what is the standard of law, what is the standard of Ethics in any culture. You can't just dismiss sticking to biblically established ethics as being leftism. That was laughable. Leftists are not wrong because they want a universal standard of law. Left us are wrong because they want the wrong Universal standard of law, one that is unjust. All they are doing is perverting what God has established.
Maybe a current proponent of theonomy should join the conversation. This needs to be someone who didn't go off the rails of wokeness like McDurmon or Reasnor, who barely sounds like Christians (much less theonomists) these days.
I postulate these discussions are a modern version of the federalist papers; wrestling for a structure to deal with where we are in 2023: clarifying both the gov't arrangements and the cultural direction. That said, all these terms require clarity- or some common and agreed to definition- otherwise people are organizing around or rejecting movements without understanding (just like our culture is doing with the propoganda campaigns on new moralities). And just like any governmental and cultural structure proposed, one of the necessary elements is a moral people for there to be fruit and longevity; this is where our evangelical calling is necessary on top of the political discussion so that the world doesn't see us as just 'of this world'.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast God's laws and situational politics are in conflict because situational politics demand that someone uses their own ethics as a barometer for morality instead of God's law.
"Politics is specifics threats, specific enemies, and specific solutions." Wouldn't GET say yes, God has clearly given that authority to rulers as evidenced by the totality of scripture? The idea is that all authority derives directly from God, and rulers can act within the bounds God has set. That's the whole point. There's an external source of authority. Acknowledging that is the way we get out of the slavish constitutional legalism you're arguing against. Preserving a way of life is not a foundational principal, it's a task that has to be justified by its adherence to God
God sets down certain laws that apply to all peoples. Government is authorized by God to apply those laws according to the needs of their people. They can also enact laws that are not directly related to specific case laws in the OT for the purpose of meeting the governing needs of their people. I put some examples in the pinned tweet.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Maybe I'm applying terms incorrectly, but I thought that's what we meant when we specify general equity theonomy rather than just theonomy. We don't expect to have spelled out case law for everything, but we can conclude from scripture that God authorizes government to exercise that authority that goes beyond the case law, and they have a responsibility to remain in submission to God in doing so. That is, they are acting in a category and capacity God has given them to act in. I think that's important to maintain because you have to be able stand up if they step outside those categories. If you separate the interest in preserving culture from that notion of authority you could argue that the government is within its rights to require us to give them our kids for education. I don't want to have to argue against that pragmatically by having to demonstrate that public school isn't accomplishing the positives we want, I want to stand on the fact that God doesn't give the government authority over how my children are educated, He gives it to me. I don't want to say any act of government has to be modelled in an OT example, but I do want to say every act has to fall within the authority God has given, and of course can not transgress God's law. Maybe that's not actually GET but that's the impression I had
@@somedad7000 This is actually a good case to consider. If you lived in a local community being inundated with a large population of refugees, many of them children, what's the best thing to do for that community? Is it to deny them taxpayer funded education and guarantee they won't assimilate and will risk being future criminals or political opponents, not to mention burdening taxpayers anyway, or do you force them to assimilate through education or some other mechanism? The problem Engel is trying to get at with theonomy is that it makes answers to these problems simple by saying "just apply God's law." If God gives educational responsibilities to parents than no one else can violate that right. There's truth in this. However, there are cases where the survival of society demands parents comply with certain standards. We already require this in abuse situations. We have to separate what's ideal and what's realistic in a fallen world is what I think Engel is saying.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast I agree we can't paralyze ourselves by limiting ourselves to specifically spelled out laws, but we still have to limit the government to the authority God gives them. I thought that was the difference between theonomy and general equity theonomy. If that's not the case I'm just arguing for the wrong term, but what I'm concerned about is the need to always limit the government to authority given by God based on a thorough reading of scripture, not just mapping OT laws onto the situation. In your example, you're talking about a large foreign population entering the country. Appropriately dealing with them and protecting your people from them as necessary is a task that falls within the authority of the government. Their authority has been introduced to the equation. If you don't maintain that grounding in God's delegated authority, what do you say next school year when the government says "the public schools are underperforming, and data shows they will perform better if everyone goes there, so for the good of our society we are requiring your kids to attend." The answer is "no, you still don't have authority over my kids education." However, if you've allowed the government to use their authority based strictly on the end of the survival of society, you've given them a way to overstep their authority if they can make it appear that's it's for the common good. That seems to be the line of thinking that leads to COVID tyranny, among many other abuses (you can imagine what a leftist might mean if "there are cases where the survival of society demands parents comply with certain standards" came out of their mouth). We don't have the ultimate wisdom and foresight to prove what's wrong or right for our people based on the future effects of any government action, so the ultimate reason for their being allowed such authority can't be the ends, it has to be that God has delegated them authority in that area. This is the case for your abuse example as well. When you do evil to your children you introduce the government's authority to wield the sword against the evildoer to the equation. I'm open to "general equity theonomy" not being the right term for this kind of thinking (I haven't done the reading to know what everyone's arguing), but I'm very concerned by any framing that doesn't maintain that all authority should be exercised based on what God has delegated, and anything that steps over that line is tyranny. Thanks for your time and replies on this by the way. It's much appreciated.
We are accountable to God in how far we allow our governors and legislators to go. We the people are the 4th part of the government, We have responsibility towards those ends. .
A persons duty towards God supersedes civil duties, so that is a false statement. Using that logic, then Christ is responsible for Tiberius or Pilate's deeds.
Agreed. That is how the Christians who founded this country thought, and they were in politics on every level. Somehow we forget there were many more people here besides the Founders, and we forget that they also were also actively involved in making the country. The Christian pioneers West and also in business and industry, founded states, counties and towns as well as businesses and industries. They voted and were totally involved in politics. They were the middle class capitalists that the Left hates.
There is something missing here. The things being ascribed to Theonomy do not align with what I have heard Theonomists advocate. For example, Joel Webbon is a general equity Theonomist, I am relatively sure he is not for open borders. I do appreciate the principle of protecting heritage and people, and the specificity with which such actions must take place. But, I think there is room for this principle to act in conjunction with what I understand of Theonomy. For example, Israel was healed by looking on Moses' staff, yet that same staff was destroyed in the future since it was a hindrance to God's people. The central theme of the Theonomist is respect for God's law and the desire to work out how it applies vastly different contexts than the those which are found in Scripture. They're far from universalists, although they would (and we should) advocate for impartial justice. Without such universal guidance there is great temptation for conservatives to ultimately engage the left using their tactics.
It would be great if you guys could give an example of God’s law not applying to a nation because it struggles with different things. And I don’t ask this question facetiously I genuinely would love to see and hear some examples of that.
The argument is not that God's law does not apply. It's that there are some situations in which certain commands do not need to be reinforced through official laws and there are some laws that do need to be reinforced that are not strictly speaking part of God's written law. It's good to set the driving age at 16 for example. There isn't a case law in the OT that commands us to do this but it is best for our society. Polygamy is harmful to society. God arranged laws concerning this according to a situation when men's hearts were hard on this topic. They have not been hard on that though for quite some time and it became possible to enact in. The application of God's law is going to look different in different settings and politics is an approach intended to bring about the best outcomes regardless of how well those outcomes match a perfect standard. So there's two things being discussed. One is objective morality and the other is political approach. They're distinct.
This convo shows the chasm between Christian nationalists and G3 types. G3 types can’t fathom why this entire convo wasn’t a Bible study, exegeting passages, and the final solution posited NOT being just evangelism. This is why I agree with jon that this doesn’t have to be an eschatology issue, even though I’m postmill. You have a premill and an amill leading the convo on Christian nationalism. But this convo is so out of G3s depth, the only thing they know HOW to do is MAKE it an eschatology issue.
Most pastors do not have a basic liberal arts education even if they think they do. That's not a bad thing for people who realize their limitations but when navigating fields like aesthetics, philosophy, history, and politics one needs a much broader understanding than just exegesis. The irony is that if you say this many of them will claim it's a denial of biblical sufficiency, which it isn't. That objection reveals the assumption that everything is to be found in special revelation and if it's not found there it's not really worth considering.
Amos 5:13 is often the best advice for our time but it requires giving up our right to have an opinion or win an argument. Silence can be a powerful weapon in these evil days. The issues in the culture are so disgusting, I don't even want to spend time reading or hearing about them. Philippians 4:8 is a good place to park our minds.
Do you believe in the absolute truth that dark alleys ought to be safe at midnight? Now, when you are up late watching a scary show at midnight, send your blonde 16 year old daughter down to the corner market to pick up some popcorn and ice cream. But tell her to take the shortcut through the Dark Alley because they are declared to be universally safe now.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 The concept of **truth** is a fundamental topic in philosophy, logic, and everyday life. Here are some key perspectives on what truth is: ### Correspondence Theory The **correspondence theory** of truth posits that a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact or reality. For example, the statement "The sky is blue" is true if, in reality, the sky is indeed blue¹. ### Coherence Theory The **coherence theory** suggests that truth is a matter of logical consistency within a set of beliefs or propositions. A statement is true if it coherently fits within an established system of beliefs¹. ### Pragmatic Theory The **pragmatic theory** of truth asserts that a statement is true if it is useful or works in practice. This perspective emphasizes the practical consequences of believing a statement to be true¹. ### Deflationary Theory The **deflationary theory** argues that the concept of truth is not a substantial property but rather a linguistic convenience. According to this view, saying "It is true that snow is white" is just a way of affirming the statement "Snow is white" without adding any additional meaning¹. ### Philosophical and Theological Perspectives In theology, truth is often seen as that which aligns with the nature and will of God. For example, in Christianity, Jesus is referred to as "the truth" (John 14:6), indicating a divine embodiment of truth². ### Everyday Understanding In everyday language, truth is typically understood as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. When we say someone is "telling the truth," we mean they are accurately describing the world as it is³. ### Summary - **Correspondence Theory**: Truth corresponds to reality. - **Coherence Theory**: Truth is logical consistency. - **Pragmatic Theory**: Truth is what works in practice. - **Deflationary Theory**: Truth is a linguistic convenience. - **Theological Perspective**: Truth aligns with divine nature. - **Everyday Understanding**: Truth is factual accuracy. Source: Microsoft Copilot
@@dvstrn 1 Cor. 8 doesn't promote situational ethics. It upholds the law of God by demanding Christians to be considerate of one's neighbor enough to not do something around them that could cause problems for them, even unintentionally.
@theeternalsbeliever1779 "1 Cor. 8 doesn't promote situational ethics. It upholds the law of God by demanding Christians to be considerate of one's neighbor enough to not do something around them that could cause problems for them, even unintentionally." Exactly the reason to keep America majority white. Do-gooder racial egalitarians have more concern for the migrants coming in than they do for the damage it is doing to heritage America, whether or not it is intentional.
Read / listen to Robert sapolsky. One on the biggest, consistent difference between liberals and conservatives is the ability to live with ambiguity. Conservatives want this or that, liberals are more comfortable with either/both.
Parts of this it feels like he's on to something, but other parts are woefully underwhelming. Particularism is a good argument and goal. However, his presentation doesnt seem to distinguish that from moral relativism. He calls a universal moral law "legalism". Which is absurd. Legalism is an attitude towards people with respect to said laws. Further, it seems like he is strawmanning Theonomy and Christian Nationalism (coming from somebody who hasn't taken a stance for or against it). He is basically arguing against a strict literalism and continuation of the Old Testament law. However, most of what I've heard/read argues for applying the principles or "heart of the law" and not the letter of the law.
I'm not sure I understand the objections to GE theonomy. At least as I understand it we're just saying that every sort of government is answerable to God as far as what they have the right to do and not do. That doesn't imply that all the particulars are universal. To use your, example, why would that require us accept mass immigration? Do people try to argue that based on what God calls the individual or the church to do? That just seems like a misapplication of text rather than a flaw in the whole idea. Also if there's a similar universalism behind theonomy and leftism it's because they're both adhering to religious principles, just different ones. As for the focus on conserving customs and heritage, doesn't that have to be subservient to honoring God? If you are trying to conserve God-honoring things, how does that conflict with GET? If you are trying to conserve things that aren't God honoring, how can a Christian justify that as valid?
Jon im a big fan of your content but this guy is throwing me off. His language smacks of relativism/subjectivism. Where is the biblical standard for principles of just government? This priority of defending "our way of life" sounds antithetical to what we should be doing: defending God's way of life and submitting our entire lives to His government.
I'm not sure I'm understanding all his points. It seems to me that calling out the lefts racism and advocating color blindness are extremely important.This is God's law of impartiality being applied. The hard core leftist may think they're pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, but there are a lot of people that need to hear it and they need to be able to recognize racism when they see it.
Partiality concerns giving advantages to classes of people to benefit oneself (specifically in the church, which is where SJWs wanted to bring it). It does not mean racial categories don't exist or else Moses, Jeremiah, and Paul would all be in trouble.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast that is true, but racism means discriminating against someone because of their race, which I put in the same category. So if a person discriminates against white people because they are white, that's partiality or if they favor someone who is white because of their skin color, that also qualifies. I think we need to be faithful to call it out wherever we see it because we're upholding God's standards. He said it does no good to call it out because the left doesn't really care if they're racist if I understood him right .
We both believe that objective truth exists and we also believe that the point of politics is to protect one’s people from particular attacks, this requires prudence and will look different in different contexts.
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks Jon. Pete Qionones and now Jay!!! Wow, best stuff out there.
Good discussion and very informative. And you are introducing people to better thinkers on your program Jon. Thanks.
Boy,
This was rough. most paleo conservatives I’ve heard, including you, don’t sound like this guy, imo.
Sounds like relativism, especially when you get to the general equity theonomists being “universal.” When there’s pushback, like “what about laws that are obviously universal,” the reply, I’m talking politics, not legal code, doesn’t actually answer the question.
Yes, in politics we have to work with where we are now, agreed. An exhortation away from idealism is good. But that is what GE theonomists already say. And definitely what Christian nationalists already say.
Fantastic and insightful dialogue and nudge needed and vital conversation and topical analysis, largely entailing the execution of real politik
Also for better understanding and historic context, associational republicanism/voluntary associations as a sociopolitical structure explains the merge and harmony between conservatism and libertarianism
Absolute truth is universal.
true
Tautology?
@@virtualpilgrim8645 Axiomatic.
### Tautology
In logic, a tautology is a statement that is true in every possible interpretation. For example, "It will either rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow" is a tautology because it is always true, regardless of the actual weather.
### Relationship to Axioms
- Axioms are foundational statements assumed to be true without proof within a specific system. They are not necessarily tautologies because they are not universally true in every interpretation; they are true within the context of the system they define.
- A tautology, on the other hand, is true in all possible contexts and interpretations. While axioms are the starting points for building logical systems, tautologies are statements that hold true across all logical systems.
### Relationship to Universalism
- Universalism posits that certain principles or truths apply universally, across all contexts and cultures. In this sense, universalism shares a conceptual similarity with tautology, as both deal with truths that are universally valid.
- However, universalism is more philosophical and ethical, focusing on moral principles and values, whereas tautology is a logical concept dealing with statements that are always true.
Summary
- Axioms: Assumed true within a specific system, not necessarily universally true.
- Tautologies* Universally true in all interpretations.
- Universalism: Philosophical stance on universally applicable principles.
Source: Microsoft Copilot
Great conversation. Thanks Jon & CJay.
This is a conversation that matters, indeed!
Great conversation! This is a much more realistic approach to politics. I'm 100% in agreement!
For the General-Equity Theonomists struggling with this:
C. Jay believes that culture is worth preserving in itself, whereas Theonomists tend to look at culture as simply medium to navigate in order to translate and apply God's law into. Theonomists don't tend to value culture for culture's sake. That may be major the dividing line.
General-Equity Theonomy is a big tent from people who simply want to treat God's law as authoritative to people who think we must fight for all the universal principles in our context. Conservatism is simply an approach to politics that says we have true, beautiful and good things worth keeping and we need to stop the threats that would destroy them.
To make it concrete: conservatives want to preserve architecture and cuisine from being destroyed. Traditions are important, even local ones. Theonomy doesn't really take this into account.
That's ok so long as Theonomists don't assume that theonomy is a total theory of everything. Unfortunately, theonomy tends toward ideological thinking so over time Theonomists can tend to become rigid and narrow. They can lose applicability to current situations and get stuck on things that aren't always important for such a time as this. There are things in our legal code like voting at 18 and enforced monogamy that one cannot derive strictly from theonomy but they are important and guided by tradition over time. They are necessary for current social function and organization.
I think conservatives can cooperate with Theonomists. Theonomy is a good start, but it doesn't go all the way and it can easily lead to an ideology that doesn't work well with others. I could provide examples but I don't want to start unnecessary fights 😝.
The bottom line is we must think prudentially about what threatens our civilization and then fight that with the tools we have available.
Yes - I liked your comment about dueling (and even *that* practice has some Old Covenant legitimacy - at least compared to our own current assumptions about law enforcement), and how that would be one of those areas where a hard-and-fast application of theonomy *may* not be prudent. Count me as a continuing G.E. theonomist, but one who is also very much a paleoconservative. Great episode, Jon.
This was super helpful explanation because I would say I definitely hold to general equity theonomy, but I am also a paleo conservative because I think culture is vital and needs to be preserved even through law protecting architecture. That particular mindset totally makes sense. I love Greg Bahnsen and I love Paul Gottfried and while I was listening to CJ I couldn’t see the clash at first because I agreed with all of it. Thanks Jon for this breakdown.
Loved seeing CJ Engel here! Thanks, Jon!
Contra Mundum and Convos that Matter are my 2 favorite podcasts currently
Same
A Protestant Franco! I've been thinking of that for years. But then again I was profoundly influenced by the Paleo-cons since the late eighties. As fine a scholar as Paul Gottfried is I preferred the more racially edgy Chronicles of Sam Francis and Tom Fleming.
What a great episode, Jon.
A lot of what Engel is advocating reminds me of things I’ve heard Michael Knowles say (i.e. conservatives should not be afraid to wield political power).
This was so frustrating, hearing C Jay mangle the arguments both from & against a libertarian approach. Any chance you can bring on a good libertarian like Jacob Winograd (@thebiblicalanarchypodcast) to discuss this? He’s very aligned with the Mises Institute folks. It would be extremely helpful!!
Jacob is good but he is an anarchist which is one flavor of libertarian but not the only kind. That might explain the difference between the two. I do agree that CJ didn't spend much time with the mises crowd so he doesn't give the ideas the weight they should. I am a huge fan of the mises institute and Mises writings himself.
To continue this political conversation it would be good to talk to a couple from this list: Tom Woods, Dave Smith, Tho Bishop, Bob Murphy, Ryan McMaken. They are all either Christian or complementary of Christian influences in life.
This is a very useful discussion. I gotta consider some of this. Ideals have their place, especially the Gospel, but politics is a matter of coping with and adjusting to and bettering the realities around us. Also, the Gospel itself is the most powerful political force for good, and we don't want to slip from that. Politics is essentially what people in numbers do and allow; the Gospel is the best force to have people in larger numbers doing better and disallowing what is worse. Not that anyone is suggesting we neglect the Gospel, but I think there is a drastic underestimation as to the extent to which false christianity has allowed for our present decay, and I suspect the Gospel is the only way to genuinely turn the political tide.
Really good conversation. Thanks.
I haven't listened yet, but one thing many of these "new breed" Christian nationalists don't seem to get is that paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians have always been closely aligned. For example, Lew Rockwell (the man and website) was always a fan of Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. Some of the more modern libertarians (as seen by recent Libertarian presidential candidates) are nothing like guys like Rockwell, Ron Paul, etc.
A paleo conservative is a libertarian that got mugged by reality.
Some theonomists may be ok with mass immigration, forced multiculturalism, etc but that is not characteristic of theonomy as a system of biblical ethics.
Hey guys I loved this conversation snd I think it was an important one to have. When I was listening to you guys I kept thinking about where we are now politically speaking. There are news reports that 50% of Americans are not certain they believe in God. The problem with dealing with political solutions is that Christians are a shrinking piece of the pie. When you get down to biblical Christianity it’s even smaller. I think 30 years ago a lot of this could have been prevented but I wonder if it’s too late on the Federal level. Maybe the fight for Christian values would be more feasible on the state level.
Excellent convo. Following on apple podcasts. Thank you!
Politics of Prudence by Russell Kirk covers your last point of discussion about the baptist fears and such. It’s not a top down ideology that ignores all racial, cultural and historical aspects.
I think that one important thing to note is that fundamentally God is a conservative. He doesnt change and thus the truth Divinely revealed in Scripture doesn't change. The principles of traditional conservatism are derived straight out of the pages of Scripture: Gen. 1-12, Rom. 13, the 10 commandments etc...
Also, inasmuch as conservatism upholds God's natural law, it lays a down fertile soil for the Gospel to work effectively on hearts. When right and wrong are testified on a national conscience people are more ready to see their need to repent when the Gospel message is proclaimed to them.
This is going to be great!
This is why apologetics is so important.
Excellent
Very interesting conversation
Excellent.
I'm going to listen again. However, this came across as exceedingly unprincipled. Also, it seeks to place justice and ethics beneath the concept of national identity and custom...neither of which are a Biblical priority, at least not when outside of or divorced from biblical ethics and standards of justice.
I also found his critique of theonomy to be so incredibly lacking, where he essentially copped out of actually engaging what is really meant by General equity theonomy. Even when people claim to have read theonomic authors and theologians, it always seems like they either avoid the actual position in the critique or they present something that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the topic or sometimes even both.
I was really disappointed with that because there were elements of the podcast that were good.
But I outright reject his relativism when it comes to defining what is actual Justice, what is the standard of law, what is the standard of Ethics in any culture. You can't just dismiss sticking to biblically established ethics as being leftism. That was laughable. Leftists are not wrong because they want a universal standard of law. Left us are wrong because they want the wrong Universal standard of law, one that is unjust. All they are doing is perverting what God has established.
2nd to last sentence:
*leftists, not left us
Conservatism is a political approach not a legal theory. Gods law is universal but politics concerns specific situations.
You nailed it. Great conversation, but this guy and Quinones (whom I like) are both lacking.
Maybe a current proponent of theonomy should join the conversation. This needs to be someone who didn't go off the rails of wokeness like McDurmon or Reasnor, who barely sounds like Christians (much less theonomists) these days.
@@johnp7739 I asked Joel Webbon if he'd write an article for Truthscript on Theonomy to contrast with Engel's view last week.
@1:05:59. I sometimes wonder if the Baptists were the majority in the 16th century would they have persecuted the baby sprinklers?
I postulate these discussions are a modern version of the federalist papers; wrestling for a structure to deal with where we are in 2023: clarifying both the gov't arrangements and the cultural direction. That said, all these terms require clarity- or some common and agreed to definition- otherwise people are organizing around or rejecting movements without understanding (just like our culture is doing with the propoganda campaigns on new moralities). And just like any governmental and cultural structure proposed, one of the necessary elements is a moral people for there to be fruit and longevity; this is where our evangelical calling is necessary on top of the political discussion so that the world doesn't see us as just 'of this world'.
Interesting conversation. I prefer to lean hard on God's law as a universal standard but understand the aspect of situational politics.
They’re not in conflict. Conservatism is merely an approach.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast God's laws and situational politics are in conflict because situational politics demand that someone uses their own ethics as a barometer for morality instead of God's law.
"Politics is specifics threats, specific enemies, and specific solutions." Wouldn't GET say yes, God has clearly given that authority to rulers as evidenced by the totality of scripture? The idea is that all authority derives directly from God, and rulers can act within the bounds God has set. That's the whole point. There's an external source of authority. Acknowledging that is the way we get out of the slavish constitutional legalism you're arguing against. Preserving a way of life is not a foundational principal, it's a task that has to be justified by its adherence to God
God sets down certain laws that apply to all peoples. Government is authorized by God to apply those laws according to the needs of their people. They can also enact laws that are not directly related to specific case laws in the OT for the purpose of meeting the governing needs of their people. I put some examples in the pinned tweet.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Maybe I'm applying terms incorrectly, but I thought that's what we meant when we specify general equity theonomy rather than just theonomy. We don't expect to have spelled out case law for everything, but we can conclude from scripture that God authorizes government to exercise that authority that goes beyond the case law, and they have a responsibility to remain in submission to God in doing so. That is, they are acting in a category and capacity God has given them to act in. I think that's important to maintain because you have to be able stand up if they step outside those categories. If you separate the interest in preserving culture from that notion of authority you could argue that the government is within its rights to require us to give them our kids for education. I don't want to have to argue against that pragmatically by having to demonstrate that public school isn't accomplishing the positives we want, I want to stand on the fact that God doesn't give the government authority over how my children are educated, He gives it to me. I don't want to say any act of government has to be modelled in an OT example, but I do want to say every act has to fall within the authority God has given, and of course can not transgress God's law. Maybe that's not actually GET but that's the impression I had
@@somedad7000 This is actually a good case to consider. If you lived in a local community being inundated with a large population of refugees, many of them children, what's the best thing to do for that community? Is it to deny them taxpayer funded education and guarantee they won't assimilate and will risk being future criminals or political opponents, not to mention burdening taxpayers anyway, or do you force them to assimilate through education or some other mechanism?
The problem Engel is trying to get at with theonomy is that it makes answers to these problems simple by saying "just apply God's law." If God gives educational responsibilities to parents than no one else can violate that right. There's truth in this. However, there are cases where the survival of society demands parents comply with certain standards. We already require this in abuse situations.
We have to separate what's ideal and what's realistic in a fallen world is what I think Engel is saying.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast I agree we can't paralyze ourselves by limiting ourselves to specifically spelled out laws, but we still have to limit the government to the authority God gives them. I thought that was the difference between theonomy and general equity theonomy. If that's not the case I'm just arguing for the wrong term, but what I'm concerned about is the need to always limit the government to authority given by God based on a thorough reading of scripture, not just mapping OT laws onto the situation. In your example, you're talking about a large foreign population entering the country. Appropriately dealing with them and protecting your people from them as necessary is a task that falls within the authority of the government. Their authority has been introduced to the equation. If you don't maintain that grounding in God's delegated authority, what do you say next school year when the government says "the public schools are underperforming, and data shows they will perform better if everyone goes there, so for the good of our society we are requiring your kids to attend." The answer is "no, you still don't have authority over my kids education." However, if you've allowed the government to use their authority based strictly on the end of the survival of society, you've given them a way to overstep their authority if they can make it appear that's it's for the common good. That seems to be the line of thinking that leads to COVID tyranny, among many other abuses (you can imagine what a leftist might mean if "there are cases where the survival of society demands parents comply with certain standards" came out of their mouth). We don't have the ultimate wisdom and foresight to prove what's wrong or right for our people based on the future effects of any government action, so the ultimate reason for their being allowed such authority can't be the ends, it has to be that God has delegated them authority in that area. This is the case for your abuse example as well. When you do evil to your children you introduce the government's authority to wield the sword against the evildoer to the equation. I'm open to "general equity theonomy" not being the right term for this kind of thinking (I haven't done the reading to know what everyone's arguing), but I'm very concerned by any framing that doesn't maintain that all authority should be exercised based on what God has delegated, and anything that steps over that line is tyranny.
Thanks for your time and replies on this by the way. It's much appreciated.
We are accountable to God in how far we allow our governors and legislators to go. We the people are the 4th part of the government, We have responsibility towards those ends. .
A persons duty towards God supersedes civil duties, so that is a false statement. Using that logic, then Christ is responsible for Tiberius or Pilate's deeds.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Our duty toward God is our reason to be politically involved. And, we aren't Jesus (God).
Agreed. That is how the Christians who founded this country thought, and they were in politics on every level. Somehow we forget there were many more people here besides the Founders, and we forget that they also were also actively involved in making the country. The Christian pioneers West and also in business and industry, founded states, counties and towns as well as businesses and industries. They voted and were totally involved in politics. They were the middle class capitalists that the Left hates.
There is something missing here. The things being ascribed to Theonomy do not align with what I have heard Theonomists advocate. For example, Joel Webbon is a general equity Theonomist, I am relatively sure he is not for open borders. I do appreciate the principle of protecting heritage and people, and the specificity with which such actions must take place. But, I think there is room for this principle to act in conjunction with what I understand of Theonomy. For example, Israel was healed by looking on Moses' staff, yet that same staff was destroyed in the future since it was a hindrance to God's people. The central theme of the Theonomist is respect for God's law and the desire to work out how it applies vastly different contexts than the those which are found in Scripture. They're far from universalists, although they would (and we should) advocate for impartial justice. Without such universal guidance there is great temptation for conservatives to ultimately engage the left using their tactics.
The WCF teaches o e covenant of grace under 2 dispensations. It also teaches general equity.
It would be great if you guys could give an example of God’s law not applying to a nation because it struggles with different things. And I don’t ask this question facetiously I genuinely would love to see and hear some examples of that.
The argument is not that God's law does not apply. It's that there are some situations in which certain commands do not need to be reinforced through official laws and there are some laws that do need to be reinforced that are not strictly speaking part of God's written law. It's good to set the driving age at 16 for example. There isn't a case law in the OT that commands us to do this but it is best for our society. Polygamy is harmful to society. God arranged laws concerning this according to a situation when men's hearts were hard on this topic. They have not been hard on that though for quite some time and it became possible to enact in. The application of God's law is going to look different in different settings and politics is an approach intended to bring about the best outcomes regardless of how well those outcomes match a perfect standard. So there's two things being discussed. One is objective morality and the other is political approach. They're distinct.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast in my experience, what you’re describing is what people mean by general equity.
This convo shows the chasm between Christian nationalists and G3 types. G3 types can’t fathom why this entire convo wasn’t a Bible study, exegeting passages, and the final solution posited NOT being just evangelism. This is why I agree with jon that this doesn’t have to be an eschatology issue, even though I’m postmill. You have a premill and an amill leading the convo on Christian nationalism. But this convo is so out of G3s depth, the only thing they know HOW to do is MAKE it an eschatology issue.
Most pastors do not have a basic liberal arts education even if they think they do. That's not a bad thing for people who realize their limitations but when navigating fields like aesthetics, philosophy, history, and politics one needs a much broader understanding than just exegesis. The irony is that if you say this many of them will claim it's a denial of biblical sufficiency, which it isn't. That objection reveals the assumption that everything is to be found in special revelation and if it's not found there it's not really worth considering.
I have been cage stage Calvinist since 1992.
What does cage stage mean?
@@nathanphillipsgo James White coined the term to attack the Clarkian use of Scripturalism.
Search for "Reformed libertarianS" (plural), and you'll find a better view.
CJay's historicism is a dead end.
How much of our freedom stems from John Calvins writings in Geneva ?
You're welcome
Look up the debate between Roger Williams and John Cotton.
Amos 5:13 is often the best advice for our time but it requires giving up our right to have an opinion or win an argument. Silence can be a powerful weapon in these evil days. The issues in the culture are so disgusting, I don't even want to spend time reading or hearing about them. Philippians 4:8 is a good place to park our minds.
Engel is a relativist.
?
Do you believe in the absolute truth that dark alleys ought to be safe at midnight? Now, when you are up late watching a scary show at midnight, send your blonde 16 year old daughter down to the corner market to pick up some popcorn and ice cream. But tell her to take the shortcut through the Dark Alley because they are declared to be universally safe now.
@@virtualpilgrim8645 Define truth.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 The concept of **truth** is a fundamental topic in philosophy, logic, and everyday life. Here are some key perspectives on what truth is:
### Correspondence Theory
The **correspondence theory** of truth posits that a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact or reality. For example, the statement "The sky is blue" is true if, in reality, the sky is indeed blue¹.
### Coherence Theory
The **coherence theory** suggests that truth is a matter of logical consistency within a set of beliefs or propositions. A statement is true if it coherently fits within an established system of beliefs¹.
### Pragmatic Theory
The **pragmatic theory** of truth asserts that a statement is true if it is useful or works in practice. This perspective emphasizes the practical consequences of believing a statement to be true¹.
### Deflationary Theory
The **deflationary theory** argues that the concept of truth is not a substantial property but rather a linguistic convenience. According to this view, saying "It is true that snow is white" is just a way of affirming the statement "Snow is white" without adding any additional meaning¹.
### Philosophical and Theological Perspectives
In theology, truth is often seen as that which aligns with the nature and will of God. For example, in Christianity, Jesus is referred to as "the truth" (John 14:6), indicating a divine embodiment of truth².
### Everyday Understanding
In everyday language, truth is typically understood as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. When we say someone is "telling the truth," we mean they are accurately describing the world as it is³.
### Summary
- **Correspondence Theory**: Truth corresponds to reality.
- **Coherence Theory**: Truth is logical consistency.
- **Pragmatic Theory**: Truth is what works in practice.
- **Deflationary Theory**: Truth is a linguistic convenience.
- **Theological Perspective**: Truth aligns with divine nature.
- **Everyday Understanding**: Truth is factual accuracy.
Source: Microsoft Copilot
@@ThomasCranmer1959 I gave you one concerning dark alleys. Do you believe they ought to be safe at midnight? What part of that do you not understand?
One is part of a social order/construct but that doesn’t mean that said order/construct does not change or evolve.
Radical 2 kingdoms is not biblical.
Acts 5:29
Situational ethics???
Doesn't 1 Corinthians 8 about the weaker brother call for situational ethics?
@@dvstrn 1 Cor. 8 doesn't promote situational ethics. It upholds the law of God by demanding Christians to be considerate of one's neighbor enough to not do something around them that could cause problems for them, even unintentionally.
1:06:12 "Politics is particular." ~CJay Engel
@@virtualpilgrim8645 Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
@theeternalsbeliever1779 "1 Cor. 8 doesn't promote situational ethics. It upholds the law of God by demanding Christians to be considerate of one's neighbor enough to not do something around them that could cause problems for them, even unintentionally." Exactly the reason to keep America majority white. Do-gooder racial egalitarians have more concern for the migrants coming in than they do for the damage it is doing to heritage America, whether or not it is intentional.
He's been reading Gordon Clark. He doesn't agree with Clark.
Read / listen to Robert sapolsky. One on the biggest, consistent difference between liberals and conservatives is the ability to live with ambiguity. Conservatives want this or that, liberals are more comfortable with either/both.
Parts of this it feels like he's on to something, but other parts are woefully underwhelming.
Particularism is a good argument and goal. However, his presentation doesnt seem to distinguish that from moral relativism. He calls a universal moral law "legalism". Which is absurd. Legalism is an attitude towards people with respect to said laws.
Further, it seems like he is strawmanning Theonomy and Christian Nationalism (coming from somebody who hasn't taken a stance for or against it). He is basically arguing against a strict literalism and continuation of the Old Testament law. However, most of what I've heard/read argues for applying the principles or "heart of the law" and not the letter of the law.
I'm not sure I understand the objections to GE theonomy. At least as I understand it we're just saying that every sort of government is answerable to God as far as what they have the right to do and not do. That doesn't imply that all the particulars are universal. To use your, example, why would that require us accept mass immigration? Do people try to argue that based on what God calls the individual or the church to do? That just seems like a misapplication of text rather than a flaw in the whole idea. Also if there's a similar universalism behind theonomy and leftism it's because they're both adhering to religious principles, just different ones. As for the focus on conserving customs and heritage, doesn't that have to be subservient to honoring God? If you are trying to conserve God-honoring things, how does that conflict with GET? If you are trying to conserve things that aren't God honoring, how can a Christian justify that as valid?
I've tried to answer some of this in the pinned tweet.
Jon im a big fan of your content but this guy is throwing me off. His language smacks of relativism/subjectivism. Where is the biblical standard for principles of just government? This priority of defending "our way of life" sounds antithetical to what we should be doing: defending God's way of life and submitting our entire lives to His government.
Gobbledygook
The Bible alone is the word of God.
I'm not sure I'm understanding all his points. It seems to me that calling out the lefts racism and advocating color blindness are extremely important.This is God's law of impartiality being applied. The hard core leftist may think they're pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, but there are a lot of people that need to hear it and they need to be able to recognize racism when they see it.
Partiality concerns giving advantages to classes of people to benefit oneself (specifically in the church, which is where SJWs wanted to bring it). It does not mean racial categories don't exist or else Moses, Jeremiah, and Paul would all be in trouble.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast that is true, but racism means discriminating against someone because of their race, which I put in the same category. So if a person discriminates against white people because they are white, that's partiality or if they favor someone who is white because of their skin color, that also qualifies. I think we need to be faithful to call it out wherever we see it because we're upholding God's standards. He said it does no good to call it out because the left doesn't really care if they're racist if I understood him right .
I don't agree with this guy at all. He sounds very relativistic. What do you guys even have in common. I couldn't see it.
We both believe that objective truth exists and we also believe that the point of politics is to protect one’s people from particular attacks, this requires prudence and will look different in different contexts.