*Register for our RIGHT RESPONSE CONFERENCE: “Theonomy & Postmillennialism” May 5-7, 2023 | Georgetown, TX SPEAKERS: Dr. James White, Gary DeMar, Dr. Joe Boot, Pastor Joel Webbon. REGISTER HERE! rightresponseconference.com/
Glad Jared is on board We are going to need to deal with theonomy fairly quickly as we will be dealing with the abortion issue at the local level and it’s possible that we might get the homosexual behavior issue back as well .. we are going to be deciding what to do with every person involved in the abortion . None of the questions that arise are going to have easy answers . Is the woman an innocent victim of a money grubbing medical industry ,or is she a blood thirsty murderer .? My theonomic education goes back to rushdoony ,north and bahnsen. So my mind is already made up .
I'm a general equity theonomist as well. You made mention your mind is made up. What do you think we should do about these issues. I'm new to this. I think the women and the doctor who murders a baby ought to get the death penalty
I think your victim or bloodthirsty example is a false dichotomy. I think someone can be both a victim and an abuser at the same time. To clarify, im not with big eva, i dont say she is a victim soley and shouldn't receive a punishment. I say she knows full well thats a baby and her baby and she willingly killed it, but i think we can say the law is a teacher and our current laws have taught its ok to murder babies, but its not and you know its not so you must be punished
If Catholics and Protestants had their way, they're not just going to stop with abortion or homosexuality. Catholics and Protestants are too proud to admit that they're wrong about anything, so they shouldn't be trusted with the task of enforcing the rule of God. You haven't suggested anything that the Puritans have already tried and failed to do.
Pastor Joel, as a fellow Baptist I respectfully disagree with your point near 49mins about the WCF, public blasphemy, and mosques-because plenty of men at Westminster considered congregational baptist churches to fit in that same category. It was an error that needed to be curtailed from the 1640s to 1680s. Wouldn’t you agree that religious liberty and liberty of conscience need to be considered along with that article of the WCF?
Bing search: Roger Williams supported this view from Isaiah 5:1-7, which describes God’s people as a “vineyard,” a pure garden enclosed from the wilderness of the world. Williams wrote of a “wall of separation” to describe the church’s proper enclosure from the world. Alluding to Isaiah 5 in a reply letter to Pastor John Cotton
To suggest that Isaiah 5 has anything to do with any people of God other than Israel is ripping it from its context. However, the church is separated from the world. Use Christ's words for that assertion: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight...".
@@Saratogan 1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
@@jamessheffield4173 and your point is? My point is there is no need to take Isaiah 5 as a proof text for the point that he was making. That is less obscurely done by using the words of the Lord directly.
@@Saratogan Is the church not a garden, but a wilderness? I was born and raised in R.I. founded by Roger Williams with religious freedom for all. His work the Bloudy Tenent for the Cause of Conscience argued against government control of religion. John Cotton of Boston responded to him. I obviously support Roger Williams but have found some churches are closer to a wilderness. I do think the Williams, Cotton debate should be renewed. Yours in Christ.
“My baptism, my choice!” will inevitably and inescapably lead to other cultural issues downstream. Just as “My baptism. not my choice!” will also lead to other downstream cultural issues. And sone of the deleterious downstream cultural effects of telling people that their baptism is all about their personal choice will inescapably and eventually lead to “My body, my choice!” or to “My gender, my choice!” And this is because the Church has always led the way for cultural renewal or cultural degradation, and this is doubly true when it comes to our baptismal identity.
I see that you are now on faculty at Refrmed Theological Seminary Im Charlette, NC. You would be pleased to know that John Jefferson Davis taught Systematic theology waa ordained in the PCUSA but waa a post-millenialist amd waa teaching us, "optimistic eschatology back in 1997.
Hey Joel, you mentioned Reformed Baptist would have problems with OPC but 10 more with Doug Wilson. Would Reformed Baptist have different issues with OPC than PCA? Just curious if there's something I missed since I may be considering them in the future.
Theonomy will never ever work when the visible Church puts the second table before the first table of God's Laws. In fact, it's national judgement that we get for not doing so.
And so many Christians still don’t get it. If they know anything about the faith, they know God judges nations, not just individuals. I wonder what makes them think that everything happening to the United States is not judgement from God? Are we unique in biblical history as being the only nation that won’t receive judgement from God? Of course not.
Did American Christians were apologized for bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and burning whole city in Japan for murdered innocent civilians? What about shooting civilians from gun ship in the Iraq war ? Non .
@@andrewgd1858 Many Americans disapprove of that. And I don’t believe Christianity was involved in either. WWII is a complicated subject, not so black and white, but many in America think it was a horrible decision. And it was the satanic democrats who were killing the civilians, I believe it was either Madeline Albrite or Hillary Clinton that said “We came, we saw, they died,” and the laughed about it. That does not resemble the Christian United States. Our country has been subverted and manipulated by external forces that have driven us away from our heritage and foundations. Bad actors from Russia, Israel, and China have been waging ideological, spiritual warfare on U.S. for over a hundred years
@@andrewgd1858 You make a mistake when you think that we all support our government. We don't. Our leaders have been co-opted by enemy forces. For Russian influence, see the interview with Yuri Bezmenov, a defector of the KGB, talking about ideological subversion since the 60s. For Chinese influence, look up their 100-year plan to dismantle the United States. For Israel's influence, look up the religious-ethnic background of Merrick Garland, Anthony Blinken, Ron Klain, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Yellen, Larry Fink, Rachel (Richard) Levine, David S. Cohen, Avril Haines, Wendy Sherman, Victoria Nuland, Jeff Zucker, and Eric Lander. And that's just scratching the surface. These are not conspiracy theories, everything I said is verifiable fact if you spend 5 minutes looking it all up.
“The long- term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism. and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.” ~ Gary North, Political Polytheism, pg.87 Joel, as a baptist, you should have huge concerns with this.
Why? As a Presbyterian I see a vast difference between "refusing to submit" to the marks of the covenant and having a difference of opinion on what proper submission looks like. Baptists baptize and give communion, so I don't see why either side should be concerned. And North properly places priority on the spread of the gospel, making this not a matter of bowing to the sword but of evangelism and a matter of the heart.
@@oracleoftroy North’s quote is antithetical to baptist ecclesiology. North is a recognized leader in the theonomy debate and no baptist can ever agree with compulsory baptism or sacral societies without violating his core distinctives.
@@jacobyates4016 But North isn't speaking of ecclesiology in the quote as you provided, so I don't see what the issue is. I've read enough North to know he distinguishes between church functions and state functions, and he is speaking of a state function (citizenship) not some sort of forced church membership.
@@oracleoftroy North is arguing that the entrance into the theonomic state would be conditioned upon submission to baptism and communion. Baptist have always taught that these are strictly functions of the church and the church is a gathered body of regenerate believers, NOT the state. This violates the principles underlying the baptist view of the church by conflating the ordinances given to the church with the means which one becomes the citizen of the theonomic society. Also, what would be done with baptists if they refused to have their infants baptized? Would they be denied entrance into citizenship? Should they be banished? Or maybe have a “third baptism” like in Zurich?
@@jacobyates4016 I don't think what North says in the quote requires that the state perform baptism or communion, but rather that citizenship is tied to being a member in good standing with the church. Maybe North gets into more detail, but from just the quote, there is no reason that it couldn't be somewhat like marriage where a minister of the church officiate it and the state recognizes the church's declaration of marriage. Similarly, there is no reason to assume that the state would officate communion or baptism rather than accept the testimony of a church minister. _"Also, what would be done with baptists if they refused to have their infants baptized?"_ What happens to presbyterians if they refute to rebaptize adults if a baptist becomes a magistrate? Why should anything be done in either case? At the absolute worst, they wouldn't be citizens until they become old enough to make a profession their Baptist church would accept. When is that? I think most baptist churches will accept age appropriate professions from children and baptize them, and certainly accept it from a teenager and not yet legally an adult, so how exactly is this an issue? This comes off as fearmongering and not a serious argument. And at least in my experience, Presbyterians are far more accepting and accommodating of their congregants convictions towards baptism than baptists are. Very few Baptists would be willing to baptize an infant for sake of a member's convictions, but Presbyterians in my experience do allow members to wait to baptize their children until they are old enough to personally express belief. So personally I am more worried about the reverse situation, and I am not very worried about it as a whole. Either would be clearly better than a state run by unbelievers. _"Would they be denied entrance into citizenship? Should they be banished?"_ Does North offer ideas here? You are the one quoting him, why not look at what he actually advocates for instead of speculating? God's law has a place for non-citizans, so I don't see any reason why a theonomist would support banishment for merely being unbaptized. _"Or maybe have a “third baptism” like in Zurich?"_ Baptists are not anibaptists historically and don't commit the same heresy. But I don't see where in your quote where being denied citizanship should be equated to some sort of death sentence. That just seems paranoid and uncharitable. He is a Theonomist. That means he wants to apply Biblical law to modern society. Biblical law includes protections for sojourners and foreigners and other non-citizens in the land. Why assume that he would ignore that? If he does ignore that, then sure, let's take him to task for not consistently applying God's law. But your concern is one of not applying Theonomy consistently, not based on a consistent application of it.
17:30 I don't know if ex opere operato is the issue here, but rather the centrality of what's Christian or not, but I can't speak for Dr. White since I'm Orthodox (big-O) and thus an outsider who probably is relegated to the pagan pile with Rome, as sad as that makes me (I don't regard James or any 1689, Classic Presbyterian or Classic Puritan Anglican offshoots as pagan as I do everyone else in the Protestant reach apart from Missouri Synod Lutherans and similar very Conservative Trinitarians - only heretical). To James, I think I recall that the issue is that Roman Catholics are Pagan, and thus cannot have the intention to deliver the Christian religion to an individual. We are a bit less tight in the Greek Orthodox Church by decision of our episcopacy, though the Russian Orthodox, Serbains, Ukranians etc. as well as most Oriental Orthodox regard everyone outside the respective Communion as Pagan, literally non-Christian. I think there's a bit of a danger with that, since you run a chance of calling works of God the activity of the Devil. James, IIRC, does not see that risk with Rome; to him, they lack intent and have an idea of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" that would be demons instead of God. Sadly, in our world, being assured of that to where Christ's warning clearly and plainly does not apply is multiplying rapidly. Regarding the 1689ers, what is your issue specifically? Are you Amillennial or are you Chiliastic? If you adhere to Chiliasm, I would plead with you to demonstrate how Satan's little season doesn't represent a brief end of the Kingdom. Regarding Aquinas (modulo the Orthodox issues with some of his work, e.g. our own unique version of ADS) I would say that one does NOT have to adopt the notion of the Saints as speaking a truth that should be adhered to as EQUAL to the Gospel (ignoring Rome's bizarre placing of his works next to the Bible), since they are merely an example of the New Testament lived correctly in some aspect (not in all aspects, as Protestants sometimes confuse with our actual beliefs) and thus as an individual who had lives and possibly works that at least in part should be revered, read, and/or looked toward as a model for behavior at some level. Augustine would be an example of someone almost certainly whom we share at least in this respect. However, again, as an outsider, I would, as kindly as I can, offer a criticism that the way we see our Saints is not too far from the way you guys see Calvin, Luther, etc. is similar. These Reformers, and modern people like Spurgeon, Frame and Rushdoony, Wilson, White and so on, are seen the same way as we see the Saints: revered for teaching and in their public lives at least in part, modulo our beliefs about intercessory prayer and (possibly, considering whether you're Federal or not) the Church being able to pronounce people as saved. I mean, you all are stuck with their names as your faith label to identify to an outsider "what kind of Christianity" you regard as, well, Christianity; Saints, no matter how revered - even St. Mary, Christ's Mother - only grace the names of our individual parish Churches! Regarding Theonomy, Orthodox actually have a dog in the fight - though I do regard Bahnsen as ultimately correct that it ought not be a divisive issue in any way with us or with you. We don't do WCF, of course, but we do advocate for Kings or Judges (depending on who you talk to), Old Testament law not eternally being fulfilled by the Lord post-Incarnation like sacrificial laws and the now-defunct Priesthood/Temple rites, Biblical punishment and so on. It would, obviously, be in language reflecting whatever "advancements" we already have and that we may gain when we finally begin to win the world over (should the Postmills be right and Christ tarries until such a victory), but it would be very much Old Testament tempered with the New and (in difference with you all - though again, practically not much) Church practices handed down from the Saints. The difference we may have with you is that we regard this as a bottom-up, "grassroots" victory; we do NOT advocate for "revolution," even in our evil society, for it is God's to have revenge on the wicked, and it is prayer and evangelization that will win over the populace, though His chastisements will probably be great, a type of the end of the world itself given our comparatively unprecedented level of sin and apostasy within the Church and in society at large. As an aside, Bahnsen is my favorite Christian apologist within the context of modern Protestant apologetics. I know Van Til and Clark developed Presup, but Bahnsen had a touch in applying it and fleshing it out that can't be beaten by any atheistic or secularist thinking. Before the New Atheist movement became the first victim of Wokeism (in fact, in part spurned on **by** the "elevatorgate" incident that started it, as only I and James Lindsay seem to remember), I walked away from it and eventually back to Christ, and quite a bit of that part of my life was spent listening to Bahnsen over and over again. Dr. Craig's arguments may be polished and tough, but Presup is impenetrable, and it is remarkable to see a sizeable chunk of Orthodox adapting Bahnsen directly - as well as, oddly enough, what's left of Traditional Catholicism. Lastly, you need to catch up with Apologia. They clearly have better beards.
I am post millennial but it is difficult to give a defense for that view when we see the next generation in America walking away from the faith and turning to atheism or new age ideas. I understand that their will be ups and downs but if there are constant ups and downs at what point will the earth be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea Habakkuk 2:14 Psalm 22:27 Isaiah 11:9
Very interesting discussion. But the Aquinas part is a red-herring, because he is part of the Augustinian tradition on the role of the magistrate, so not really any discontinuity there. The doctrine of God parts of the Summa were reprinted in Calvin's Geneva. Svensson's Aquinas Among the Protestants is helpful here. Locke also didn't wholly disagree with the role of the magistrate - he didn't want to tolerate Roman Catholics. I imagine people feel oddly about Dr White and Dr Boot (I've listened to and benefited from Dr White for years) is that historical theology issue where appeal to sola scriptura ends up undercutting the intellectual context of the confessional period and thereby producing a tradition that claims not to be a tradition.
And the government should be exercising authority over degeneracy also. Gay, gender, pre-marital sex, etc. You mentioned a common push back is that people we say we have bigger issues, like l g b t, instead of discussing this. This addresses that directly, it would be illegal. “You can’t legislate morality,” would probably a common retort. You absolutely can, all laws are moral laws. Now you can’t stop all sin completely, but laws absolutely curb behavior. In effect you would push it back underground, and I would argue would significantly decrease the action. These types of lifestyles have grown exponentially since they have become socially acceptable and ideologically pushed onto citizens. You would still have them, but they would not be able operate openly and exert influence (and even dominion) over society. And ultimately the goal is conversion to faith in Christ, not just outward submission to the authority of a Godly government. But the government still has the authority and responsibility to protect its citizens from the influence of degeneracy and immorality. As far as the punishment, certain countries throw them off buildings. Don’t know if that’s the answer (although death is Biblically permissible in some cases). Although I believe there should be room for repentance and a true change of heart/beliefs, but not at the expense of allowing open practice/influence. Although punishments are extremely important, as our violent crime epidemic is demonstrating. People that are willing to break laws, will adjust behaviors based on what they know the punishment (or lack thereof) will be. I think Christian’s have a sour reaction to the thought because it either steps on toes of personal sin (modern entertainment (movies, music, etc) and possibly porn in some cases, among other things), and know that these would also be legislated. Or they know that it would likely mean changes to the form or role of our government. A republic if you can keep it, well we haven’t kept it, at least not in a form that God will allow to continue without severe judgment and possibly complete destruction of our nation. “That’s fascism.” It probably is somewhat, but if the laws of the government correspond to the laws of God, then we have to decide what kind of nation we want to live in. One that is wide open to every type of degenerate influence man can come up with, and that will eventually force you to support/participate (or face severe consequences). Or one that enforces God’s laws. We have been living off the heritage of our ancestors, and those blessings. And have been led to believe that a nation can be neutral towards morality, and everything will just continue on in peace and prosperity. But there is no neutrality, evil will dominate if good does not take and hold ground actively. And that may take the authority of the government in many arenas to hold back man’s sinfulness from taking dominion. Again, this does not mean that every citizen will have saving faith in Christ. But the majority of people will conform to what the government, powerful institutions, and society at large dictates as the norms/ acceptable behaviors. We can clearly see that happening to our country over the past century, but in the wrong direction in most cases. And regardless of faith, as the discussion states, all men are subject to God’s laws, whether they agree or not. Unfortunately, in my view, based on the ideologically worldview/beliefs demographics in our country, we are likely past the point of being able to keep (or turn around) the country as a “Christian” nation through democratic means. But that’s a completely different discussion. And ultimately for any nation, a large percentage of the population will need to be Christian or at least be willing to live under Christian principles for it to succeed and thrive as a nation. What that means for the future, I’m sure that is a concern for many God fearing people. And it may mean rough times ahead, but that may be what is needed to bring about repentance and faith in many, if we are to continue on as a nation. And if God would be gracious to allow our nation to continue through repentance and turning to him, hopefully we can learn from our mistakes and take a more active approach to the role of God’s law in our governments law.
That's a lovely little risible fantasy you got there. So you dream of this somewhat fascist Christian theocratic state coming about through genocide or whatever it is you're euphemising in your text - and you're doing what? Waiting for it to magically happen? Willing it into existence? As you have correctly observed, this scenario can't possibly come about without tremendous amounts of violence and chaos, yet you're here writing long whiny RUclips comments barely anyone reads and playing Crazy Train in your room - what's the matter with that, Shannon?
So on your view the civil magistrate will be enforcing Church law on people who don't even attend Church right? There would be no freedom of religion and any criticism of the pastor, his church or the Bible would result in what fines in imprisonment or death? Judging from your comments, even making suggestions about the Liturgy or doctrine would result in some sort of civil penalty or even death right?
Uh... In my humble opinion, I think you're looking at that in kind of an off sort of way there. Government was created by God to keep order and prevent lawlessness by rewarding those who do good in righteous deeds and punishing those who are lawless... Protecting ALL of society and preserving order. It's God's design not ours... And like God, it's GOOD!! ... Whether you are a Christian or not I might add, it's good and benefits all of mankind.🙏🙂
Yeah, it's not "Church" law. You must understand that and stop thinking about it in those terms. It's God's Law and applies to all people. See Romans chapter 1 and 2
@@micahlantz905 See 2 Cor. 3:6-8 where Paul says we are mediators of the New Covenant and speaks of the ten commandments in the past tense. See Gal. 4:24-31 where Paul speaks of the "two covenants" and instructs the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage". We are not come to Mount Sinai in Heb. 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Heb. 12:22-24. =============== New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
@@Anna-eg3ub Human governments came from Nimrod, and it was entirely designed to completely shut God out of human affairs. When God revealed His government to ancient Israel, it looked completely different from all human governments in this world because God was the Ruler and not men.
A Millennium Puzzle to solve… My view of the Millennium agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel. The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20. My view agrees with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord. The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20. My view agrees with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing. The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20. My view agrees with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage. There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19. My view agrees with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness. My view agrees with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time. Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time. Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.
7:00 "Oh, man, you got me good but that was a cheap shot. Next time, please don't do that." If it's a cheap shot they didn't "get you good." And why do you have to beg them "Please don't do that."? No wonder CP doesn't see the need to back down and apologize for their cheap shots.
3:01 Still obfuscating, still being dismissive, still being contemptuous, still denying that what was said on CP wasn't what they meant..."no real issue here"...those dumb people who have "a little, theology, a little history" arguing about the geographical meanderings of the 1689 Confession...ad nauseum. And Jared, YOU have to deal with the fact that though the CREC Presbyterian world, "though it's big, very big in the social media world" -- it's still not the dominant American Presbyterian experience.
*Register for our RIGHT RESPONSE CONFERENCE: “Theonomy & Postmillennialism” May 5-7, 2023 | Georgetown, TX
SPEAKERS: Dr. James White, Gary DeMar, Dr. Joe Boot, Pastor Joel Webbon. REGISTER HERE! rightresponseconference.com/
I wish my theology was as deep as Jared’s voice.
I wish my voice was as deep as Jared's. I would probably be married already lol
Lol 😂
😅😅😅
🤣
Dude this comment is gold!!! If my wife wasn’t sleeping right now I would have laughed at loud!
Glad Jared is on board We are going to need to deal with theonomy fairly quickly as we will be dealing with the abortion issue at the local level and it’s possible that we might get the homosexual behavior issue back as well .. we are going to be deciding what to do with every person involved in the abortion . None of the questions that arise are going to have easy answers . Is the woman an innocent victim of a money grubbing medical industry ,or is she a blood thirsty murderer .? My theonomic education goes back to rushdoony ,north and bahnsen. So my mind is already made up .
I'm a general equity theonomist as well. You made mention your mind is made up. What do you think we should do about these issues. I'm new to this. I think the women and the doctor who murders a baby ought to get the death penalty
I think your victim or bloodthirsty example is a false dichotomy. I think someone can be both a victim and an abuser at the same time. To clarify, im not with big eva, i dont say she is a victim soley and shouldn't receive a punishment. I say she knows full well thats a baby and her baby and she willingly killed it, but i think we can say the law is a teacher and our current laws have taught its ok to murder babies, but its not and you know its not so you must be punished
If Catholics and Protestants had their way, they're not just going to stop with abortion or homosexuality. Catholics and Protestants are too proud to admit that they're wrong about anything, so they shouldn't be trusted with the task of enforcing the rule of God. You haven't suggested anything that the Puritans have already tried and failed to do.
You mean that there are positions out there that are *NOT* Leaky Dispensational, Futuristic Premillennial, 5-Point MacArthurists? Wow, that's weird...
Please make a video with Pastor Tobias Riemenschneider to promote the Frankfurt Declaration
YES. I would love that!!!
Yeah please do that Brother Joel
Pastor Joel, as a fellow Baptist I respectfully disagree with your point near 49mins about the WCF, public blasphemy, and mosques-because plenty of men at Westminster considered congregational baptist churches to fit in that same category. It was an error that needed to be curtailed from the 1640s to 1680s. Wouldn’t you agree that religious liberty and liberty of conscience need to be considered along with that article of the WCF?
Jared Longshore!!!
Bing search: Roger Williams supported this view from Isaiah 5:1-7, which describes God’s people as a “vineyard,” a pure garden enclosed from the wilderness of the world. Williams wrote of a “wall of separation” to describe the church’s proper enclosure from the world. Alluding to Isaiah 5 in a reply letter to Pastor John Cotton
To suggest that Isaiah 5 has anything to do with any people of God other than Israel is ripping it from its context. However, the church is separated from the world. Use Christ's words for that assertion: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight...".
@@Saratogan 1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
@@jamessheffield4173 and your point is? My point is there is no need to take Isaiah 5 as a proof text for the point that he was making. That is less obscurely done by using the words of the Lord directly.
@@Saratogan Is the church not a garden, but a wilderness? I was born and raised in R.I. founded by Roger Williams with religious freedom for all. His work the Bloudy Tenent for the Cause of Conscience argued against government control of religion. John Cotton of Boston responded to him. I obviously support Roger Williams but have found some churches are closer to a wilderness. I do think the Williams, Cotton debate should be renewed. Yours in Christ.
“My baptism, my choice!” will inevitably and inescapably lead to other cultural issues downstream. Just as “My baptism. not my choice!” will also lead to other downstream cultural issues. And sone of the deleterious downstream cultural effects of telling people that their baptism is all about their personal choice will inescapably and eventually lead to “My body, my choice!” or to “My gender, my choice!” And this is because the Church has always led the way for cultural renewal or cultural degradation, and this is doubly true when it comes to our baptismal identity.
Excellent conversation.
I gather that the Federal Vision controversy involves the historic controversy of Ex opere operato vs. Ex opere operantis.
I see that you are now on faculty at Refrmed Theological Seminary Im Charlette, NC. You would be pleased to know that John Jefferson Davis taught Systematic theology waa ordained in the PCUSA but waa a post-millenialist amd waa teaching us, "optimistic eschatology back in 1997.
Hey Joel, you mentioned Reformed Baptist would have problems with OPC but 10 more with Doug Wilson. Would Reformed Baptist have different issues with OPC than PCA? Just curious if there's something I missed since I may be considering them in the future.
Theonomy will never ever work when the visible Church puts the second table before the first table of God's Laws. In fact, it's national judgement that we get for not doing so.
And so many Christians still don’t get it. If they know anything about the faith, they know God judges nations, not just individuals. I wonder what makes them think that everything happening to the United States is not judgement from God? Are we unique in biblical history as being the only nation that won’t receive judgement from God? Of course not.
@@AltKuyperian Well said, Sir.
Did American Christians were apologized for bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and burning whole city in Japan for murdered innocent civilians?
What about shooting civilians from gun ship in the Iraq war ?
Non .
@@andrewgd1858 Many Americans disapprove of that. And I don’t believe Christianity was involved in either. WWII is a complicated subject, not so black and white, but many in America think it was a horrible decision. And it was the satanic democrats who were killing the civilians, I believe it was either Madeline Albrite or Hillary Clinton that said “We came, we saw, they died,” and the laughed about it. That does not resemble the Christian United States. Our country has been subverted and manipulated by external forces that have driven us away from our heritage and foundations. Bad actors from Russia, Israel, and China have been waging ideological, spiritual warfare on U.S. for over a hundred years
@@andrewgd1858 You make a mistake when you think that we all support our government. We don't. Our leaders have been co-opted by enemy forces.
For Russian influence, see the interview with Yuri Bezmenov, a defector of the KGB, talking about ideological subversion since the 60s.
For Chinese influence, look up their 100-year plan to dismantle the United States.
For Israel's influence, look up the religious-ethnic background of Merrick Garland, Anthony Blinken, Ron Klain, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Yellen, Larry Fink, Rachel (Richard) Levine, David S. Cohen, Avril Haines, Wendy Sherman, Victoria Nuland, Jeff Zucker, and Eric Lander. And that's just scratching the surface.
These are not conspiracy theories, everything I said is verifiable fact if you spend 5 minutes looking it all up.
It’s called Full Preterism
“The long- term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism. and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.”
~ Gary North, Political Polytheism, pg.87
Joel, as a baptist, you should have huge concerns with this.
Why? As a Presbyterian I see a vast difference between "refusing to submit" to the marks of the covenant and having a difference of opinion on what proper submission looks like. Baptists baptize and give communion, so I don't see why either side should be concerned. And North properly places priority on the spread of the gospel, making this not a matter of bowing to the sword but of evangelism and a matter of the heart.
@@oracleoftroy North’s quote is antithetical to baptist ecclesiology. North is a recognized leader in the theonomy debate and no baptist can ever agree with compulsory baptism or sacral societies without violating his core distinctives.
@@jacobyates4016 But North isn't speaking of ecclesiology in the quote as you provided, so I don't see what the issue is. I've read enough North to know he distinguishes between church functions and state functions, and he is speaking of a state function (citizenship) not some sort of forced church membership.
@@oracleoftroy North is arguing that the entrance into the theonomic state would be conditioned upon submission to baptism and communion. Baptist have always taught that these are strictly functions of the church and the church is a gathered body of regenerate believers, NOT the state. This violates the principles underlying the baptist view of the church by conflating the ordinances given to the church with the means which one becomes the citizen of the theonomic society. Also, what would be done with baptists if they refused to have their infants baptized? Would they be denied entrance into citizenship? Should they be banished? Or maybe have a “third baptism” like in Zurich?
@@jacobyates4016 I don't think what North says in the quote requires that the state perform baptism or communion, but rather that citizenship is tied to being a member in good standing with the church. Maybe North gets into more detail, but from just the quote, there is no reason that it couldn't be somewhat like marriage where a minister of the church officiate it and the state recognizes the church's declaration of marriage. Similarly, there is no reason to assume that the state would officate communion or baptism rather than accept the testimony of a church minister.
_"Also, what would be done with baptists if they refused to have their infants baptized?"_
What happens to presbyterians if they refute to rebaptize adults if a baptist becomes a magistrate? Why should anything be done in either case?
At the absolute worst, they wouldn't be citizens until they become old enough to make a profession their Baptist church would accept. When is that? I think most baptist churches will accept age appropriate professions from children and baptize them, and certainly accept it from a teenager and not yet legally an adult, so how exactly is this an issue?
This comes off as fearmongering and not a serious argument. And at least in my experience, Presbyterians are far more accepting and accommodating of their congregants convictions towards baptism than baptists are. Very few Baptists would be willing to baptize an infant for sake of a member's convictions, but Presbyterians in my experience do allow members to wait to baptize their children until they are old enough to personally express belief.
So personally I am more worried about the reverse situation, and I am not very worried about it as a whole. Either would be clearly better than a state run by unbelievers.
_"Would they be denied entrance into citizenship? Should they be banished?"_
Does North offer ideas here? You are the one quoting him, why not look at what he actually advocates for instead of speculating? God's law has a place for non-citizans, so I don't see any reason why a theonomist would support banishment for merely being unbaptized.
_"Or maybe have a “third baptism” like in Zurich?"_
Baptists are not anibaptists historically and don't commit the same heresy. But I don't see where in your quote where being denied citizanship should be equated to some sort of death sentence. That just seems paranoid and uncharitable.
He is a Theonomist. That means he wants to apply Biblical law to modern society. Biblical law includes protections for sojourners and foreigners and other non-citizens in the land. Why assume that he would ignore that? If he does ignore that, then sure, let's take him to task for not consistently applying God's law. But your concern is one of not applying Theonomy consistently, not based on a consistent application of it.
17:30 I don't know if ex opere operato is the issue here, but rather the centrality of what's Christian or not, but I can't speak for Dr. White since I'm Orthodox (big-O) and thus an outsider who probably is relegated to the pagan pile with Rome, as sad as that makes me (I don't regard James or any 1689, Classic Presbyterian or Classic Puritan Anglican offshoots as pagan as I do everyone else in the Protestant reach apart from Missouri Synod Lutherans and similar very Conservative Trinitarians - only heretical).
To James, I think I recall that the issue is that Roman Catholics are Pagan, and thus cannot have the intention to deliver the Christian religion to an individual. We are a bit less tight in the Greek Orthodox Church by decision of our episcopacy, though the Russian Orthodox, Serbains, Ukranians etc. as well as most Oriental Orthodox regard everyone outside the respective Communion as Pagan, literally non-Christian. I think there's a bit of a danger with that, since you run a chance of calling works of God the activity of the Devil.
James, IIRC, does not see that risk with Rome; to him, they lack intent and have an idea of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" that would be demons instead of God. Sadly, in our world, being assured of that to where Christ's warning clearly and plainly does not apply is multiplying rapidly.
Regarding the 1689ers, what is your issue specifically? Are you Amillennial or are you Chiliastic? If you adhere to Chiliasm, I would plead with you to demonstrate how Satan's little season doesn't represent a brief end of the Kingdom.
Regarding Aquinas (modulo the Orthodox issues with some of his work, e.g. our own unique version of ADS) I would say that one does NOT have to adopt the notion of the Saints as speaking a truth that should be adhered to as EQUAL to the Gospel (ignoring Rome's bizarre placing of his works next to the Bible), since they are merely an example of the New Testament lived correctly in some aspect (not in all aspects, as Protestants sometimes confuse with our actual beliefs) and thus as an individual who had lives and possibly works that at least in part should be revered, read, and/or looked toward as a model for behavior at some level. Augustine would be an example of someone almost certainly whom we share at least in this respect.
However, again, as an outsider, I would, as kindly as I can, offer a criticism that the way we see our Saints is not too far from the way you guys see Calvin, Luther, etc. is similar. These Reformers, and modern people like Spurgeon, Frame and Rushdoony, Wilson, White and so on, are seen the same way as we see the Saints: revered for teaching and in their public lives at least in part, modulo our beliefs about intercessory prayer and (possibly, considering whether you're Federal or not) the Church being able to pronounce people as saved. I mean, you all are stuck with their names as your faith label to identify to an outsider "what kind of Christianity" you regard as, well, Christianity; Saints, no matter how revered - even St. Mary, Christ's Mother - only grace the names of our individual parish Churches!
Regarding Theonomy, Orthodox actually have a dog in the fight - though I do regard Bahnsen as ultimately correct that it ought not be a divisive issue in any way with us or with you. We don't do WCF, of course, but we do advocate for Kings or Judges (depending on who you talk to), Old Testament law not eternally being fulfilled by the Lord post-Incarnation like sacrificial laws and the now-defunct Priesthood/Temple rites, Biblical punishment and so on. It would, obviously, be in language reflecting whatever "advancements" we already have and that we may gain when we finally begin to win the world over (should the Postmills be right and Christ tarries until such a victory), but it would be very much Old Testament tempered with the New and (in difference with you all - though again, practically not much) Church practices handed down from the Saints.
The difference we may have with you is that we regard this as a bottom-up, "grassroots" victory; we do NOT advocate for "revolution," even in our evil society, for it is God's to have revenge on the wicked, and it is prayer and evangelization that will win over the populace, though His chastisements will probably be great, a type of the end of the world itself given our comparatively unprecedented level of sin and apostasy within the Church and in society at large.
As an aside, Bahnsen is my favorite Christian apologist within the context of modern Protestant apologetics. I know Van Til and Clark developed Presup, but Bahnsen had a touch in applying it and fleshing it out that can't be beaten by any atheistic or secularist thinking. Before the New Atheist movement became the first victim of Wokeism (in fact, in part spurned on **by** the "elevatorgate" incident that started it, as only I and James Lindsay seem to remember), I walked away from it and eventually back to Christ, and quite a bit of that part of my life was spent listening to Bahnsen over and over again. Dr. Craig's arguments may be polished and tough, but Presup is impenetrable, and it is remarkable to see a sizeable chunk of Orthodox adapting Bahnsen directly - as well as, oddly enough, what's left of Traditional Catholicism.
Lastly, you need to catch up with Apologia. They clearly have better beards.
I am post millennial but it is difficult to give a defense for that view when we see the next generation in America walking away from the faith and turning to atheism or new age ideas. I understand that their will be ups and downs but if there are constant ups and downs at what point will the earth be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea Habakkuk 2:14 Psalm 22:27 Isaiah 11:9
Need to get to the question (point) quickly and give the guest more time to answer the questions. Other than that all good.
Very interesting discussion. But the Aquinas part is a red-herring, because he is part of the Augustinian tradition on the role of the magistrate, so not really any discontinuity there. The doctrine of God parts of the Summa were reprinted in Calvin's Geneva. Svensson's Aquinas Among the Protestants is helpful here. Locke also didn't wholly disagree with the role of the magistrate - he didn't want to tolerate Roman Catholics. I imagine people feel oddly about Dr White and Dr Boot (I've listened to and benefited from Dr White for years) is that historical theology issue where appeal to sola scriptura ends up undercutting the intellectual context of the confessional period and thereby producing a tradition that claims not to be a tradition.
I think you are right on the point of religious establishment being a bit aspect of the dividing line.
4:58 Nobody beats up on Baptists, like former Baptists who have gone Moscow Presyby.
And the government should be exercising authority over degeneracy also.
Gay, gender, pre-marital sex, etc.
You mentioned a common push back is that people we say we have bigger issues, like l g b t, instead of discussing this.
This addresses that directly, it would be illegal.
“You can’t legislate morality,” would probably a common retort.
You absolutely can, all laws are moral laws.
Now you can’t stop all sin completely, but laws absolutely curb behavior.
In effect you would push it back underground, and I would argue would significantly decrease the action.
These types of lifestyles have grown exponentially since they have become socially acceptable and ideologically pushed onto citizens.
You would still have them, but they would not be able operate openly and exert influence (and even dominion) over society.
And ultimately the goal is conversion to faith in Christ, not just outward submission to the authority of a Godly government.
But the government still has the authority and responsibility to protect its citizens from the influence of degeneracy and immorality.
As far as the punishment, certain countries throw them off buildings.
Don’t know if that’s the answer (although death is Biblically permissible in some cases).
Although I believe there should be room for repentance and a true change of heart/beliefs, but not at the expense of allowing open practice/influence.
Although punishments are extremely important, as our violent crime epidemic is demonstrating.
People that are willing to break laws, will adjust behaviors based on what they know the punishment (or lack thereof) will be.
I think Christian’s have a sour reaction to the thought because it either steps on toes of personal sin (modern entertainment (movies, music, etc) and possibly porn in some cases, among other things), and know that these would also be legislated.
Or they know that it would likely mean changes to the form or role of our government.
A republic if you can keep it, well we haven’t kept it, at least not in a form that God will allow to continue without severe judgment and possibly complete destruction of our nation.
“That’s fascism.”
It probably is somewhat, but if the laws of the government correspond to the laws of God, then we have to decide what kind of nation we want to live in.
One that is wide open to every type of degenerate influence man can come up with, and that will eventually force you to support/participate (or face severe consequences).
Or one that enforces God’s laws.
We have been living off the heritage of our ancestors, and those blessings.
And have been led to believe that a nation can be neutral towards morality, and everything will just continue on in peace and prosperity.
But there is no neutrality, evil will dominate if good does not take and hold ground actively.
And that may take the authority of the government in many arenas to hold back man’s sinfulness from taking dominion.
Again, this does not mean that every citizen will have saving faith in Christ.
But the majority of people will conform to what the government, powerful institutions, and society at large dictates as the norms/ acceptable behaviors.
We can clearly see that happening to our country over the past century, but in the wrong direction in most cases.
And regardless of faith, as the discussion states, all men are subject to God’s laws, whether they agree or not.
Unfortunately, in my view, based on the ideologically worldview/beliefs demographics in our country, we are likely past the point of being able to keep (or turn around) the country as a “Christian” nation through democratic means.
But that’s a completely different discussion.
And ultimately for any nation, a large percentage of the population will need to be Christian or at least be willing to live under Christian principles for it to succeed and thrive as a nation.
What that means for the future, I’m sure that is a concern for many God fearing people.
And it may mean rough times ahead, but that may be what is needed to bring about repentance and faith in many, if we are to continue on as a nation.
And if God would be gracious to allow our nation to continue through repentance and turning to him, hopefully we can learn from our mistakes and take a more active approach to the role of God’s law in our governments law.
That censorship algorithm is tricky.
Had to change a bunch of words, not sure what was triggering it.
That's a lovely little risible fantasy you got there. So you dream of this somewhat fascist Christian theocratic state coming about through genocide or whatever it is you're euphemising in your text - and you're doing what? Waiting for it to magically happen? Willing it into existence? As you have correctly observed, this scenario can't possibly come about without tremendous amounts of violence and chaos, yet you're here writing long whiny RUclips comments barely anyone reads and playing Crazy Train in your room - what's the matter with that, Shannon?
So on your view the civil magistrate will be enforcing Church law on people who don't even attend Church right? There would be no freedom of religion and any criticism of the pastor, his church or the Bible would result in what fines in imprisonment or death? Judging from your comments, even making suggestions about the Liturgy or doctrine would result in some sort of civil penalty or even death right?
Uh... In my humble opinion, I think you're looking at that in kind of an off sort of way there.
Government was created by God to keep order and prevent lawlessness by rewarding those who do good in righteous deeds and punishing those who are lawless... Protecting ALL of society and preserving order.
It's God's design not ours... And like God, it's GOOD!! ... Whether you are a Christian or not I might add, it's good and benefits all of mankind.🙏🙂
Yeah, it's not "Church" law. You must understand that and stop thinking about it in those terms. It's God's Law and applies to all people. See Romans chapter 1 and 2
@@micahlantz905 See 2 Cor. 3:6-8 where Paul says we are mediators of the New Covenant and speaks of the ten commandments in the past tense.
See Gal. 4:24-31 where Paul speaks of the "two covenants" and instructs the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Heb. 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Heb. 12:22-24.
===============
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Yes , the civil magistrate does that now . We punish thieves and murderers now
@@Anna-eg3ub Human governments came from Nimrod, and it was entirely designed to completely shut God out of human affairs. When God revealed His government to ancient Israel, it looked completely different from all human governments in this world because God was the Ruler and not men.
A Millennium Puzzle to solve…
My view of the Millennium agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel. The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
My view agrees with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord. The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
My view agrees with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing. The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
My view agrees with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage. There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19.
My view agrees with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness.
My view agrees with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time. Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time.
Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.
7:00 "Oh, man, you got me good but that was a cheap shot. Next time, please don't do that." If it's a cheap shot they didn't "get you good." And why do you have to beg them "Please don't do that."? No wonder CP doesn't see the need to back down and apologize for their cheap shots.
This is how cults form.
3:01 Still obfuscating, still being dismissive, still being contemptuous, still denying that what was said on CP wasn't what they meant..."no real issue here"...those dumb people who have "a little, theology, a little history" arguing about the geographical meanderings of the 1689 Confession...ad nauseum. And Jared, YOU have to deal with the fact that though the CREC Presbyterian world, "though it's big, very big in the social media world" -- it's still not the dominant American Presbyterian experience.