We watched a debate last night with Joel McDurmon and Jordan "JD" Hall and came away with many questions about their debate on Theonomy. I shared this video with those who watched the debate and we agree that Doug has a good handle on the matter. Thank you Doug for sharing your thoughts on such things as this. It is greatly appreciated.

Doug is right there with the Theonomist philosophy, revival before reconstruction. The observation here is that a right understanding of the Biblical teaching puts most Christians in a similar place with regards to the law of God.

@dmustakasjr

Жыл бұрын

But there is one part in which theonomists, like Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Doug might depart. Surprisingly is isnt in the general equity. It is in the punishment or penal sanctions (as. Dr. Bahnsen put it). While the general equity might be argued and reworked around hermeneutic measures, I think the big depart of everyday reformed Christians from reconstructionists is in the punishment being tied back to what the OT says is should be.

@johntobey1558

Жыл бұрын

"Penal sanctions, " please clarify.

@dmustakasjr

Жыл бұрын

@@johntobey1558 Punishment for the commission of a specific crime, such as fines, restitution, probation and imprisonment. That is what I have noticed is the area that the critics of theonomy often go to. And while Doug would seem to be very close to a theonomist, such as Dr. Bahnsen, I would like to know what Doug would think about those punishments.

Really helpful explanation. Thanks Doug Wilson!

@MarkCox21125150

4 жыл бұрын

@Fuzzybucket Proverbs 26:4-5

Amen. We must show it first within our ranks, within the body of Christ. 🙂✌️❤️

@sojiro856

Жыл бұрын

We were never meant to create some republic or kingdom on Earth. We should be focused on Heaven.

Reconstruction is about more than just the government and politics. It is about bringing God's purpose (Law) to every area of life. That includes whatever you can think of in our culture; e.g. business, arts, sciences, politics, education (especially), recreation, etc.

@cjfoster4179

3 жыл бұрын

@Fuzzybucket if your Christianity doesn’t influence every sector of your life then you’re doing it wrong.

@cjfoster4179

3 жыл бұрын

@Fuzzybucket Jesus is a lot more authoritative than a pope. He is king of kings. It would be foolish to not be ambassadors for his kingship in such a way that we infiltrate all sectors of life (education, science, politics, etc). The Lord’s Prayer says thy kingdom come thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven. Well in heaven the rule of Jesus is very strict. So why wouldn’t we impose his kingdom on earth? Our weapons are not carnal though.

@cjfoster4179

3 жыл бұрын

@Fuzzybucket he didn’t have to sentence non believers to death. He said they were condemned already.

@adrianjimenez6034

Жыл бұрын

Was Paul a reconstructioinist in dealing with the man caught in adultery in Corinthian?

@christopherskipp1525

Жыл бұрын

It's a fantasy. A theonimist in principle? It just gets increasingly stupid. I do, however, appreciate the idealism of said fantasy. If railings were good enough for Israel, what changed? Silliness.

Pastor Doug, Your concise theological explanation is very helpful. Bob

I agree it has to start in the church so the world will seek it for themselves.

@ThomistReview1950

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. Let people create their own systems of government and then let people choose to voluntarily choose to join. But let’s no go and force it upon the rest of the world

@nathangaul6649

2 жыл бұрын

The world will not seek it for themselves for none seek righteousness. If we, however, seek first the Kingdom of God within ourselves and our Churches and cease to look like the world, then the Most High may use that to bring them to Himself.

Very well said!

Fantastic

Dear Doug, I follow your channels a lot. I greatly appreciate your theological and confessional soundness and your wit and winsome manner in propounding such. I was wondering if you have (or would) speak to the issue of "contemporary Christian music"? I am thinking here of Hillsong, Bethel, etc. All of that music seems not only as thin as the vellum pages of my Bible, but also as dangerous as an adder, insofar as it infantalizes and emasculates Christian men and worship in general. (Do you take requests?) ;)

@CornerTalker

11 ай бұрын

Many people have now noticed that this new wave of music has some serious problems to it - but almost nobody remarks how this new industrial cabal purged traditional Christian music - material that encouraged Christians' worship for decades and in some cases centuries. This was not a trickling away of the old; this was a flushing out.

@boosminogstatus6460

5 ай бұрын

Music that glorifys God is good regardless of genre. Music that does not glorify God is not good.

Thank you

facts, our lifestyle examples should be so compelling that it inspires others to want to emulate us...having representation in the inside of gov is important, but thats definitely secondary to the public perception of Christianity. We need sects of the body to exemplify "the new human race"...

9:00 - each one reach one for the kingdom. Bring as many with us as He has foreknown.

How about... Not just "bottom up" or "top down" but the Reformed dynamic of "both/and"!

Nice

Some would say the actual scripture never divided itself as ceremonial, moral and civil/judicial It's more a way to look at it after the fact or did the original people ever look at it that way? It does look like lots is case law.

@calthresh4940

3 жыл бұрын

I know I’m responding to you a month later, but here are some places the distinction can be seen in the NT. When Paul is arguing with Peter about eating with non-Jews and with requiring circumcision for Christians that’s a removal of some type of law. When Jesus says that he upholds the law and says to love God and your neighbor as a shorthand for the Ten Commandments. That’s upholding some type of law.

@michaelangelo9119

3 жыл бұрын

@@calthresh4940 Not sure loving God was a shortcut for the 10 commandments only. I think the people hearing the original may have heard doing everything God asked was loving God. Some parts of the NT appy the law differently like appealing to the don't be unequally yoked or don't muzzle an ox while threshing. We even see Hebrews refering to Psalms as law mostly using that term for Psalms. Why might that be? The mostt clear principles might be in the 10 commandments even that is framed as a covenant

@Razaiel

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelangelo9119 Except that we are not to observe days and months and times and years (Galatians 4:10, Colossians 2:16), so there goes the 4th commandment.

@Razaiel

Жыл бұрын

The division of the Law is an entirely man-made concept. Theonomy is just a modern version of the judaizers that were being rebuked all throughout the epistles. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Galatians 5:1-6

@TheDareD3vil

9 ай бұрын

@@Razaielthose verses are very clearly not talking about Sabbath…

... where is the list of which OT commands still apply? Most Christians are theonomists in a general way - the problem is which specific commands still apply.

Amen Jesus freed us from the curse of the law. The law remains, but is not obligatory for salvation. If we love God we will try (poorly) to follow the law.

Yep i am, how can u not be?

Okay? Okay.

I just want to turn his watch ⌚ straight lol

@CanonPress

5 жыл бұрын

haha -- I think it's actually an ex-submariner thing? Not sure why though...

@ditchmonkey2

4 жыл бұрын

Adebayo Adewole submariners and other military members/vets wear their watches like that because it’s less likely to break in tight quarters and easier to read when operating certain equipment and weapons.

Great answer. I guess this means that I am a general equity theonomist as well. As far as reconstructionism though, I do not believe that the goal of the church is to reshape the nations though that can result from times of revival, but that could be because I am amil.

Doug what do you think about God's law and it's application to government law and it's relationship to allowing freedom of religion?

Was Levirite kinsman law moral law?

@hushai5154

4 жыл бұрын

All law is moral law. The question is how are we to understand the principal and application in light of the New Cov.

@jesusislordsavior6343

3 жыл бұрын

reformedfruit It seems to have had a merciful and therefore a moral purpose, considering the explanation given for it. The law may sound repulsive to our ears today, and the woman seems not to have had any say in the matter. Nevertheless, her security was preserved by it, and so was the lineage of her dead husband. What about the question of bigamy? Well, in O.T. times polygamy was not uncommon anyway. Christ brought the deeper implications of the law against adultery into His teaching centuries later. Revelation is 'progressive' in that it did not all come at once. Paul gave advised the churches on treatment of widows. Younger ones were urged to remarry in the Lord. Older widows with the necessary qualifications were to receive congregational support.

Been thinking about writing a book about a "new theonomy" or something along those lines, where we see the church as positioning itself to be the new organizer of society after the inevitable fall of our earthly governments. Where the community is centered around the church, and the church provides for the common welfare instead of the state. Because taxation is theft, but tithes are not. We would see a wholly voluntaristic society therefore. As far as how specifically a church should govern, this question can be answered by people of _THAT_ time, because the free market (natural law; the hand of God), will have weeded out churches who are managing their communities poorly, because in this system the churches have a financial AND spiritual incentive to provide for their citizens fairly. Churches that do not, lose their citizens/members to other, more efficient/just churches. So what I'm thinking is basically an anarcho-capitalist type setup, but with the center of society being the local church. Is that theonomy? Or do others see the word theonomy as something else? Can I call what I believe we should do theonomy, or should I find a new word for it? Would I be expanding on and improving the old idea of theonomy, or would I be creating a new definition? These are the questions I wrestle with. Perhaps I should mention these in the book.

@oracleoftroy

4 жыл бұрын

I'd need to hear more details, but offhand I would say no. Theonomy would base civil law on the general equity of the biblical civil law. You seem to be starting from a particular governance theory first. One thing we see is a clear separation of Moses and the elders (and later, the kings) as the head of the civil state and Aaron and the priesthood as the head of the Church; iow, there is a clear separation of church and state. I'm a bit unclear if I followed you correctly, but you seem to mix the two functions into the church. Also, I think fully considering the morality behind the biblical civil code would lead to a position most libertarian ancaps would reject, as least as far as I understand their system, which admitably, isn't very far. You'd be closer if each city was fairly independent and led by elders. The church would have its own elder rule.

@occamtherazor3201

4 жыл бұрын

Make up whatever fantasy world nonsense that you like and call it whatever you want. It's all make-believe, anyway.

@MaD-hp9hq

3 жыл бұрын

@@occamtherazor3201 Your KZread name is based in the work of a Christian, bruh

@occamtherazor3201

3 жыл бұрын

@@MaD-hp9hq As if William of Occam had an option to be anything else in 13th Century England.

@MaD-hp9hq

3 жыл бұрын

@@occamtherazor3201 You are mistaken in your phrasing, as you imply he was only Christian because he had to be. That is not a position that can actually and honestly be defended

At 3:30 does he mean man made buildings ( churches) to praise ?

@ZingDave

3 жыл бұрын

No, here he uses “temples” to mean OT temples, since the context is the ceremonial law.

No law=no sin essentially

I much more prefer the term "transformation" to the term "revival." Revival sounds like a more temporary change, like being revived from a heart attack but still destined to death at some point . What we Christians need, and all people need for that matter, is to be "transformed" from our' sin and worldliness into a new creation in Christ. Romans 12:2 and 1 John 15-16. How about holding "transformation" services instead of "revival" services.

I'm not a Theonomist, but I don't disagree with what he's saying. We are responsible for within the church not without.

@leonrodgers9939

5 жыл бұрын

Then you have a "church" mentality . . . not a Kingdom mentality. Of course we are responsible for outside the church . . . that is what the whole "light of the world" and "salt of the earth" thing is all about. : )

@Chirhopher

5 жыл бұрын

@@leonrodgers9939 ahmein. to the Praise of HIS Glorious Grace

Blood animal sacrifices certainly are obsolete...

Legit. Let’s get started.

First, a person must define what Gods law is. Christ leaves no room for margin or error. The laws that Christ stated are the laws that are written on the hearts of those that love him. And those that love Him love His law.

@eltonron1558

2 жыл бұрын

That's the ten commandments.

@eltonron1558

Жыл бұрын

@John Sixfourteefour If there's more than the ten commandments, there's a small, very small problem. According to Christ, it is ALL the law. Mt. 22:36-40 It is how humanity will live. Mt. 4:4. It is the law Christ said to keep. Mt. 19:17 There is more that is incidental, like instruction on prayer, however, the commandments are what the truly converted should desire, and trajectory to.

Nothing that Mr. Wilson says here contradicts anything the old "Reconstructionists" taught, believed or advocated back in the 80's. In fact, this was precisely what Rushdoony, Bahnsen and even North taught. Granted, these leaders did not always do so well working together... just like a lot of people do not like nor will they work with, Mr. Wilson today. It is a canard that the Reconstructionists ever advocated top down imposition of Biblical Law; it was always seen as a "bottom up" growth, over time as an inevitable result of the post-millennial hope. The issue was that if the nations are going to be discipled to obey Jesus, what is the content of that obedience going to look like in regards to various spheres; e.g., economics, civil law, education, social policy, etc.? Mr. Wilson is bit disingenuous here, separating himself from a position that no one actually ever advocated, except its detractors.

3:50 in UK there is something called 'Duty of care' it means that your actions should consider the welfare of others in the way you live your life

@mosesking2923

2 жыл бұрын

Does that include mandatory lock downs and mask mandates? Sounds like forced altruism aka the beginning of state run dictatorship to me. Let’s keep our freedom and make altruism voluntary.

@AlienPsyTing1

2 жыл бұрын

@@mosesking2923 it normally means something like if your path to your front door has a crack in one of the paving stones that causes someone to trip and break their leg you are responsible, not really mandates and lockdowns

@mosesking2923

2 жыл бұрын

@@AlienPsyTing1 slippery slope. The government of the UK would define “Duty of Care” by forcing citizens to stay at home and shutting down an entire economy. Causes more harm than good. Government should never be in a place to enforce altruism. Altruism only works in a limited government context.

@andrewwhyte4753

2 жыл бұрын

@@mosesking2923 A slippery slope would definitely be caught by the 'duty of care' principle.

I have now watched five videos of people promoting theonomy, and none of them will address this question: Does your plan promote the forced compliance of Biblical law on non-Christians - i.e. - Is this conversion by the sword? If so, how do you swing 1st Cor 5? 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside.

@candorite

9 ай бұрын

ALL LAW demands compliance by force. This is the definition of law. If it's just a suggestion, there's no point in making a law. If everyone was going to do it anyway, there's no point in making a law. If you think outward compliance to law is conversion, I would want to have a conversation with you regarding what the gospel is. I'm unaware of any theonomist who believes one becomes a Christian by following the law, OT or otherwise. Theonomy is not a soteriological stance. It's a civic one. It says that when we stop people from killing other people, from taking other people's stuff, from breaking their marriage promises, etc, that we are all better off. The basic argument of theonomists I have read, like Greg Bahnsen, is that the most freedom for the most people is attained by following God's law. The 'freedoms' you are concerned about theonomy encroaching upon always come with collateral harm. In my involvement with the Libertarian party I have encountered many people who declaim against 'victimless crimes' such as drug use, sexual libertinism, gambling, prostitution, etc. The problem is that every one of these ostensibly victimless behaviors actually systemically brings collateral harm to third parties and to society at large. Do I personally think locking people in prison is the solution to these problems? No; and for the most part it's hard to find examples of our incarceration mentality in the OT Law as well. (Is it possible God's justice is more just than that we have created?) Of course there are also several challenges in understanding how to apply Paul's words to today's America--or many other countries. Perhaps 10% of Corinthians were Roman Citizens. And the Roman Republic had made way for the Roman Empire. So the burden they had as citizens to rule, to make laws, etc. was next to nothing. In contrast, Americans are expected to vote. They can run for various offices and help to make rules affecting other people's lives. Obviously Christians have a range of responses to these duties. Some choose not to vote or run for office to avoid being put in a position of coercion over others. Some choose to vote and to run for office in hopes of helping to produce a more godly society, and under the compunction of the duty of a citizen to do so. The best case scenario, no doubt, is that everyone repents and submits their lives to Christ. This will never happen on a scale of a society of millions, and even if it did Christians don't instantly become perfect. If there is such thing as evil and as sin, then it will only be restrained on a societal level by force. I suspect the real question is WHICH THINGS need forcible restraint.

I have no issue with Josiah. In fact, his death was not related to his reforms.

Please do a video on your thoughts on our current President. Thanx.

@CanonPress

6 жыл бұрын

On it!

@ehudsdagger5619

5 жыл бұрын

Me too!

Why did Doug describe our government 'secular' instead of atheistic?

@supersauron1239

Жыл бұрын

Because secular means neutral, without favouritism Name those things that make you think usa has an atheistic goverment

@Project-pq1qh

Жыл бұрын

@@supersauron1239 that makes sense. Do you have sources for your definition?

@supersauron1239

Жыл бұрын

@@Project-pq1qh because thats the etimological meaning of secular ,you can search it And again name the things that make you think our goverment is atheistic

@Project-pq1qh

Жыл бұрын

@@supersauron1239 I thought secular meant worldly. Such things as your employment and recreation.

@Project-pq1qh

Жыл бұрын

@@supersauron1239 Then why is Doug calling a government that promotes and protects Satanism and all other forms of false religions, and persecutes Christianity neutral? Is he trying to hide something?

Theonomy is the other gospel Paul speaks about in Galatians. It’s Jesus + Law. Paul curses those who promote it.

@akadwriter

9 ай бұрын

Amen! It's no coincidence that Bahnsen makes some absolutely heretical statements when discussing the Law.

But when it comes to adultery and other sexual sins does he believes that people who commit adultery and other sexual sins should be put to death?.

@switzerlandful

Жыл бұрын

I would doubt it if he believes in the New Testament (or new covenant). Jesus said that He did not come to judge the world but to save it. So if Doug Wilson is a Christ follower, I doubt he would want people put to death for that.

New Covenant Old Covenant very summer simple. One is obsolete the other isn’t.

7:50 ish. Doug believes the church needs to reconstruct itself. I believe the church is about to get reconstructed by God himself as he brings 'Canaan' against us to purge the unbelievers. Too bad we didn't think of this earlier. But then, for the end to happen, the Prince of Rosh, Mesheoh, and Tubal must invade Israel, so really, everything seems to be coming together very nicely.

@romans6788

2 жыл бұрын

Who is Caanan in this instance? The way you explained this is supremely interesting.

@MichaelWilliams-ph4ri

2 жыл бұрын

@@romans6788 the world - most likely the whole New World Order thing.

@sovereigngrace9723

2 жыл бұрын

Where is that?

@romans6788

2 жыл бұрын

@@MichaelWilliams-ph4ri makes sense.

I don't think he has to worry about the people 'longing for righteousness' with no one to lead them. Most of them do want to be led, some desperately, but they are choosy about which aspects of 'righteousness' they wish to preserve. This is one reason why secular politics with a veneer of God-talk ends up causing so much division. (Still, as a Canadian, I am impressed that American politicians still dare mention God in public.) The missionary agenda of the early Church was carried out in spite of political forces inimical to its growth and development. I see NO evidence in the New Testament that capture of the Roman State was a goal which the apostles had in mind. Jesus had said that His kingdom is not of this world. Therein lies a fundamental difference between Mosaic theocracy and the New Testament Church. Nevertheless the Christian community WAS able to model a lifestyle unlike that of the surrounding culture. This is especially evident from the account given in Acts of the church at Jerusalem. Americans in particular might be surprised by 2:44-45 and 4:32, which speak of voluntary communal ownership of property. (What? The Red menace? Calm yourselves, there was no State involvement.)

@jehu5813

3 жыл бұрын

The key word is "voluntary". Modern communism is not voluntary

@jesusislordsavior6343

3 жыл бұрын

@@jehu5813 Well put. It is also a question of motives. The motivation of modern communism is not brotherly love. Anything but that.

first

@jebronlames5493

6 жыл бұрын

Mineblade 1000 second

What an utter nonsense. "General equity theonomist"/"Westminster theonomist". Didn't Wilson realize that's a contradiction in terms? He did redefine theonomy quite nicely (in the sense of Van Til's dictum "There is no alternative but that of Theonomy and Autonomy"). But first, Van Til himself was not a theonomist, and second, theonomism is a designation of a certain hermeneutical, theological position regarding Mosaic civil law. WCF 19.4 contradicts this theonomistic reading of the laws! The Westminster Confession excludes theonomistic hermeneutics, which demands a validity of the Mosaic commandments as such. "General equity" is based on natural law, of which the theonomists have no idea. The Reformers understood civil law, including the Mosaic civil law, to be entirely in accordance with natural law, i.e. general equity. They thus stood in the wake of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Isidor of Seville, and many others. Theonomy is a theological invention of the 20th century and has not much in common with the reformed hermeneutic of judicial mosaic law.

@michaelowens5394

3 жыл бұрын

I've been a theonomist since my childhood in the 1980s. What DW explains here IS the classic theonomic position: not just any old "general equity" but specifically the general equity of the whole Bible. But even back then, the position was far more often misunderstood than disagreed with. Most critics of theonomy attack positions that no theonomist holds. So the terms have become useless. Doug has wisely refrained from using the terms because they now communicate something he doesn't believe.

@raschu

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelowens5394 What Doug describes well may be the classic theonomistic position. Then it's all the worse. And I didn't say, what Doug describes is not theonomy. It is. What I've said is that this position ("the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail" as Bahnsen said) has not much in common with the classic/confessional reformed and even catholic christian position regarding mosaic civil law, which is described with the term general equity. This hermeneutic of the OT law is an invention of Rushdoony et.al. and it does not follow the catholic-reformed reading. Study the history and meaning of "general equity" before the reformers, in their writings and in reformed theology and confession) (for example here: www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/B010E0DI6S/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&dchild=1&keywords=the+mosaic+polity+junius&qid=1612521472&sr=8-1).

@michaelowens5394

3 жыл бұрын

@@raschu Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that as a reply to your comment; it's just something I've suspected for years as I listen to and read Doug. He's always sounded like a theonomist, but disclaimed the word. Now I know why: He IS a reconstructionist/theonomist, but disclaims the terms. I'm still fighting old battles...sorry I involved you!

@dissyl6029

2 жыл бұрын

why do you reject the theonomist position?

Reformed Reconstructionism? #ImIn

Ancient peoples, including the Israelites knew of no such distinctions of laws, neither does the Bible give any formula for identifying which laws were ceremonial and which laws were moral. The Hebrew word for law used in the OT is Torah, and the Greek equivalent is Nomos. These are umbrella terms used to designate all laws, not segmentations of law. For Israel, all God’s laws were moral and were to be obeyed - full stop. It matters not if we today are able to classify some laws as moral and others as ceremonial. The point is, did the Bible writers consider any such designation? Good exegesis demands that we do not read our “right” conclusions back into scripture, and then have scripture make those conclusions. We keep silent and listen to the Bible at all times. In the case of the Sabbath, the Ten Commandments contained ‘ceremonial’ aspects and those sections of the law, transitionally labeled ‘ceremonial’ contained many laws which can only be termed as “moral.” For example, consider the following texts, ‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the 9 blind’ (Lev 19:14) or ‘Do not move your neighbor’s boundary [marker]’ (Deut 19:14). ‘One witness is not enough to convict an accused person...but the matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses’ (Deut 19:15). ‘There should be no sexual relationship with animals’ (Lev 20:15). ‘If a man has two wives and he loves one but does not love the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, he must not give the right of the first born to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn’ (Deut 21:15-17). ‘If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die’ (Deut 24:7). ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman (Lev 18:22)’. iv. The Ten Commandments written on stone, was a representation of the entire covenant; somewhat of a summary of the composition, although not quite. It also represented the permanence of the entire covenant within its designated period. Still we may not know all the reasons why the Ten Commandments were arranged together, but that does not give us license to invent a demonstrable false designation for it, particularly when the Bible is very clear that it is not separate from the Old Covenant. The New Testament writers knew of no moral ceremonial distinctions. Thus, no NT writer made any point from the premise of moral-ceremonial divide. Paul for example, uses the Greek word Nomos (law) approximately 119 times, never in the plural, but always in the singular, thus indicating the inseparable unity of the law. The moral ceremonial concept came through the work of the early church fathers, Origen, Tertullian and others in their fight against Gnosticism. They invented these categories by claiming that when Paul spoke positively of the law, he was referring to moral laws and when he spoke negatively of the law, he was referring to ceremonial laws. The tradition got passed down over the centuries to our time.

Boils down 2 gods laws or mans laws, "secular humanism "

"For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace." Romans 6:14 Theonomy is a scholarly word for legalism or Judaizing. It completely misses the point of sanctification which is turning our hearts of stone into Christ-like hearts of flesh. That is, changing our desires from loving sin, to loving God's ways. Christians decreasingly desire to sin and increasingly desire to be like Christ- not because we are under the external laws written in stone or fear their consequences, but because the Holy Spirit is sanctifying our hearts within us.

@taylorsexton5739

5 жыл бұрын

"Christians...increasingly desire to be like Christ." And how, sir, did Christ behave? To what moral standard did he adhere?

@RL-vv7or

5 жыл бұрын

Christ, sir, was born under the old covenant and He kept the law perfectly because we can not. He also kept the spirit of the law perfectly because we can not. That's why He was the perfect sacrifice, a Lamb without blemish. As Christians, sir, He imputes His righteousness on us-- because we are unable to keep the law. Are you a teacher and still need to be taught the basics of the faith?

@taylorsexton5739

5 жыл бұрын

You are dodging my question. I affirm that Christ kept the law perfectly on our behalf because we cannot. What I am asking is how "be like Christ" and "obey the Law" are any different. They aren’t. Yes, we are freed from the Law as a justifying agent, but there is no indication whatsoever in any portion of Scripture that we are free from obedience to the Law as a standard of holiness. In fact, Jesus teaches the exact opposite in Matthew 5:17-19, and says that those who teach others to disregard even the least of the commandments will be least in the Kingdom.

@RL-vv7or

5 жыл бұрын

Your question stems from an insufficient understanding of sanctification, that is, God removing our hearts of stone and giving us living hearts of flesh. Legalism and sanctification may share some outward appearances because they both involve obedience in one form or another but they are polar opposites at their cores. Legalism (Judaizing/theonomy) insists that obedience to God requires adherence to some or all of the old covenant laws given at Sinai. They do some linguistic gymnastics to say we're not under the old covenant but we still need to keep it. In reality, their position is that we are still bound under the old covenant. In contrast, the New Testament clearly tells us that the New Covenant is better than the old and that the old has passed away. So what is New Covenant obedience? It has everything to do with that new heart of flesh and NOT with the legal codes given at Sinai. God said He will write His laws on our hearts (Heb 8:10). Sanctification is the process by which the Holy Spirit changes our hearts. To use a technological analogy, the "program" of our hearts is corrupted by sin. In and of ourselves, we can never come to correct spiritual conclusions, nor can we please God because our program is corrupt (that's original sin). That's why the old covenant could never produce righteousness- it revolved around external laws written on tables of stone. The work of the Holy Spirit is to change our hearts- in a way, to fix our "program, our "code". The Holy Spirit rewrites our corrupted hearts and starts to conform us to Christ. Now, we have new and living hearts that are increasingly inclined to Christ's own character. We increasingly hate our old sinful ways. Now I will not steal from you- not because of old legal codes written on external tables of stone, but because the Holy Spirit is conforming my heart to Christ's own character. I will not kill you, NOT because I fear the consequences of an external law, but because I have Christian love for you. One way of obedience is legalistic but the other flows from a sanctified heart. There's a huge difference! The sanctified way is New Testament obedience. The old external law was like a mirror or a teacher. It gave us an idea of what God had in mind for us. It was a sign post that pointed to the reality of sanctification. Now that the reality has come, we no longer need the old. We now have a far better obedience that comes from the heart rather than a legalistic obedience that comes from tables of stone.

@taylorsexton5739

5 жыл бұрын

Again, I am in full agreement, along with my confession of faith (Westminster Standards), that we are not under the Law as a *justifying* agent. That much is obvious, and is a basic tenet of the Christian Faith. You are talking right past me, friend, and are still not dealing with the question I have posed. You say that we should be more like Christ. Amen. But what was Christ like? To what moral standard did he adhere? Yes, the Law given at Sinai. If you say, as you seem to be saying, that we are no longer bound to obey the Law given at Sinai (again, not to justify us, but as a standard of holiness), then tell me: Will you give me your address so I can come over to your house, murder you and your family, have sex with your pets, and then steal all your stuff? If not, why? We aren't bound to obey the Law anymore, right?

I'm pretty sure that this video counts as a GRAVEN IMAGE under the 2nd Commandment.

@MaD-hp9hq

3 жыл бұрын

Nonsense. The second is obviously closely linked with the first, and obviously refers to idol-making, not simple image-making, as Numbers 21 and the making of the Ark of the Covenant. If the meaning is not taken in context, it may even be said that the creation of the tablets with the 10 commandments themselves was a violation.

@MaD-hp9hq

3 жыл бұрын

Reading some of your other comments, now it makes sense. You're an internet atheist, or course you don't care about context.

@occamtherazor3201

3 жыл бұрын

@@MaD-hp9hq No, the tablets were written text, not a picture. MAKE NO GRAVEN IMAGE, of anything in heaven, on the earth, or beneath it. As in, a visual representation. Meaning, a godamn PICTURE.

@MaD-hp9hq

3 жыл бұрын

@@occamtherazor3201 So, in other words, you are going to ignore all that I said but the very last part, and get a righteous triggering as if you had absolutely rekt me. Also, what is "the tablets were written text" even supposed to mean? The objects upon which the text was written is the text itself? Think about what you are saying before you say it, I'd recommend. Your name alone isn't going to help you otherwise.

@MaD-hp9hq

3 жыл бұрын

@@occamtherazor3201 The Talmud says that the tablets were carved rectangles, and rectangles are a shape, and images of shapes are images, I'm pretty sure.

Every Christian is a theonomist 😂

Again...do you truly believe all 10 commandments of God, OR do you believe only 9 of them, abrogating the 4th commandment, as do most others in this day of Apostacy? You do know, I hope, that every aberration from the truth, is 'not of faith, and therefore 'sin'. I've read most of Rushdoony's books, and even he explains it away. Your turn.

@LAStreetPreacher

4 жыл бұрын

Michael the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ. We are not under the O. T. Sabbath law anymore but if you believe so then you need to watch this video because it might help you see things more clearly "The Sabbath under the Gospel" kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpic2MmBj5itd6Q.html

@hushai5154

4 жыл бұрын

@@LAStreetPreacher Christ is the Sabbath. He is our rest, Jesus did not abrogate the Sabbath because the Law cannot be abrogated. Keep up the good work brother.

@LanceJRoberts

4 жыл бұрын

Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath. We find our rest in him. All days are the same. If you rest in Christ you have kept the Sabbath.

@hushai5154

4 жыл бұрын

@@LanceJRoberts Might I add, that is not an abrogation of the Sabbath, but rather obedience to it in it's fullest meaning. We do not negate the forth commandment, but fully endorse it in Christ.

@LanceJRoberts

4 жыл бұрын

@@hushai5154 I think that Christ has fullfilled it just like he fulfilled the sacrifices and ceremonies. So yes, it is not binding under the New Covenant. Col 2:16 makes the point well.

Where is the moral law in the bible?

I think Theonomy has its positives, but they take them too far. I agree whole heartedly that we ought to as a nation consider God's law when we craft our own. I agree that we would be better as a people if we were more conscious of and obedient to God's law. But Jesus Christ did come to die to set us free from all those laws, and pay the price for our failing to follow them, and Theonomist Reconstructionists have too little gospel.

We are not saved by works, but by faith. But from faith we will show our works. We obey because we are saved. Now let me say something please. Jesus said he wasn't doing away with any law and told us to teach it and do it; Mathew 5:17-19; 23:3. We are grafted into Israel; Romans 11. There are no gentile gates in the New Jerusalem. You're apart of the common wealth of Israel upon belief, just like the Egyptians that crossed the Red Sea. No temple means no physical sacrifices. But we will do sacrifices again in the millennium becusebthere will be a temple; Ezek 44:24, Zechariah 14:16-21. This is not for forgiveness, it's a picture of sin that the Father wants us to understand. Paul said to keep the feasts with the new understanding; 1 Cor 5:8. Why would we stop gathering togther and preparing for the future fulfillment of these days? They are shadows of things to come (rehearsals); Colossians 2:17. Pretty much like dates with God. Christmas and Easter are based in pagan traditions which we are told not to partake in; 1st and 2nd commandment and Deuteronomy 18:9-14. The antichrist is called the lawless one. The same word for law in the NT is used where it quotes OT passages regarding Torah. The antichrist will oppose obedience to the true God and His instructions for our life. Sin is transgression of the Torah but if you commit the sins in ignorance you are pardoned but must repent upon realization; 1 John 3:4, Lev 5:17-18, 1 John 1:9 God wants us to call the sabbath a delight, Isiah 58:13 He considers pork an abomination just like homosexuality, Lev 7:21 We are told countless times to obey Him, John 14:15 Check out 119 ministries or look up "discovering your identity" for a blessing on your life. Thank you for your time, God be with you.

@JK-uo3pd

Жыл бұрын

We will be doing sacrifices in the millennium? Please explain with scripture.

@JustinHunterTCM

Жыл бұрын

@@JK-uo3pd Ezekiel 44:24 and Zechariah 14:16

But the Bible DOESN'T have a law against rape, except insofar as it is a property crime against the girl's father or husband.

@jesusislordsavior6343

3 жыл бұрын

Occam Therazor What do you call capital punishment? I know what you are talking about, nevertheless you seem to have neglected two important verses: (Deuteronomy 22:25-26) 'But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl, there is no sin in the girl worthy of death; for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.' The woman's personal integrity has been grossly violated. The trauma of the experience is acknowledge by equating rape with murder. This is NOT simply a case of property damage, where compensation may be paid. It is also more than a question of insult to the dignity of the prospective husband--------------and who can say that he should not feel hurt as well? By contrast, our MODERN secular courts with their adversarial system of 'justice' intimidate and re-victimize women. Do you realize how hard it is to nab the Jeffrey Epsteins and Bill Cosbys of this world? Many cases never make it to court because women are afraid to testify or blocked in their efforts by police. I'd say that our 'sexually liberated' society regards women in general as the legitimate prey of men in general. Whatever a man can get away with, goes. It's all about the APPEARANCE of righteousness.

Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. 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? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8? 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) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Watch the KZread videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

It is IMPOSSIBLE, for the ten commandments, to be Mosaic law. They didn't come from, nor through Moses. All others did.

@toddcote4904

2 жыл бұрын

You may want to read your Torah again. It was all God's law and Moses was the Mediator of it all. Hence the Mosiac law.

@eltonron1558

2 жыл бұрын

@@toddcote4904 Small problem. The commandments, didn't come through Moses. You are talking about the laws given to Moses, IN PRIVATE. Yes, they are lumped in with mosaic law, but the difference, is that Christ, recognizes them as ALL THE LAW, to be observed by Christianity, as they came from the very voice of God, and the entire 12 tribes HEARD HIM. DEUT. 4:9-15, 5:4 Thus, Christ, from the very beginning of his ministry, said; Matthew 4:4, 19:17, 22:36-40 Technically it's not mosaic law, but God's law. It's not my fault, the Israelites, rejected the commandments, and were condemned to spend 2 generations, wandering the desert, AFTER HEARING GODS VOICE.

I hope Doug you're not calling Jesus a liar? *_Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled_* BTW Doug, YOU are Israel. Israel isn't a land mass, Israel is a people.

@sovereigngrace9723

2 жыл бұрын

Did you even listen to the video? Wowzers

Notice how he doesn’t answer anything clearly, and immediately starts discussing definitions. Classic tactic of a narcissistic manipulator.

@CanonPress

5 жыл бұрын

We have a logic program you might be interested. "He who defines, wins." And he who doesn't...is massively unclear.

@leonrodgers9939

5 жыл бұрын

LoneWolf Ranger? Your name says it all. Your comment is so complete far removed from what took place in this discussion that it is ridiculous. You probably should go watch some cartoons or something on that level.

@michaelstanley4698

5 жыл бұрын

'Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of'. You don't learn that much about someone from a short video.

@michaelbabbitt3837

4 жыл бұрын

You mean his thoughtfulness with language is a sign of narcissism? With all due respect, I think you need a good look in the mirror.

@dbeebee

4 жыл бұрын

Did you listen to the video? He defined the terms and then gave a very clear and thorough answer.

Why do you call me Lord Lord has nothing to do with the law.