The NXR Podcast - THEOLOGY APPLIED - What Does Mike Winger Think About Theonomy？

00:00:00.000 Hi, welcome to another episode of Theology Applied.

00:00:02.240 I am your host, Pastor Joel Webbin

00:00:03.800 with Right Response Ministries.

00:00:05.380 In this episode, I was very privileged

00:00:07.500 to get to have a long conversation with Mike Winger.

00:00:11.360 Some of you guys are familiar with him.

00:00:12.880 He's got about half a million followers on YouTube,

00:00:15.020 so you've probably heard the name.

00:00:16.760 He's got a large audience.

00:00:17.900 The reason why I invited him to this conversation

00:00:19.800 is because Mike, I think, has a reputation, right?

00:00:23.440 Me and him have differences

00:00:24.440 on what we talk about in this episode,

00:00:26.220 but other things as well.

00:00:27.640 However, what I appreciate about Mike

00:00:29.640 is that he's not woke. He's not progressive. He's kind of in the realm of like Elisa Childers,

00:00:34.920 if you're familiar with her. I think conservative Christian, holding to orthodoxy, holding to the

00:00:40.180 inerrancy of scripture, those kinds of things, teaching some really good doctrinal practical

00:00:44.400 things, but also, also not really super conservative. And you guys who listen to me,

00:00:51.100 you know, I would be super conservative and I wear that as a badge of pride. I believe that

00:00:56.500 that's what the Bible teaches. I'm not doing it just to do it. I'm not trying to be conservative

00:00:59.800 just to be conservative. But I would be, you know, in the Doug Wilson and James White and Jeff Durbin

00:01:05.140 and, you know, like I'm over here and guys who like us don't always like Mike, but there's a

00:01:12.080 ton of Christians who are faithful and I think love the Lord who really like Mike and either

00:01:16.040 don't know anything about us or think that we're extreme. And so what I wanted to do is I wanted

00:01:20.820 to talk about theonomy, which tends to get a bad rap and tends to be viewed as an extreme

00:01:27.000 Christian view, an extreme doctrine. And I wanted to talk about theonomy, not just with Doug Wilson,

00:01:31.720 which I've done in the past. You can go listen, or with Jeff Durbin, which I've done in the past,

00:01:35.080 or with James White, which I've done in the past. But I wanted to talk about theonomy with

00:01:38.480 Mike Winger, the guy who's not progressive, but also not super far right. That guy, the guy who

00:01:45.760 is known, I think has a reputation in the Christian world, at least the Christian YouTube world,

00:01:49.560 of being a faithful and biblical,

00:01:53.060 but also moderate Christian thinker.

00:01:55.600 And I wanted to see,

00:01:56.880 what does Mike have to say about theonomy?

00:01:59.580 If you're curious, tune in.

00:02:01.420 Big news, really big news.

00:02:04.480 Our next Right Response Conference is in the works.

00:02:07.740 We've got a number of things already lined up and organized.

00:02:11.080 This is what we've got so far.

00:02:12.580 The whole conference, three days long

00:02:15.040 on post-millennialism and theonomy.

00:02:17.480 And the speakers, Dr. James White, Dr. Joseph Boot, Gary DeMar, and of course, yours truly, Pastor Joel Webin.

00:02:26.800 We've got a great lineup.

00:02:28.720 We've got great topics.

00:02:30.140 If you want to find out dates and location and registration and anything else, go and visit our website, rightresponseconference.com.

00:02:40.760 Rightresponseconference.com.

00:02:42.920 Applying God's word to every aspect of life.

00:02:46.480 This is Theology Applied.

00:02:52.300 Hi, welcome to another episode of Theology Applied.

00:02:54.800 I am your host, Pastor Joel Webman with Right Response Ministries, and I am very privileged

00:02:58.640 and pleased to have Mike Winger as a special guest on this episode.

00:03:02.920 Mike, welcome to the show.

00:03:04.200 Well, thanks for having me on, Joel.

00:03:05.520 I'm excited to talk to you today about theonomy.

00:03:08.060 Yeah, I'm excited too.

00:03:09.240 So the goal of this show for everybody watching is by the end of this show, Mike Winger is

00:03:14.280 going to declare his allegiance as a theonomist. He's going to invite theonomy into his heart.

00:03:20.320 And that's, no, that, I mean, that, that is kind of, you know, in a joking sense, I believe it's

00:03:25.360 right. And so with all things that I believe are right, I certainly want to be as persuasive as

00:03:30.580 possible in convincing other people with things that I think are biblically true. But, but the

00:03:34.460 biggest thing that I wanted to do in inviting Mike on the show was Mike has a reputation. You

00:03:38.940 have a reputation, Mike, I think within the Christian world, and especially within the

00:03:42.720 Christian YouTube world, which I'm kind of learning this world. It's a very interesting

00:03:46.760 world. But within this framework of all these people, I think they view you as, you've been

00:03:52.940 very outspoken against progressive Christianity, liberal Christianity. So you're known as being

00:04:00.360 thoroughly orthodox. But I think a lot of, in the same breath, a lot of people see you as being

00:04:06.200 reasonable. So they're like, Mike Winger, he's not wacky, he's not woke, he's not progressive,

00:04:11.940 but he's also, he's also, he's the kind of guy that I could, you know, that I could get behind.

00:04:19.140 He's not extreme or he's not, you know, so I think you're viewed as kind of this moderate

00:04:24.460 conservative instead of hard, you know, biblical thinker. And so I wanted to run some of these

00:04:30.180 ideas by you, these doctrines that I've embraced over the last few years and understanding God's

00:04:36.780 law and just have my audience your audience be able to hear your take does mike winger give this

00:04:43.220 a check mark or does mike winger the the moderate reasonable yet also biblical christian say uh no

00:04:49.640 that's that's extreme and way too far so that's that's kind of my idea for this episode yeah let

00:04:54.660 me let me share a few things though my own little caveats yeah one is i don't have a problem with

00:04:59.580 with signing up for something if it's like that that seems solidly biblical um sometimes though

00:05:04.120 someone's going to give me a thought and I go, well, I have to just, I have to marinate on that.

00:05:07.240 Like I just spend time on that. Even in my own studies, there's things where I, I'm convinced

00:05:11.280 of something upon first studying it. And then I think, well, I'm not going to teach it yet. Like

00:05:15.580 I need to just sit with this. And I think of other scriptures that are related, or I see it from a

00:05:20.100 different angle. And then I go, boy, I'm glad I was patient. So I want to be very patient about

00:05:23.800 that. But also, um, you know, I don't know much about theonomy and it's not really anywhere near,

00:05:28.660 you know, my scheduled study times. Like I've got so many other things I'm going to cover.

00:05:33.420 so this seemed like a great way to sort of learn about it a little bit almost it honestly this is

00:05:38.540 kind of fun for me like i'm gonna for once i'm not being asked to make a case for something i'm just

00:05:43.320 like listening to somebody else provide their explanation right there and some of your case

00:05:48.060 for this sort of stuff and so to me that that's interesting discussion is interesting theological

00:05:52.200 chat we can have but i will share with you my unfiltered thoughts about that stuff so i'm not

00:05:57.960 gonna try and play the fence i hate when people do that right when they won't tell you what they

00:06:02.480 really think. So, I won't do that. Cool. Thanks. All right. Well, so, okay. So, theonomy, just for

00:06:08.300 our viewers, your viewers, everybody who's not familiar with the topic, theonomy is just, it's a

00:06:13.260 combination of two words, theos and namos. Namos meaning law, theos. So, it's two Latin words.

00:06:19.420 It's God's law. And so, I, you know, I would advocate and say that every, you know, not just

00:06:24.920 a mere professing Christian or progressive Christian or somebody who, but every genuine

00:06:29.480 regenerate christian born again true blue christian um delights in the law of god now you have to

00:06:36.420 humor me a little bit here because you probably are aware i'm a calvinist and i know that you're

00:06:40.220 you're not last last time i checked but but you've you know you've been respectful towards that

00:06:45.660 doctrine but i am so i'm i'm going to look at that i'm gonna say all right you know once saved

00:06:49.240 always saved security of the believer um the one point in the tulip that everyone in the christian

00:06:54.200 world likes you know the one that they'll borrow not so much limited atonement but perseverance

00:06:57.580 of the saints. So if someone's saved, they're not losing their salvation. And they have this

00:07:02.420 new heart, malleable heart, softened, receptive to the things of God, the heart of stone taken

00:07:07.040 away. And that the Christian, not only are they secure in their salvation, but they have a genuine

00:07:12.200 desire to be pleasing to the Lord, right? And Jesus says, if you love me, you will obey my

00:07:17.820 commandments. So I'm working with the first premise being that theonomy is God's law. God's

00:07:24.440 law is a good thing it's not only the right thing but uh david delights in the law of god that it's

00:07:30.120 that it's good that it lends towards blessing and not just eternal blessing in the life to come

00:07:34.340 but that i and i would have this qualification ordinarily um obedience to god's law outward

00:07:40.300 obedience to the law of god will bring even temporal intangible blessings in this life to

00:07:45.980 varying degrees i say ordinarily because um it does depend what context you're in right you can

00:07:51.220 obey God's law in North Korea, and it may not bring some of those temporal blessings.

00:07:55.540 But in a nation like ours, that has remnants of Christianity and certain freedom and certain

00:08:02.040 measures of justice within our system and those kinds of things, the person who applies

00:08:07.440 the principles of Christ, even if they reject the person of Christ, they're unregenerate,

00:08:12.360 but they simply outwardly live according to God's laws, God will not be mocked.

00:08:17.620 a man reaps what he sows, a person who casts his seven, you know, bread upon the water. There's a

00:08:23.200 return. There's a tangible benefit. So, I see the law of God not only is the right, morally right

00:08:28.120 thing, but it's something that lends towards prosperity and blessing to varying degrees

00:08:32.860 ordinarily in this life. And the regenerate Christian desires to please the Lord and sees

00:08:38.520 that as a good thing. Thoughts? I guess for me to understand what you're saying here, I think I

00:08:44.720 I wanted to know what you mean by the phrase God's law and maybe some examples of what that includes and and how that is the same or different from, say, the law of Moses.

00:08:57.140 Right. Great question. So when I say God's law, I'm primarily in mind.

00:09:01.120 I'm thinking of a woman going outside of the camp for seven days when she's on. 0.66

00:09:05.460 No, I'm not. No. So thank you. 0.74

00:09:10.120 Thank you, because this is why it's helpful to have you on here, so I don't just assume certain things.

00:09:15.100 I know I'm being super basic.

00:09:16.140 I'm being super duper basic.

00:09:17.220 That's helpful.

00:09:17.720 Let's just start there, and then we'll move forward.

00:09:19.700 You're absolutely right.

00:09:20.460 So I'm coming from a Reformed tradition.

00:09:22.660 I'm a Reformed Baptist, and confessionally Reformed, not just Calvinistic Baptist, a Baptist who has adopted Reformed soteriology view of salvation, but confessionally Reformed is what I mean when I say Reformed.

00:09:33.880 So there's Westminster Reformed guys.

00:09:35.720 That's on the Presbyterian side of the aisle.

00:09:37.400 Lots of great brothers there.

00:09:38.520 I'm on the Baptistic side of the aisle, Reformed Baptist 1689 confession. In the confession on the

00:09:44.880 law of God, what you see both in the Westminster and the 1689 is that the law has three uses

00:09:51.280 within the Reformed understanding and three divisions. And the three divisions of the law

00:09:56.700 would be ceremonial, civil, and moral. Moral being synonymous with the Decalogue, the Ten

00:10:03.240 Commandments. And so we find the Ten Commandments in Exodus chapter 20. Obviously, they're reiterated

00:10:08.440 in multiple places throughout scripture, but the Ten Commandments would be God's moral law,

00:10:13.820 and the Reformed tradition is going to see God's moral law as eternal, that the law of God in

00:10:20.920 terms of his moral law, it did not enter into human history merely through Moses at Mount Sinai

00:10:29.480 on tablets of stone, but it actually is eternal, and it first enters human history. It's eternal

00:10:35.740 in the mind of God. God is law-keeping himself, but it comes in human history in the garden with

00:10:42.980 Adam and Eve. And so the Reformed perspective is that to Adam was given 11 commandments,

00:10:47.840 not merely one. He was given 10 moral commandments written on his heart and one positive precept.

00:10:55.740 In addition to that, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So that if Adam

00:11:00.500 did not eat of the fruit, but he murdered his wife Eve, the covenant of works between God and

00:11:04.900 adam still would have been broken any any thoughts on that um so when you say i'm a theonomist is

00:11:13.420 is i'm getting uh i'm just not clear on how to distinguish my your current explanation from what

00:11:21.920 every christian already holds right that's what i'm trying to do here is to show how common it is

00:11:26.860 go ahead let's tease it out a little bit right so um would you suggest that a theonomist is a person

00:11:31.580 who believes that um christians should obey god's moral laws because that obviously would be

00:11:38.200 something that would be indistinguishable from probably every christian group out there

00:11:42.120 you yes there's obviously in on in writing yes there is so there is more specificity but but

00:11:48.660 to start with that point um you're right every christian says we should obey the ten commandments

00:11:54.060 but but not really and and i'll push back you know just a little bit there um antinomianism

00:11:59.680 I think is one of the most pervasive, pervasive false doctrines in the church today. So many

00:12:06.000 people are afraid of, oh, that's a Pharisee or legalism. Legalism is one ditch on the side of

00:12:11.240 the road. Antinomianism is the other. And I think that American evangelicalism at large is far more

00:12:18.900 frequently falling into this ditch of antinomianism than it is legalism. So that being said, I think

00:12:24.680 sadly, what I've described so far, you're right, is really, it's not some special brand of

00:12:30.720 Christianity known as, you know, theonomy, but it's really just Christianity. Sadly, though,

00:12:35.320 I think even just Christianity has become a little bit few and far between these days. But I'll add

00:12:42.940 to that, with the two commandments, even within faithful Orthodox Christianity, there would

00:12:47.220 certainly be a spectrum of debate about the Sabbath, the fourth commandment.

00:12:51.140 right and i i guess i guess that then we're getting down to really saying god's moral law

00:12:56.400 is inclusive of the 10 commandments um not just that there's overlap but it's actually inclusive

00:13:03.560 the these commandments now i'm trying to think about how you expressed it you said

00:13:06.740 those 10 commandments were known to adam and they're eternal known in the mind of god first

00:13:11.780 and then in human history and create the created order uh those 10 commandments didn't just come

00:13:16.840 to Israel at the moment of Mount Sinai and Moses, but they were written on Adam's heart. And we

00:13:21.080 would look at Romans chapter two, Romans one, natural revelation. We can see, you know, certain

00:13:26.820 attributes of God can be known, clearly known, even to the Gentile, the unregenerate person by 1.00

00:13:31.420 what he has made. So that's natural revelation, but natural law, and I'm not using it in the John 0.97

00:13:36.300 Lockean kind of way, but natural law in a theological biblical way, that's not a natural

00:13:41.380 revelation romans 1 natural law romans 2 that the gentiles are a law unto themselves paul says

00:13:47.100 because their own conscience would testify against them even if they've never received a single page

00:13:52.240 of of the torah or anything like that they instinctively know that murder is wrong and

00:13:57.200 therefore um are are morally culpable and but you would include the entirety of the 10 command i

00:14:02.900 think this is where maybe me and you at least the starting point would be different i would say

00:14:06.680 there's overlap with the Ten Commandments, so like murder, theft, even idolatry. I think that

00:14:13.660 because God is revealed in creation, that it would be a natural understanding, an innate human

00:14:19.880 understanding that we'd be accountable for, just as scripture says, they're without excuse,

00:14:23.780 right? Romans 1. So like, you know, idolatry, but when you get to say the Sabbath, probably the

00:14:29.300 biggest dividing point, maybe we could talk about that a bit, but my view is that the Ten Commandments

00:14:34.400 were not there overlap the moral law they don't represent god's sort of overarching moral law such

00:14:41.000 that adam would have known in my and i'm willing to change my mind but such that adam would have

00:14:46.240 known that he was supposed to rest on the sabbath um yeah i i think so i think go ahead sorry i'm

00:14:53.500 sorry okay no no go ahead but this helps like here's a here's like a a point where oh so there's

00:14:58.960 isn't just overlap with the 10 commandments is maybe even the pinnacle representation of god's

00:15:05.660 moral law yes and it's all inclusively necessary and known to all mankind intuitively or in some

00:15:12.280 in some natural fashion um yep that would be the reformed views that the 10 commandments is

00:15:16.860 synonymous with the moral law it is the moral law and and to further um confirm what you're saying

00:15:22.240 The Ten Commandments is, we would use the phrase summary law.

00:15:27.500 And so basically, so you have, so ceremonial law, civil law, moral law, the civil law that

00:15:32.660 God gives to Israel, both the Westminster and the 1689 would say that the civil law

00:15:37.560 was uniquely given to Israel in that dispensation, and that doesn't make you a dispensationalist,

00:15:41.920 but just that time period under that old covenant given to the nation state of Israel, and it

00:15:47.180 was unique to Israel and that it has been abrogated.

00:15:49.700 Now, the word abrogated is helpful because in all three divisions of the law, moral,

00:15:54.640 which again, I'm saying is synonymous with the Ten Commandments, and that the Decalogue,

00:15:58.360 the Ten Commandments, is summary law of all the morals that God has given to people and

00:16:02.840 written on their hearts in every time period, every tribe, every tongue, every language

00:16:08.140 that God has given his moral law, which is the Ten Commandments, a summary law for what

00:16:12.300 God demands of people.

00:16:14.680 The thing about the civil law, that's moral law, Ten Commandments, that's eternal.

00:16:18.620 that comes before the nation state of Israel is organized, and at last, it's still here today.

00:16:25.640 Now, Jesus, what's important to understand is Jesus fulfilled all three divisions of the law,

00:16:30.080 the whole of the law, moral, ceremonial, and civil. But the moral law, it's important to

00:16:36.400 understand Jesus fulfilling the law and Jesus abrogating the law are distinct. Those are two

00:16:43.880 different things. So, the Reformed tradition, 1689 and Westminster would say that Jesus actually

00:16:48.900 abrogate, he fulfilled, but also abrogated the civil code given to Israel. But then it

00:16:54.140 specifically says in the confessions, the general equity still remaining. And that's what the

00:17:00.260 Apostle Paul does. And I appreciate the Apostle Paul doing this as a pastor who is paid vocationally.

00:17:06.520 He's taking a civil code about oxen. Do not muzzle the ox when he treads the grain, but then

00:17:12.580 takes that civil code and he gets down to the general equity, the moral fabric, the blueprint

00:17:19.640 morality underneath it, the principle. And he says, and this applies to why you should pay

00:17:26.100 someone if they're working hard and preaching the word of God. And so that's the apostle Paul

00:17:30.920 saying, okay, it's not a one-to-one ratio of the civil code in Israel is now still the civil code

00:17:35.620 in America. I don't have a border around my roof, but the general, what you're getting at

00:17:41.940 in this understanding, and this is kind of a general equity theonomist, so there's a spectrum

00:17:45.680 theonomist disagree, but a general equity theonomist, what he's trying to say is this,

00:17:50.140 that the moral law of God makes sense, it's eternal, it's right, and it's good, but also

00:17:54.160 even the civil law of God is not arbitrary. And I think there's so many Christians today

00:17:58.720 that think that, oh, you know, okay, maybe the Ten Commandments, I don't know about the fourth

00:18:02.460 commandment or the Sabbath, but all these civil codes, God was just kind of a stickler. He gave

00:18:07.040 so many different rules and regulations to Israel and what they're saying, although they may not

00:18:12.680 verbalize it exactly, but they really in their heart of hearts think that God is arbitrary in

00:18:17.780 his law giving. And so what we're saying is, no, no, no, there was a general equity behind every

00:18:23.820 single one of those hundreds of civil codes and the one-to-one ratio of apply that civil code in

00:18:28.540 Israel and now apply it in America. That's not how we do it, but there is a reason, a reason behind

00:18:34.120 each civil code and that is eternal and the reason why the general equity of the civil code

00:18:38.780 still stands today is because the general equity of every civil code is actually one of the 10

00:18:43.800 commandments it is the moral law it would seem to me that um that would create a lot of room for

00:18:51.200 varied interpretations of how government should be run in that realm of oh you know here's the

00:18:56.900 one-to-one correspondence of what i think is the principle behind this law although i would say

00:19:01.720 let me just say, here's some things I totally agree on, right? Jesus fulfilled the entirety

00:19:05.040 of the law. Um, I even agree that it can be helpful to talk about civil ceremonial, you know,

00:19:09.760 these different branches of the law, um, and moral. Um, and, but, but I also would see them

00:19:15.520 as overlapping in all sorts of ways. And probably a lot of people would, I imagine. Um, but the,

00:19:21.480 oh, and I agree with the principle. I do agree that with the old Testament, we do principalize

00:19:25.020 things. We don't, we don't turn them into rules that we follow today in the same fashion, but we

00:19:30.020 do try to understand the the reason behind it and so like if so for example if the reason behind the

00:19:35.920 ceremonial law was to point to christ well then the reason is to point to christ that there you

00:19:39.840 go if the reason behind it was to um prevent abuses and um and the the the the manipulation

00:19:47.640 and abuse of the powerful over the week or something then we recognize that that's a

00:19:52.580 principle we should incorporate in our our culture and stuff like that but i don't try to do it one

00:19:59.040 to one exactly um personally i i don't and i don't i don't know that that's just because it's

00:20:05.600 done sometimes does that mean it becomes this sort of thing where i do go throughout the entire

00:20:09.420 old testament law and i basically write new laws for a government trying to find one-to-one

00:20:14.380 correspondence of something right from each law that which is kind of what king alfred did

00:20:20.100 in great britain that's where we get the whole concept of case law first originated with king

00:20:25.180 alfred and then and then later on that that's ultimately became the the bedrock and the fabric

00:20:30.160 behind the american experiment was this case law system um so and and and what i mean by that you

00:20:36.560 know the civil code given to israel would say is case law the 10 commandments the moral law um we

00:20:42.020 would say is summary law so you have this big summary that's the general equity the big principle

00:20:46.840 of god's morality his standard his transcendent universal holy standard for all people in all

00:20:52.520 times and all places. And then case law from the summary law, case law that has its root in this

00:21:00.500 transcendent moral law. And so, in that sense, it's universal, but it does have particular

00:21:05.120 applications based off of culture and time and place and technology, right? So, a precipice

00:21:12.660 around the roof, people say, well, we don't do that in America. And I would say, well, wait a

00:21:16.300 second. I don't know many two-story houses with a balcony that don't have a border. And the only

00:21:22.160 reason we don't have the border on the roof is because we don't hang out on the roof in israel

00:21:25.560 you know what i mean but we still have the principle of of uh high up places where someone

00:21:31.840 can fall needs some kind of of walling um to to esteem human life and the and and the principle

00:21:38.020 the general equity roots back in terms of the 10 commandments primarily that would be the sixth

00:21:41.940 commandment thou shalt not murder stated in the positive sense thou shalt esteem and protect the

00:21:47.040 sanctity of human life created in the image of God. And we could apply that even to our technology.

00:21:52.860 So getting a same transcendent principle, universal principle, but with relevant and

00:21:59.100 different applications based off of things such as technology and cultures, we could talk about

00:22:04.060 speed limits or seatbelts. Now, I would bifurcate speed limits and seatbelts because seatbelts,

00:22:10.860 I think that if I'm driving in a car by myself, I think that I have a right not to wear a seatbelt.

00:22:16.600 Now, I do wear a seatbelt because I'm a law-abiding citizen, and that's just a certain

00:22:21.240 level that I would say technically is tyranny, but I don't have to stick it to the man every

00:22:25.320 single day of my life.

00:22:26.240 There are some things I can just play along and be submissive in that regard, and it doesn't

00:22:31.340 go against my conscience or anything like that or cause me to compromise my faith in

00:22:34.760 Christ.

00:22:35.560 But the speed limit is different than the safety belt because the speed limit is protecting

00:22:39.020 others, right?

00:22:40.300 And so just like a precipice on your roof.

00:22:42.360 And so, anyways, my point is a varied application based off of time and place and technology and culture, but a transcendent universal principle underneath.

00:22:53.320 So, for now, I just want to kind of understand and comprehend the view, and then maybe I can offer some pushback.

00:23:00.220 Great, yeah, yeah, great.

00:23:01.300 You know, in ways that would help me understand it even better, or maybe understand it where the biblical justifications that you, what you'd see as biblical justifications.

00:23:09.020 So, first, just understanding.

00:23:10.340 um so i see the ten commandments as like kind of kind of verbatim like this is should be enshrined

00:23:17.960 not only in the hearts of every christian but in every government yeah because that's that's a

00:23:22.380 layer that's in here we haven't oh you haven't really pointed it out but right in every government

00:23:26.580 should have the ten commandments as part of their laws yes sir and okay and in addition to that

00:23:33.120 there's then let's look at the rest of the law outside the ten commandments we're going to say

00:23:37.640 the civil law um we have principles we can draw from that we're going to say the ceremonial laws

00:23:44.100 that is stuff that's fulfilled in christ and points to christ and we're probably not

00:23:47.800 going to find principles or at least as many right in so with the ceremonial law i would say that

00:23:52.960 there um so and this is what's difficult right so i think the three division of the law uh phrase

00:23:58.860 that that uh that that language three divisions of law is is vital and and necessary and helpful

00:24:04.880 for the most part. It falls apart at some level. It's not perfect language because, okay, so

00:24:11.800 for instance, there are certain ceremonial laws that I've got some theonomic friends that were

00:24:18.320 using that as part of their biblical argument against when it came to some of the civil tyranny

00:24:25.240 that we saw during the last two years related to COVID. And so some of the forced lockdowns or

00:24:31.840 you know, being quarantined and these kinds of things, pointing to certain cleansing laws

00:24:40.020 that are technically actually ceremonial laws. The priest has to go and look at the house and

00:24:44.940 declare it clean or not. And it's a ceremonial law. It's actually dealing with, because why does

00:24:51.480 the priest do it? Why doesn't Fauci do it? You know, like, well, one, the priest, you could

00:24:54.840 probably trust more than Fauci. But beyond that, it's because it's spiritual. It's religious.

00:25:00.480 It's a cleansing ceremonial law.

00:25:02.780 But in it, though, there also is the God who gives that law has moral reasons.

00:25:09.540 And the God who gives that law also understands leprosy and understands science and disease and pathogens and the way that they spread.

00:25:16.940 And so you can actually look at some of these laws and say, but is there something from the most high God that we can learn who understands sickness better than we do and blah, blah, blah?

00:25:26.680 you know but but then again it's like but how far can you stretch them because this was technically

00:25:31.240 a ceremonial law and and it may be good for leprosy is it good for covid you know and and

00:25:37.760 those kinds of so anyways i say all that to to agree with you and saying that it does get a bit

00:25:42.680 hairy at times because the three divisions of the law i think is helpful and i think covers 98 percent

00:25:48.980 of of most laws that we can look at in the old testament so yeah that that clearly is a civil

00:25:53.340 code yes that clearly is a transcendent moral principle yes that clearly is um you know like

00:25:58.080 a woman on her period um but those kinds of things but then there also is some of the moral reasons

00:26:03.040 like like you know back in the day if you're not good if you don't have some of the the sanitation

00:26:08.160 and high heat cooking mechanisms and all the things that we have then yeah pork will kill you

00:26:13.860 you know and so maybe there you know what i mean so there are moral reasons but that these dietary

00:26:19.100 restrictions and cleansing laws are first and foremost ceremonial. And we're saying Jesus

00:26:23.720 fulfilled that. And when we use the word abrogated, just for the record on the ceremonial law,

00:26:28.800 there is a sense in which some theonomists like Rushduni and these guys, they said, well,

00:26:33.520 there is a sense in which the ceremonial law, it's not like God changed, right? Behold,

00:26:37.340 I am the Lord, I changeth not. The ceremonial law continues in the sense that God is a thrice

00:26:42.480 holy God and he demands that his people be clean. But the reason why it is abrogated in a sense,

00:26:49.880 it is effectively abrogated, is not because God's cleansing laws no longer apply, but because

00:26:57.360 Christ was such a sufficient and perfect final sacrifice and such a superior high priest,

00:27:06.000 not in the order of Aaron, but in the order of Melchizedek, forever high priest. And because

00:27:09.500 christ has entered the heavenly temple not the earthly temple made with human hands but but the

00:27:14.180 substance of these shadows that we saw in the old covenant because christ has fulfilled the

00:27:19.180 ceremonial laws so well and so finally um the ceremonial laws in a sense we could say do continue

00:27:26.700 we just don't have to do anything about them anymore because they've all been done

00:27:29.660 if that makes sense so i think i understand yeah so okay um keep me on track i feel like you're

00:27:38.540 Helping bring us back to, okay, but what about the autonomy, Joel?

00:27:42.400 This is my learning process.

00:27:43.960 Yeah, no, it's good.

00:27:44.620 It's good.

00:27:45.280 Which, you know, I just kind of keep walking around an issue until I go, I can put it all in compartments and understand it better.

00:27:51.840 So, you've got the moral law, which is 100% of the Ten Commandments is an essential part of the moral law.

00:28:00.860 But you would say there's moral laws that spill out into other things that are throughout the law.

00:28:06.980 like uh to to lie with a beast right that's not one of the ten commandments it has its root

00:28:12.900 ultimately and thou shall not commit adultery the seventh commandment um but it's not specifically

00:28:17.620 one of the ten commandments that you can't lie with a beast um yeah so yeah but that would be

00:28:22.340 an example and then you have these but it seems like that whole area of of for theonomists would 0.99

00:28:28.020 be this very fuzzy area because if you were just following the law the way the jews did 0.60

00:28:32.180 it'd just be really straightforward right i mean even even even there is they historically made 0.99

00:28:37.880 this radically complicated but um but it would be fairly straightforward from a basic perspective

00:28:43.060 right when you're not trying to like parse difficult cases when you're just looking at

00:28:46.980 the basics it's like yeah it's all right there i just do exactly what it says it'd be straightforward

00:28:50.380 but hard because there's so many oh yeah but but simple in the sense that it could all be

00:28:55.680 easily known and wouldn't require any serious thought right yeah now what do you guys do with

00:29:01.540 For example, a law about Israel or about the people who are under the law traveling to Jerusalem every year for various feasts and feasts in general.

00:29:13.840 What's your perspective on that?

00:29:15.720 So, feasts, you know, seven main feasts in Israel's annual calendar, the Feast of Booze, you know, and then you have the Day of Atonement and Passover and all these things.

00:29:23.360 We would say all that is belonging to the ceremonial law.

00:29:25.880 So, it's been fulfilled in Christ.

00:29:27.660 So, we would say that Christ has brought us near.

00:29:29.340 Like every single one of those things we could look and say, and here's the deeper truth.

00:29:33.100 That's the shadow.

00:29:33.900 Here's the substance.

00:29:34.640 That's the shadow.

00:29:35.360 So like I need to travel, you know, this Mecca pilgrimage, you know, to go to Jerusalem,

00:29:39.300 the holy city.

00:29:40.560 What we have entered, we've been seated with Christ in heavenly places.

00:29:44.660 We, you know, he has brought us near.

00:29:46.400 We can now boldly approach the throne, not just the throne of David in Jerusalem at a

00:29:50.420 temple, but the throne of God, because it's a throne of grace now, no longer any condemnation.

00:29:54.980 So all those kinds of things, feasts, booths, day of atonement, dove offerings, grain offerings, and cleansing rituals and practices and dietary restrictions.

00:30:06.840 Christ himself even said, we have that parenthetical statement in the gospel narratives, it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth.

00:30:15.440 And thus, he declared all foods clean.

00:30:18.320 And then we have a reiteration of that, speaking about the Gentiles, but also reiterating the basic, you know, the surface level principle of dietary restrictions being removed with Acts chapter 10 and Peter, you know, and the sheet from heaven, take and eat, kill and eat. 0.62

00:30:34.220 So, yeah, so that would, we would place that underneath the ceremonial category.

00:30:39.360 Okay.

00:30:40.500 And circumcision, also ceremonial?

00:30:42.980 Yep. 0.92

00:30:43.500 Circumcision would be, yes.

00:30:44.720 that would be a ceremonial. Again, you know, so 98% of this three division of the law, I think

00:30:51.920 really helpful, really accurate. But there is this, you know, no pun intended, but there's

00:30:57.600 with circumcision that bleeds over a little bit, you know, that there's, you know, some of the

00:31:01.800 moral is over here and this and that. And so, so again, there may be some good sanitation reasons,

00:31:07.880 right? Not just the, so it is first and foremost, circumcision, what category? It's a ceremonial

00:31:13.480 deal. It's been fulfilled in Christ and abrogated. So no, so you're not in sin if you don't

00:31:19.980 circumcise your son, which I'm about to, we're about to have our fourth child, my first boy,

00:31:23.900 and we plan to circumcise him, but not so that we can be pleasing to the Lord, but simply because

00:31:31.900 that's what I know and that's my tradition. And I think there's some sanitary practices in that,

00:31:40.540 and that's just what we're going to do so yeah okay and then let's um let me ask you a question

00:31:48.300 would you say and i know this is going to be like 101 stuff to you so it's great it's great again it

00:31:52.780 just helps just just kind of asking and hearing you talk helps me understand this stuff better

00:31:56.000 what would you say about the phrase uh we are not under the law would you agree with that phrase

00:32:01.280 absolutely absolutely it's a bible phrase i agree with it i agree with it and then how do you

00:32:07.980 parse that out like with your perspective that we actually in some sense we're under god's law

00:32:15.940 right which which is reflected in the law of israel right throughout its various parts so

00:32:23.340 how do you how do you parse that yeah that's a great question and that one gets brought up

00:32:28.000 pretty often that you know we're not under the law um my my friend actually just texted me today

00:32:33.760 um about you know being uh so so first corinthians chapter nine because he was asking me this

00:32:39.720 question uh first corinthians chapter nine verse 21 and i know that's not the exact text you're

00:32:45.200 thinking of but i think the principle is there and i think it's a helpful text so let's look at

00:32:49.600 first corinthians chapter nine verse 21 i'm grabbing it okay okay all right um i'm using

00:33:03.060 the ESV, verse 21. Let's back it. We'll just start with 19. So for though I am free from all,

00:33:14.640 and he's talking about from all men, not all commandments at this point, but the all I think

00:33:19.520 is referring to people and the certain customs and traditions and regulations they may have.

00:33:25.260 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all that I might win more of them. 0.62

00:33:30.180 to the Jews, I became as a Jew in order to win Jews. And I think he's talking about the Mosaic 0.93

00:33:35.700 law there. I think he's talking about even ceremonial laws, recognizing I'm not actually

00:33:39.800 under those laws, but I'm going to behave as though I am, as not to offend, that I might

00:33:44.120 actually win Jews. That they wouldn't be able to so easily, before even hearing the gospel 1.00

00:33:48.700 proclamation, write me off as a blasphemer or profaner. I'm going to play ball a little bit

00:33:55.480 so that I can actually make a persuasive gospel proclamation be heard. To those under the law,

00:34:01.780 and I think that's just reiterated, to the Jews, and now he's just saying again, I think,

00:34:04.960 to the Jews, but saying it another way, aka those guys who are under the law,

00:34:09.900 I became as one under the law, though not being myself under the law, that I might win those

00:34:16.500 under the law. So Paul just said in verse 20, he said, to the ones who are under the law, aka

00:34:22.320 Judaism, the Jews, I became, I behaved as though I were under the law that I might be persuasive

00:34:31.480 and win some of them. But now verse 21, he says, to those outside the law, I think he's now talking

00:34:35.740 about Gentiles, I became as one outside of the law. But then notice, this is so cool in the

00:34:40.600 parenthetical statement here, he says, not being outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ

00:34:46.820 that I might win those outside of the law. So Paul just said, though, not being myself under

00:34:52.520 the law, verse 20. And then he says, not being outside of the law, but under the law of Christ.

00:34:57.940 So right there we have, I think that that goes to my argument of divisions of the law. There's

00:35:02.620 at least two different kinds of laws here. And maybe you could argue three, law of God and law

00:35:07.680 of Christ. Is there a distinction there between those two? But you have this one law that doesn't

00:35:13.400 give us a law of blank. It just says under the law, verse 20. And Paul is not underneath that

00:35:21.100 law. But then there's this higher law, transcendent law of God that he says, I am under. And I would

00:35:28.160 argue that that is synonymous with the law of Christ, that the law of Christ is the law of God.

00:35:33.340 And I think most specifically when he says, well, then why just say law of Christ or say law of God?

00:35:37.920 I think that what the apostle is doing is he's saying the law of God, and he's speaking of the

00:35:41.320 moral law, the 10 commandments, the Decalogue, Exodus 20, when he says law of Christ, I think

00:35:46.100 he's referring primarily to Christ saying, when he says the greatest commandment, Matthew 22,

00:35:51.540 37 through 40, where that you should love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.

00:35:55.700 And the second greatest commandment is like it, that you should love your neighbor as yourself.

00:35:58.900 And again, within reformed thought and other traditions, Lutheran and other traditions as

00:36:02.580 well, they would say that these two commandments, the greatest and second greatest commandment,

00:36:06.440 love God and love neighbor that Christ gives are really just two tables of the 10 commandments.

00:36:11.180 The first four of the Ten Commandments deal with how to love the Lord your God, and the

00:36:16.140 next six of the Ten Commandments, starting with Commandment 5 through 10, deal with how

00:36:19.820 to love your neighbor as yourself.

00:36:21.000 And I think that's what Paul's getting at, is he's saying, so I'm not under the law

00:36:24.700 in one kind of law.

00:36:26.780 So there's some kind of law that Paul's not under, but he's going to subject himself 0.96

00:36:30.900 anyways for the sake of winning the Jews. 0.99

00:36:33.420 And then there's this other law that when he's with the Gentiles, those who do not have 0.88

00:36:38.760 that one kind of law that he's actually not under, he's still going to behave even among the Gentiles 0.83

00:36:43.720 as though he's under this other law, because there's one law he's always under, no matter 0.66

00:36:47.640 what, and that is the law of God, which is also synonymous with the law of Christ. And I think

00:36:52.020 he's talking about the 10 commandments, the moral law. I think he's bifurcating the ceremonial law

00:36:57.000 and the moral law. That's my point. And so when he says we're not under the law, the text that

00:37:01.220 you're referring to, I would say two things. One, I think there's a reference to ceremonial law,

00:37:05.260 but but but in that text not so much in that text i i i think and if you can find that text for me i

00:37:11.020 you know i we can look at it but um if i could find a text that was what the one that you first

00:37:15.780 asked uh i'm uh not under the law i think there's another text this is we are no longer under it's

00:37:21.320 roman 7 i think i believe um but but in that text i i don't think the primary um uh interpretation

00:37:28.880 of what the apostle is getting at i'm pretty sure it's paul i i don't think he's actually saying i'm

00:37:33.940 we're not under the law, meaning the ceremonial code given to Israel. I think in that one,

00:37:39.580 he's actually saying the moral law. But I think in that sense, he's talking about being under the

00:37:44.440 law in terms of as judge, that we're no longer under the judgment of the law. So, I think that

00:37:52.080 in that instance, he's saying we no longer, because Christ has been judged for us, Christ

00:37:58.560 has been judged as a lawbreaker, as our substitute, as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the

00:38:03.220 world. So we're no longer under law, but under grace. So in terms of God's view of us, in terms

00:38:08.420 of God's perspective of me, I'm righteous, right? Jesus says, you will not enter the kingdom unless

00:38:13.820 your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. And any Protestant, truly regenerate Christian, 0.53

00:38:19.680 if we ask them, they may not know this answer, but this is the correct answer. If we said,

00:38:24.320 does your righteousness surpass that of the Pharisees? The correct answer is, yes, sir, 0.88

00:38:28.540 It does infinitely. So why? Because I've been clothed in the perfect, pure, spotless righteousness

00:38:34.400 of Jesus Christ by grace alone through faith. And, and so, you know what I mean? So I think

00:38:38.580 Paul saying, I think that's what he's getting at with. We're no longer under the law as our judge,

00:38:43.960 but we're under grace. Christ has been judged for us, but I don't think he's saying,

00:38:50.220 and therefore the law has no relevance. So here's an interesting thing. Boy,

00:38:56.160 I wish I had 10 minutes to form this thought before saying it out loud.

00:39:01.160 Okay, so, you know, there's kind of a hermeneutical principle of like, you know, just interpreting scripture, of interpreting a word is that you don't want to add, you want to make sure you keep the meaning of the word, what was intended by the author.

00:39:14.880 One way to do that is to, you know, maybe make a mistake on that is to add more specificity than what they meant.

00:39:21.220 That's true.

00:39:21.540 So like, okay, being a Calvary Chapel guy, my whole history has been very much Calvary Chapel.

00:39:27.160 They did this with the word dunamis all the time, right?

00:39:29.140 In the Greek dunamis, which is just power, right?

00:39:32.180 You know, power will come upon you.

00:39:33.640 And I heard, and I don't hear it anymore.

00:39:35.240 Guys, I don't hear them continue to do it.

00:39:36.700 But it was, there was like a season where I kept hearing it from every pastor.

00:39:39.600 And they'd be like, dunamis is where we get our word dynamite.

00:39:42.740 They mean dynamite power.

00:39:44.240 And of course, this is a big blunder.

00:39:46.600 A dynamite didn't exist just because it sounds like the word dynamite.

00:39:49.920 Or even if the word dynamite comes from it hundreds and hundreds of years later, it doesn't, it's not relevant to the first century meaning.

00:39:57.780 And it just means ability.

00:39:58.960 So I remember looking up every usage of the word dunamis in the, in the new Testament and going, Hey, it just means ability.

00:40:03.840 Like you could be like, my wife's like, do you have the dunamis to open this jar of pickles?

00:40:09.060 You know?

00:40:09.400 And I'm like, yeah, sure.

00:40:10.380 It's not dynamite power, right?

00:40:11.980 It's just ability.

00:40:12.500 Anyway, all that to say, good example.

00:40:14.700 Yeah. 0.59

00:40:14.800 But with the first Corinthians nine passage, it seems like you take law in the first instance, when he says to the Jews, he became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews to those who were under the law as under the law. 0.52

00:40:26.700 And in there, you're taking law in that very Jewish sense of you're under the law of Moses in its totality, in its plain sense.

00:40:34.020 um and then the next passage to those who are without law as without law not being without

00:40:42.220 law toward god and that that one right there the not being without law toward god you're

00:40:48.180 interpreting as moral law which is a segment or a part of that old testament law yeah so that's a

00:40:56.040 pretty specific interpretation of that phrase law yeah that it is that i'm i'm i'm a little

00:41:01.420 suspect so what what what trans that's fine what translation are you using because because the way

00:41:05.720 you just read that parenthetical statement in verse 21 is different than than the esv that i

00:41:10.140 use sorry that was i was i just i didn't even realize i was on new king james but if if i look

00:41:14.420 at the esv he says though not myself um where are we here oh not being outside the law of god

00:41:22.700 but under the law of christ now what's interesting is in the in the greek there is just animas

00:41:29.080 one word that means like without law i mean like you know to negate and namas which is law right

00:41:35.760 so which you know of course i'm saying this for the for the sake of everybody listening

00:41:39.100 but it's interesting that in the greek it's that he says to those who were an animas i became as

00:41:46.540 animas not being animas they you right not being outside the law of god but under the law of christ

00:41:56.560 So the only time it's a different word is when it's under the law of Christ, which is en-namas, means like in the law of Christ.

00:42:07.020 And when Paul elsewhere talks about the law of Christ, he seems to be talking, and we don't have time for the whole study,

00:42:11.740 but it seems to be talking, to my knowledge, about the law of love one another.

00:42:16.360 And you mentioned, this connects to, you were thinking along these lines, I think, in some sense, because you mentioned like the two tablets of the law.

00:42:22.840 Right.

00:42:22.940 love the lord your god and love yeah when jesus says uh to love god and love your neighbor in

00:42:28.760 this this compromise it seems he was saying this this encompasses the law and the prophets like

00:42:33.980 everything the heart of all the instruction he definitely says yeah matthew 22 verse 40

00:42:39.040 specifically right after saying here's the greatest commandment the same greatest command

00:42:41.860 and then he says all the law and the prophets you're right all the law and the prophets

00:42:46.020 depend on these two commandments um which is to say my point and all that this is why i wish i

00:42:51.880 had a few minutes to like figure out how to explain this better is um that seems to be when

00:42:57.580 jesus says loving is the law i don't think he meant the ten commandments is you know sort of

00:43:05.200 this eternal law because it represents these two sides of loving god and loving man he was saying

00:43:09.960 something bigger and and more broad than that and so i don't want to narrow the law of christ phrase

00:43:16.140 down so that I interpret it as Paul saying, I'm still under the moral law of the Old Testament

00:43:22.160 found in the commands to Moses. I think he meant I'm under this, love your neighbor as yourself,

00:43:28.220 love God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, which is more broad and less specific than that.

00:43:32.840 Gotcha. And so the reason why I would push back on that, that totally makes sense. And

00:43:36.480 the reason why I would disagree with that is, so for instance, just the last two years would be a

00:43:41.440 great example. Love your neighbor, love your neighbor, love your neighbor, love your neighbor,

00:43:44.340 said by Francis Collins and said by Tim Keller and said by, you know, everybody in the church.

00:43:49.140 And so this is what I would say. G.K. Chesterton, he had a quote where he said, you know, if man

00:43:54.740 will not have 10 commandments, he will have 10,000. And so you're saying, I don't want to

00:43:58.960 narrow it down, but I think that's part of the beauty of the Lord and the mercy of the Lord to

00:44:01.980 us is that the Lord actually does narrow these things down. And that's the beauty of his word

00:44:06.840 and specificity and clarity and simply divine revelation is that God doesn't leave us to the

00:44:13.160 whims of man's interpretation and, and anything that, and everything that could possibly. And so,

00:44:18.380 so what happens, my point is this, I think we need, I think it cannot be so broad as love,

00:44:25.040 God, love people, right? Every church's billboard, you know, love, God, love people. And that's a

00:44:28.480 good billboard in the sense that it's a, it's a biblical thing. Love, God, love people is,

00:44:32.640 they're talking about what, what Jesus said, love the Lord, your God, and love your neighbor as

00:44:35.860 yourself. So that comes from Christ. That comes from the scripture. But the question that we all

00:44:40.560 experienced with COVID and the question that we were experiencing with Black Lives Matter, 0.73

00:44:45.280 right? And our summer of love, you know, that we had in 2020 and these kinds of things.

00:44:48.660 The big question is, who gets to define love? Has someone done this before? Has someone specified

00:44:55.920 love? And so you were using the word narrow and I'm with you in the sense that, yeah, you know,

00:45:01.220 we don't want to truncate love. We don't want to, God is love and we don't want to truncate,

00:45:05.720 you know, God, there's an infinite element of love, but there's also, and I guess I just

00:45:12.700 wouldn't use the word narrow.

00:45:13.860 I would use the word specify or clarify or direction, the law of God.

00:45:19.280 That's one of the uses of the law of God.

00:45:20.720 So the three divisions, but the three uses is the law of God.

00:45:24.840 In one sense, it functions as a mirror.

00:45:26.860 It reveals to us God's holiness by way of consequence, our sinfulness, and therefore

00:45:30.260 our need for a savior.

00:45:31.620 So Charles Spurgeon said, a man will never appreciate the beauty of Christ unless he

00:45:34.800 first come to see his need for christ so that's the first use of the law is as the law does not

00:45:39.120 save no man will be saved by works done unto the law but it drives us to christ because it reveals

00:45:43.580 sin that's romans 7 uh this but then the another use of the law is it actually has a common grace

00:45:49.400 use even for unbelievers that the law of god restrains outward manifestations of evil insofar

00:45:55.180 as the law of god is applied and legislated um by by just governments when romans 13 is happening

00:46:01.540 correctly, that the civil magistrate actually is functioning as God's deacon, as a servant

00:46:06.360 of God, and he's actually a terror not to those who do good, like a tyrant, but he's

00:46:10.500 actually a terror to those who do evil and rewards those who do righteous, then even

00:46:15.920 unregenerate, unbelieving people will, in terms of outwardly, they will outwardly conform

00:46:23.220 to the standards of God's law.

00:46:25.380 And it won't change their hearts.

00:46:26.720 It won't save them.

00:46:27.480 So that's another use.

00:46:28.200 So it's like the law of God is a shield or a mirror.

00:46:31.540 It reveals our need for a savior, a shield.

00:46:33.660 It has a common grace function, restraining outward manifestations in society.

00:46:37.700 But the third use, David says, it's a lamp unto my feet.

00:46:40.160 And so I think that the Ten Commandments is, in some sense, it's shedding light and directing us, showing us the path, a light unto our path, giving us, not narrowing the infinite element of that is God's love,

00:46:59.480 but but specifying clarifying and directing i would want to use the word directing us of okay

00:47:05.720 i know i need to love god and i know i need to love neighbor um and i've got i've got everybody

00:47:10.780 and their mom for the last two years telling me that love your neighbor is is 100 summed up in

00:47:18.540 wearing a mask god did you have any verse in the bible that could help me understand you know what

00:47:23.640 i mean and that's why i want to go to the 10 commandments and say okay commandment number six

00:47:27.520 don't don't harm your neighbor okay so so i don't need to be a fool but also commandment number nine

00:47:32.740 don't bear false witness and scare the entire public with a virus that actually isn't nearly

00:47:37.540 as dangerous as so we're thinking you know right without trying to weigh in on every all of the

00:47:43.300 stuff yeah yeah yeah yeah go ahead um i are you suggesting that i wouldn't have the tools to

00:47:49.300 navigate the question of what do you mean by love unless i'm a theonomist i well so again that and

00:47:56.440 we got to, we got to get there. I'm sorry, but that gets into, you know, what, okay, what is

00:48:00.320 the, just the, the, the staple definition of a theonomist? No, I think that you can define love.

00:48:06.500 I think that you can, well, God defines love. And so as a Christian, you can agree with God's

00:48:10.920 definition of love without being a theonomist in the way that the phrase, the label has been

00:48:18.460 coined in the last few decades by guys like Gary North, guys like Greg Bonson, guys like,

00:48:23.780 you know, Rush Dooney, R.J. Rush Dooney. But like I said at the beginning of the episode,

00:48:28.960 I do believe that every Christian, if they're genuinely born again and desire to please the 0.90

00:48:32.820 Lord, if you love me, you obey my commandments, every Christian is a theonomist in the sense that

00:48:38.520 it's theos, namos, it's God's law. We recognize that God is holy. He has a law and that we should

00:48:43.820 keep it. And generally throughout Christian tradition for 2,000 years, people have held 0.91

00:48:49.940 to the 10 commandments being applicable in all times and all places for all people. And we had

00:48:54.700 them on our courthouses here in America, you know, like that was a pretty, that society even, 0.95

00:49:00.060 even non-Christians should follow that. And I think, so no, I'm not saying you don't know how 0.99

00:49:05.480 to love if you're not a theonomist. But I'm saying that as a non-theonomist, if we're defining

00:49:11.880 theonomy in the way that Rush Dooney would be a theonomist, but if we're defining theonomy in

00:49:17.380 this looser general equity theonomy that I'm more in the tribe of, although I'm kind of in between

00:49:23.380 because I like a lot of Rushdoin stuff. But if we're in that sense that every Christian is a

00:49:27.840 theonomist because we love God's law, that guy is still going to use, I think, the second table

00:49:32.080 of the law, commandments number five through 10, to flesh out what it looks like to love neighbor.

00:49:37.180 And I think you do that, I guess, is my argument. I think-

00:49:39.980 Well, yeah, I don't see why. Let me just say this is I don't know why this would be a point

00:49:45.360 of discussion between a theonomist and a non-theonomist because we both see that there's

00:49:49.640 lessons to learn from the law in its various places in the Old Testament, whether it's

00:49:54.640 the Ten Commandments or in other, throughout the laws.

00:49:57.860 So, we both see that.

00:49:59.060 I don't really know that, I'm just, I'm a little puzzled as to why I would need to be

00:50:03.320 a theonomist to answer the question of how to love my neighbor.

00:50:07.640 So, but let me, let me just, just so I don't have this point lost, all I was saying was

00:50:12.060 1 Corinthians 9, in my perhaps slightly unintentionally convoluted, because I'm just

00:50:17.320 thinking off the top of my head as we go here, was that if this is meant to be a proof text to

00:50:22.640 demonstrate the use of the word law to refer specifically to being under the moral law found

00:50:29.180 in the Ten Commandments and in the moral laws throughout the Old Testament, if that's what

00:50:36.380 that, in the theonomist sense in particular, then I think that that is pushing a definition

00:50:41.420 on a term that doesn't seem consistent to me um i'd be open to to somebody working through that

00:50:47.440 and say producing content to explain with how law of christ does mean theonomy but there's this

00:50:52.340 element of theonomy that's totally different that i want to talk about if we can which is this

00:50:55.680 the state the government too right that that law that that idea that theonomy is the government

00:51:01.180 too so yep that's that's what we got to get for sure real quick though with verse 20 and 21 the

00:51:06.760 only in 1 Corinthians 9, I guess my question to you would be, if we just took the two parenthetical

00:51:12.240 statements, 20 and 21, though not being under the law, so you're saying, well, Joel, I think

00:51:16.760 you're isogening a little bit, like you're getting too specific with the word law and

00:51:20.620 saying that, well, law of God means Ten Commandments, and then law of God, Ten Commandments

00:51:24.800 is synonymous with law of Christ, and that's his greatest and second greatest commandment,

00:51:28.200 which is a summary of the Ten Commandments, and I see what you're saying, and I think

00:51:31.260 that's fair, but I think, so that's what I have to deal with, that's the tension that

00:51:35.720 I have to resolve. I think the tension for you though, with verse 20 and 21, just the two

00:51:40.080 parenthetical statements is that he explicitly says, if we just say, well, law means law, Joel,

00:51:45.080 well then it's like, though not being myself under the law, that's first statement. And then

00:51:50.520 not being outside of the law, that's the second statement. How do you reconcile that? So on one

00:51:57.440 hand, Paul is not under the law, though not being myself, myself, I'm not under the law. And then

00:52:04.720 the very next parenthetical statement, though myself, I'm not outside of the law. So if law

00:52:10.320 means law in both cases, he's, he's not under it. And he also is not outside of it. I think that's

00:52:17.200 the tension you have to deal with. Does that make sense? That's a fair criticism, but I don't think

00:52:21.220 law means law. That's not a phrase I used. So I don't agree with that. Oh, okay. Okay. Go ahead.

00:52:24.540 Help me. I don't think law has one definition and then it's like always means the same thing

00:52:28.540 everywhere. Paul's actually uses it in a lot of different ways. In Romans seven, he talks about

00:52:32.660 this law in his flesh that fights against the law of his spirit and it's like so he's he you

00:52:38.840 will use the term to refer to jewish law sometimes like the law of moses sometimes he refers to

00:52:43.980 he'll say law and refer to tradition or at least i know like luke does that they'll say and other

00:52:49.160 gospel others they'll say law and they you know they say jesus broke the sabbath well they didn't

00:52:53.480 mean he wrote moses's sabbath he meant the pharisaical laws so there's just a variety of

00:52:58.940 usage sometimes he just means it's like a normal operating principle like the law of my flesh

00:53:04.760 warring against the law of my spirit true so in this case um i think he doesn't say

00:53:11.340 he says i'm not without law towards god i'm not on namas like i have no rules no laws in my

00:53:17.900 relationship with god i am under the law of christ and then i would say that's the key

00:53:22.940 when i look at the law of christ i say it's not explicitly talking jesus talking about loving

00:53:27.700 others that if you are um if if you walk in love you know you fulfilled the law but you're not

00:53:35.500 under the law and so i that's my perspective is that um there's overlap moral law overlaps

00:53:41.240 onto the 10 commandments onto the laws of moses but it's not it's not the laws themselves are not

00:53:48.840 an essential part of the moral law such that you have to be under both or or neither um okay got

00:53:55.600 you anyway i know that makes sense but yeah i i get it i i mean i would disagree but we'll keep

00:54:00.000 going around but but my disagreement would not be like this you know full-throated aggressive

00:54:05.220 disagreement but but i i feel like you know we could keep going on that but the big thing that

00:54:09.900 you're right like we kind of got to talk about i really want to talk about it christian states

00:54:13.440 you know like like government you're right yeah so so you're talking about like every government

00:54:18.180 in the world and tell me tell me if i'm wrong because this is how i'm understanding it

00:54:21.160 every government in the world should enforce laws that everyone has to rest on the Sabbath

00:54:27.360 and everyone has to cast out idols cannot practice idolatry in any fashion and they have to put God

00:54:39.220 first so right no that's extreme I'm not saying that every nation should do that I'm saying every

00:54:45.660 nation will do that because I'm not only a theonomist Mike I also happen to be post-millennial

00:54:51.020 No. So I was being facetious. I know, I don't think that's extreme. I think you're absolutely

00:54:55.440 right. What you just said is my view. And not only do I think it should be done by every nation,

00:54:59.660 I think it will be. I truly believe that. I think the nations are Christ's inheritance.

00:55:03.100 Oh, so you do think it should be done?

00:55:04.280 Yes, I do. Should and will. Not just should, but will.

00:55:07.100 Okay.

00:55:07.460 I was being facetious there, but yeah. So I don't just think should be, I think it will be. I think

00:55:12.260 the nations are Christ's inheritance and they are going to be Christianized and that we are going to 0.52

00:55:16.800 have a Christian world. And when I say Christianized, now I'm not saying that each 0.95

00:55:20.880 in every individual is going to be a regenerate born again Christian. But I do think that the

00:55:27.000 nations, that societies as a whole in every single nation will be Christianized. And I think we see 0.99

00:55:33.140 this in Isaiah 65. I think we certainly see it in Isaiah chapter two. I think we also see it in

00:55:38.600 Daniel chapter two. And I think we see the principle and the theology backing it in 1 Corinthians

00:55:44.620 chapter 15. And I'll stop because I know you've got probably lots of questions, but yes, to answer

00:55:49.900 your question yes i think should and i'd go a step further i i see your should and i raise you

00:55:55.060 a should and will will happen so so we should uh as christians we should then all of us be working

00:56:03.140 together to ensure that minimally the 10 commandments are enforced through governmental

00:56:09.760 laws across the country so no sports on sundays or saturdays i'm assuming that you would think

00:56:16.060 the Sabbath is actually Saturday? No, no, no, no, no. So, so both Westminster and 16. No,

00:56:21.720 you're right. No, no, but yeah. So, so both, both Westminster and 1689, the reform view is

00:56:27.160 they're, they're all Sabbatarian, but they would say that the Sabbath has been not removed,

00:56:31.440 but renewed by Christ who is Lord of the Sabbath by virtue of his resurrection from the last day

00:56:35.680 of the week to the first is what, is what the 1689 and Westminster confession say. And I,

00:56:41.040 of course you can push back on it. Yeah, of course you can push back on it. I'm just,

00:56:45.460 but i'm just articulating my position that that's where i would stay with the sabbath but yes so

00:56:50.160 the sabbath i think nations should observe uh sabbath keeping our laws um and then you shall

00:56:57.460 have no other gods before me which which the only way to really obey that command is to also have

00:57:03.380 god as you can't just not have other gods before god right obviously you have to have god so you

00:57:10.240 So what would you propose as laws that would enforce that?

00:57:15.020 That is so insightful.

00:57:16.700 I want to repeat what you said, because our listeners need to get it.

00:57:19.840 The only way to keep, because you can preach a whole sermon on that.

00:57:22.520 The only way to keep the first commandment to have known of the gods is to have God.

00:57:27.040 It's because it's not whether, but which. 1.00

00:57:29.100 Every, we are, culture comes from the lack, cultists, worshipers, homo worshipers, you 1.00

00:57:34.380 know, like we cannot help but worship. 1.00

00:57:36.580 And if we don't worship the triune God, the God that is, then we're going to worship some

00:57:40.280 other God, even if that God is self.

00:57:42.100 And I would say that's what humanism is, man, the measure of all things.

00:57:45.780 And so right now, this is one of the things that I would say is, number one, I think that

00:57:51.900 Christodom, because we've had it in the past, and I think the solution is not to do away

00:57:55.840 with it.

00:57:56.240 I think there are bugs and features, right? 0.77

00:57:58.560 So Spanish Crusades, not our brightest, finest moment.

00:58:03.340 But I think the solution is not to back away, but to press in.

00:58:07.180 I think we need Christendom 2.0. 0.90

00:58:09.440 And it's like, what, that man, what, like Christian as this world, religion, enforced

00:58:13.300 by civil governments.

00:58:14.600 And I would just say, it's not whether but which.

00:58:16.200 Look at the alternative.

00:58:17.240 What has secularism given us?

00:58:18.560 I think that Christendom, on its worst day with Constantine and, you know, on its worst

00:58:24.680 day, Christendom can't even come close to putting up the death toll numbers that secularism

00:58:28.940 has brought us.

00:58:29.540 brought to you by your sponsors of humanism and secularism by joseph stalin brought to you with

00:58:34.660 planned parenthood and a million abortions a year like we it's it's not even close not even close

00:58:39.800 and i think people they're away they're just afraid like but what what are americans going

00:58:44.340 to do start rounding up muslims and putting them in internment camps it's like nope that's already

00:58:48.480 covered by china and it's not because of the christian worldview not not not with not speaking

00:58:53.100 of chinese people but the cp cp chinese communist party the government is not christian they are a

00:58:58.520 secular, atheistic government. And the oppression that we see in the world, I truly believe it's

00:59:05.140 not the fruit of Christianity. There are bugs within Christianity that gets it wrong at times,

00:59:10.320 but nothing compared to anything else. So go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. 0.99

00:59:14.480 But the question is, how do you, my question is, how do you enforce that?

00:59:17.180 So how do you enforce it?

00:59:18.160 That was my question. How do you enforce that?

00:59:19.960 So the way that you enforce it is first, you have to understand three sovereign spheres. So

00:59:24.620 there has to be this understanding of autonomous separate spheres. So the church has been given

00:59:28.860 the sword of the spirit. My job as a minister of the gospel is the art of persuasion. We've

00:59:34.680 been given the keys of the kingdom. I administer the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism.

00:59:39.600 I preach the word, pray the word, sing the word, and see the word. And the only images prescribed

00:59:44.420 to the church, which is baptism, the Lord's Supper. And then the keys of the kingdom have

00:59:48.780 been given not just to me, but to, I believe, the church within my Reformed Baptist view. 0.72

00:59:53.040 That's Matthew 18, tell it to the church, and they get to bind and loose.

00:59:55.840 So that's the idea of what authority, and it also gives me the idea of my jurisdiction.

01:00:02.340 But these three sovereign spheres of the home, the church, and the state, they're not just

01:00:06.080 spheres of human society, but I think we have to understand them as governments.

01:00:10.800 And it's not a hierarchy of the state is above the church and the church is above the family,

01:00:14.460 but it's three parallel governments side by side, and at times, their jurisdiction does

01:00:19.920 overlap.

01:00:20.320 And that's what happened with John MacArthur and Gavin Newsom.

01:00:23.040 right? And you got to duke it out and figure out who actually has jurisdiction here? How do we move

01:00:27.600 forward? What do we do? Does the church and its rights, the rights of the saints and their

01:00:33.320 obligation under God to worship in spirit and truth, trump the concerns of the civil magistrate

01:00:39.680 that needs to protect people from physical harm with, you know, whatever, with the deadliest

01:00:46.660 bubonic black death plague that we've ever had. And so, but as far as like, so first understand

01:00:52.060 three sovereign spheres as three sovereign governments. The next thing that you need to

01:00:55.220 understand is there's a distinction. I think this is what people, where theonomy gets a bad rap and

01:00:59.280 people misunderstand, there is a distinction between sins and crimes. And the law of God is,

01:01:05.560 James says, the law of liberty. And one of the things that Christianity as a worldview,

01:01:10.960 a full-orbed, robust worldview has done in individuals, but then also in states and

01:01:16.700 governments insofar as it's been applied at a governmental level, is it has esteemed and

01:01:21.980 protected and honored individual conscience more than any other worldview, more than secularism.

01:01:28.200 I mean, we've got the thought police, right? They tried to literally set up like a George Orwell

01:01:32.800 ministry of truth, and then it just got booed and laughed, and then they quit. But the left,

01:01:39.140 I mean, they're trying to govern thought. They're trying to govern speech, all these. And again,

01:01:44.920 it's not whether but which. So how do you enforce it? Your question, the civil magistrate has been

01:01:49.980 given the physical sword, not the church. So the church does not enforce it. Ministers don't

01:01:53.980 enforce it. Fathers in the home don't enforce it. They've been given a tool. They've been given the

01:01:57.820 rod. The church has been given the keys and the state has been given the sword. The state would

01:02:03.100 enforce it, but at the level only of crimes, not at the level of sin. And what's the determining

01:02:09.300 factor between the two? It's not the two tables of law. So some guys, that's a John Lockean kind

01:02:14.620 of more of a, not a Christian view, like some of the Christian founders, but more of a Unitarian,

01:02:21.280 you know, a deist kind of view that's not, I don't think is robustly Christian. It loosely

01:02:29.120 comes from King Alfred and these kinds of things, but they want to break up the two tables of the

01:02:33.180 law and say, well, the state can enforce the second table of the law, commandments number

01:02:36.940 five through 10, how, what we are commanded to do as it pertains to neighbor, but they can't,

01:02:42.040 the state can't enforce the first four of the Ten Commandments, which would be know the gods

01:02:46.600 before me, know graven images, do not take the Lord's name in vain, and then remember the Sabbath.

01:02:50.940 And I would say that theonomy is going to say, know that it is the state's obligation to enforce

01:02:55.640 not just the second table of the law, but all Ten Commandments, but at the level of crime,

01:02:59.780 not the level of sin. And one of the determining factors between the two is private versus public.

01:03:04.620 So in a theonomic, let's just say that I'm right, and not just about theonomy, but also post-mill,

01:03:09.960 and all this stuff happens in a hundred years

01:03:12.120 or a thousand years and we're watching from heaven.

01:03:15.500 My bet, what I'm betting on, I could be wrong,

01:03:17.680 but what I'm betting on is that you would not see 1.00

01:03:20.540 a mosque be permitted to be erected.

01:03:25.040 But you also would not see thought police

01:03:28.240 going into people's homes to stop private Muslim worship.

01:03:31.540 So if someone was a Muslim, 0.99

01:03:33.400 they could worship privately in their home 0.54

01:03:35.600 because the state does not have jurisdiction there.

01:03:37.740 it's it that that is not we are we are not policing sins in the same way that you know

01:03:43.120 looking at the second table law if a man gets drunk in his home we're not going as but a public

01:03:47.820 intoxication is a different matter do you think the commandment about idolatry was was not applied

01:03:53.200 in the home in ancient in ancient israel well i i don't think that it was policed i don't think

01:04:00.720 that it was enforced because ancient israel one of the beauties of their law is that it wasn't a

01:04:04.880 policing system. That's why they didn't have a bloated state. And it's like, I understand that

01:04:09.460 there was no separation of church and state and the theocracy of Israel, but even in that, see, 0.96

01:04:14.820 some of the theonomists, they would argue, and I think I would agree with them, is that there was 0.55

01:04:18.560 kind of a division. There were priests, right? And there were guards.

01:04:23.140 Okay, well, let me throw something else out there. So, you mentioned the priest. I was

01:04:26.680 thinking about this. I was recently studying stuff for my big series on women in ministry,

01:04:30.540 and it was about the role and function of judges in the Old Testament. And I could try to find the

01:04:34.740 verse um but it just the old testament talks about how the priest would assist the judge

01:04:39.880 in informing them about the law so they would be better equipped to make decisions so the judge

01:04:47.200 was like a supreme court um when the local city you know leaders you know they sit in the gate

01:04:52.460 and you bring a case to them and they're like hey this is just too tough for us like i don't know

01:04:56.180 we're going to pass that on up or maybe it's an issue between two cities you know they pass it

01:05:00.420 up to the local judge. It could be Deborah, it could be, you know, Samson, Gideon, Jephthah,

01:05:09.460 and they make kind of the Supreme Court decision. Here's an interesting thought.

01:05:14.820 Doesn't that mean that the leaders in the church studying the scripture, knowing the word of God,

01:05:21.380 are supposed to be part of the functioning of government so that there isn't this totally

01:05:26.260 independent sphere or would you, I would say that absolutely, absolutely, but not functioning. I

01:05:32.560 would say that the goal, one of the goals of the pastor is for one to feed my sheep, right? So it's

01:05:38.220 not just the seeker friendly model that it's always focused on lost people. No, like, and then you

01:05:42.640 have all these malnourished, starving Christians with 20 minute TED talk sermons, like, no feed 1.00

01:05:47.160 my sheep. So, so my focus as a pastor, I believe my obligation is, is in one sense, it's to the 0.99

01:05:52.860 people of God, nourishing them, feeding them, tending sheep, tending lambs. But there also

01:05:58.580 is a prophetic function, lowercase p, prophetic function of calling out to kings and kingdoms

01:06:05.980 and principalities. Just like John the Baptist said to Herod, it is not lawful, and Herod's not

01:06:11.780 a Jew, but John the Baptist doesn't see him as getting away from this. He's like, this applies 0.98

01:06:18.380 to you, it is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife, Herodias. And that ultimately

01:06:23.400 causes him to lose his head. The difference though is the priest aren't the ones who ultimately get

01:06:29.180 to put someone to death with a sword. I think that the priests go in and they inform the judges

01:06:34.260 and in a Christian, in a perfect Christian theonomic state, this example that we're 0.61

01:06:43.100 talking about. A hypothetical example, yes, I think that pastors, ministers of the gospel

01:06:48.680 would be working hand in glove. They would be working in tandem with the state,

01:06:53.340 but still with a clear delineation that they are not a part of the state. But they would be,

01:06:58.960 absolutely, they would be honored by the civil magistrate and informing them and educating them

01:07:04.380 on this is the law of God, do what is right. I'm really skeptical that this division between

01:07:10.500 church and state is reflected in the old testament law like i i think that it's reflected in modern

01:07:16.240 times and modern cultures and stuff like that i what i don't and i don't know the church history

01:07:21.620 that well about this stuff but i i don't think it was reflected very much at all except by force

01:07:28.280 when a king was able to get enough power and then the maybe the reigning pope and his you know his

01:07:34.560 abilities were diminished, then they could cast off that kind of role. But the integration of

01:07:40.700 church and state, it has been a pretty consistent thing. I think Old Testament and in church history,

01:07:46.420 except for more recently, you know, historically. So, I'm a little, I like the idea of that

01:07:53.800 for my own reasons. The idea of three sovereign spheres, is that what you're talking about?

01:07:59.260 I like the idea of that for my own purposes. It fits more of my own view, which is not

01:08:03.600 not not a theonomist view it seems to fit well with that view but i think if i was on board with

01:08:08.100 the theonomist view i would i'd be like um yeah i know i mean in fact i i even think i have to

01:08:13.820 somehow enforce belief and obedience to jesus um with laws from the government well yes like i would

01:08:22.600 feel like i'd have to do that yes you do well the government does have to do that but but first to

01:08:28.080 the separation of church and state i think what the theonomist is saying is that there is a

01:08:31.880 separation of church and state and i think we see it in the old testament even like saul lose the

01:08:36.080 kingdom is ripped out of his hand samuel you know rips his robe and so the kingdom will be ripped

01:08:40.000 um because because he assumed the prophet's role as the king and it wasn't it was outside of his

01:08:46.720 jurisdiction it wasn't his business i'm afraid to go off on that rabbit trail i don't i don't

01:08:51.860 hold to that view with saul because he did prophesy even so that's true yeah he prophesied

01:08:56.400 um but but anyways that kind of takes us down a path where that doesn't help us with our current

01:09:01.740 discussion very much so so one thing so the theonomist is going to say i i think there's a

01:09:06.260 supposed to be a separation of church and state and and a theonomist would say and we see tenants

01:09:12.560 of that even in the nation state of israel and and you would disagree or certainly disagree with

01:09:17.560 the saul example i just gave but i think there are examples of that um but the big idea for the

01:09:22.180 theonomist is that um in our culture today when we say separation of church and state it has become

01:09:27.460 a placeholder for what people actually believe, which is a separation between Christ and state.

01:09:34.180 And that is not taught in scripture. There's a difference between the church and state being

01:09:39.340 two sovereign spheres with delineated authority and jurisdictions and responsibilities and rights

01:09:44.760 and duties versus saying that the state is this neutral plane. Politics is this neutral plane

01:09:52.340 where, you know, Christ has no power here, you know, and they just kind of, no, the state 0.94

01:09:59.000 must be Christian, and therefore it must, insofar as it's within its jurisdiction to

01:10:05.840 punish crimes, it must punish those things which go against the Christian faith. 0.59

01:10:13.000 And that would include, for instance, that, you know, there would be blasphemy laws.

01:10:17.060 So there would be certain things, even within freedom of speech, that couldn't be said.

01:10:21.940 but again it's it's not whether but which there are certain things within freedom of speech that

01:10:25.440 we can't say right now that determined by by who every culture has worship it has a god it has

01:10:33.040 orthodoxy it has sacraments and then and corresponding with its orthodoxy it has

01:10:38.060 blasphemy laws there are things that you can't that you can't say it's hate speech you get 0.65

01:10:42.420 canceled you could lose your job all all these different things and it happens by a kangaroo

01:10:46.960 kangaroo court instead of actually tried with a fair jury you know you know and so it's to me it's

01:10:52.800 just this inescapable reality uh separation of church and state is one thing but separation of

01:10:57.560 god and state i don't think the bible teaches that and so again it wouldn't be i would agree

01:11:03.080 with you there okay go on that point i would yeah i got yeah i don't god in state no i mean

01:11:07.300 maybe okay i don't how much time do we probably have left in this discussion here

01:11:12.200 you know it's it's kind of up to you at this point let's see it's 9 13 why don't we you want

01:11:17.980 to do like 20 more minutes i'm down with that okay and then maybe if i could just throw out

01:11:22.800 several different things that are all rattling around in my head i'm afraid i won't get a chance

01:11:27.840 to talk i'm sorry yeah yeah yeah go ahead so um one of them would be um um let's just talk quickly

01:11:35.980 about the sabbath so with with the laws about the sabbath um it would require obviously government

01:11:41.300 enforce sabbath rest whatever day people see that on and um in the old testament my own view of what

01:11:51.360 god expects of governments is i don't actually look at the law of israel primarily i look at

01:11:56.040 the prophets um the like say genesis and and passages where god judges all people

01:12:02.540 for specific things and i go ah all governments are supposed to be accountable for these specific

01:12:07.660 things. So, you know, defending the oppressed, being, just having good, good, like genuine

01:12:15.280 justice in their, in their systems and all that kind of thing. Also, when he tells like Babylon,

01:12:20.580 here's the burden of the Lord against Babylon, Isaiah says or something, right? And he goes

01:12:23.560 through this list of things that they've done wrong. I'm like, look at this, God's judging a

01:12:27.380 non-Jewish nation. These are policies God must have in place for all nations at least, or there's 0.96

01:12:33.960 some principle that's there so i tend to look at it that way as far as what god expects of all

01:12:37.760 nations okay i don't see now along those lines i don't see anywhere in the old testament that i'm

01:12:41.860 aware of where god ever judged a nation for disobeying the sabbath yet he was so strict

01:12:47.600 with israel about it that they spent you know how many years carried away to babylon to let the land 0.72

01:12:55.280 have its rest right that it was 70 years because they had 490 years of not giving the land its 0.51

01:13:00.540 annual sabbath where you couldn't farm for a year and he was so strict about that that he carried

01:13:07.700 off israel and let the land have its rest for 70 years then he brought them back in that's 490 70

01:13:13.500 you know that the math works and i don't know anywhere where he judged a foreign nation for

01:13:18.920 that um what are your thoughts on that is there a passage i'm not thinking of or is or is there

01:13:24.260 maybe something else you're thinking about no that's that's a classic argument against theonomy

01:13:28.240 I mean, there's, you know, one debate that is called the theonomy debate.

01:13:31.760 Here I thought I was being original.

01:13:33.040 No, no, no, no.

01:13:34.460 I'm encouraging you and saying it's a good thought.

01:13:36.380 It's, you know, and that's why it's been used so often.

01:13:38.740 No, there's not a clear passage that I'm aware of that says, you know,

01:13:41.680 and God punished Nineveh for their sin of violence and Sabbath breaking. 0.89

01:13:45.540 It's, you know, you're not going to find it. 0.95

01:13:47.380 One of the, and that's the argument.

01:13:48.860 So that's an argument that J.D. Hall, which unfortunately some things have not gone so well as of recently,

01:13:54.500 but seven years ago he did a debate.

01:13:56.380 It's called the Theonomy Debate.

01:13:57.400 You can find it on YouTube.

01:13:58.240 between Joel McDermott, and he's also, it's funny, those two guys, it's crazy to see where

01:14:03.460 they're at now and their respectives versus where they were there. But Joel McDermott was in the

01:14:07.500 affirmative position of defending theonomy and J.D. Hall was against it. And that's one of the

01:14:14.500 arguments that he used is saying, like, I don't see, you know, we see God, you know, judging the

01:14:19.940 nation for this or that or these kinds of things, but you don't see listed as one of God's reasons

01:14:27.480 for judging the nation, the Sabbath

01:14:29.500 or one of these specific civil laws

01:14:32.100 that's given to Israel.

01:14:33.140 So, yeah.

01:14:36.300 And it's not a slam,

01:14:37.960 it might seem to people like,

01:14:38.960 that's the slam dunk argument.

01:14:40.300 I don't think it is a slam dunk argument.

01:14:42.200 I think it's support for a perspective,

01:14:44.900 but-

01:14:44.980 Yeah, I think it's a good argument.

01:14:47.200 It's, you know, and just to provide the counter,

01:14:49.380 you know, Joel McDermott,

01:14:50.420 his counter was just saying,

01:14:51.540 well, it's an argument from silence

01:14:52.860 and an argument from silence isn't necessarily,

01:14:55.860 you know, like there's something there

01:14:57.380 certainly there's something there um but but but we don't have prescribed in scripture explicitly

01:15:03.340 um that the nations aren't underneath a moral obligation to these you know we don't see god

01:15:09.360 saying no we just we don't also see specified in a list and there are plenty of times that god

01:15:14.660 judges the nations and and and and specific sins aren't listed right with nineveh the only specific

01:15:21.340 sin that's actually mentioned in the case of nineveh is their sin of violence that they were

01:15:26.560 barbaric. And we know, you know, that Nineveh, you know, that they, you know, Assyrians' capital 0.97

01:15:31.760 city in Assyria, that they would fillet people, their victims alive and hang their skin on the 0.96

01:15:36.320 walls of their city. And they were, you know, and the king specifically says, let us repent from our 0.84

01:15:40.540 sin and the wickedness of our hands. And so even that, God doesn't necessarily say it, but Jonah

01:15:45.780 says to repent and the king recognizes his own conscience identifies. And one of the sins in

01:15:51.620 particular we need to repent of is the sin of of physical violence and and um so but my point is

01:15:57.840 in that i i don't think god was going and god relented uh nineveh repented but right but i

01:16:04.000 don't think that god was only going to judge nineveh and and more largely assyria for the

01:16:09.700 sin of violence it's just the particular sin that that that the conscience of the king you know

01:16:15.180 wreck it was one of the highlighted clearest things that they had done that was immoral

01:16:19.580 but i don't think it was exhaustive um so anyway okay so here's some more quick questions for you

01:16:25.180 um i i i take it well i i'll stay off that one for now but for um jesus uh jesus did not carry

01:16:33.640 any political positions and when he was asked if he was a king he had this really interesting

01:16:40.180 qualifier um with pilot and he was like basically he says like i'm a king but not really in the way

01:16:46.360 you're thinking, my kingdom is not of this world. Otherwise, my servants would fight.

01:16:53.200 What is the theonomist perspective on that idea that Jesus did not carry political power, did not

01:17:00.380 use political power, and then when he was asked about his kingdom, he says, it's not of this

01:17:04.420 world. Otherwise, his servants would fight. What would your view on that be? So, the view would be

01:17:09.560 that um that that was not that jesus was coming to bring a little bit of leaven and the leaven

01:17:15.920 gradually was going to work through the whole batch of dough that jesus was planting a mustard

01:17:19.880 seed and it would gradually grow so it's it's it's kind of a combination of theonomic thought

01:17:24.860 along with the post-millennial eschatology whereas you know like pre-millennial especially

01:17:29.300 dispensational pre-millennial it's just this uh worse and worse and worse and then just suddenly

01:17:34.000 the rule of christ um whereas the post-millennial view is that christ is setting the stage

01:17:39.160 particularly to your question about Christ being a king and those kinds of

01:17:42.660 things,

01:17:43.280 there are political statements and certainly political issues that Jesus

01:17:46.800 deals with.

01:17:47.640 Like like it's a political issue in terms of like,

01:17:50.160 do we pay taxes to the,

01:17:51.240 to the state,

01:17:52.020 you know,

01:17:52.400 like,

01:17:52.900 and Jesus says,

01:17:53.780 well,

01:17:53.900 let me,

01:17:54.160 let me see a coin,

01:17:55.020 you know,

01:17:55.220 whose image is on it,

01:17:56.100 you know,

01:17:56.320 render under Caesar,

01:17:57.140 what is Caesar's,

01:17:57.800 what is to God is to God's.

01:17:59.280 And so Jesus actually affirms tax pain to,

01:18:02.940 to the civil magistrate.

01:18:03.920 However,

01:18:04.860 that's taken out of context a lot.

01:18:06.220 Jesus doesn't say,

01:18:07.020 and Caesar gets to decide what belongs to Caesar. It's rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to

01:18:12.600 God what is God's and the implicit, I think, principles and God dictates by his law what

01:18:18.020 belongs to Caesar and what doesn't belong to Caesar. That's my opinion. In terms of his kingdom

01:18:23.580 not being of this world, the theonomy counter to that would say, yeah, Jesus' kingdom is not of

01:18:28.280 this world. Just like he tells the disciples, you know, the Gentile lords, they're domineering, 0.94

01:18:33.820 they lord their power over you. Do not be like them, right? That his kingdom functions in a 1.00

01:18:39.820 different, it has different methods. But I think there's a difference in Jesus saying my kingdom

01:18:43.760 is not of this world versus saying my kingdom is not in this world. So the theonomist would say,

01:18:50.160 Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world and to that, yes and amen. But his kingdom very much

01:18:55.120 is in this world. All authority on earth and in heaven has been given to him and that we're called

01:19:00.500 to go and Christianize the nations. And part of the Great Commission is not only to baptize and

01:19:06.640 dealing with evangelism, but to teach them to obey all of Christ's commandments because Jesus is

01:19:12.260 King. And He is King in real terms, in real life. And He was not setting up a physical kingdom in

01:19:19.300 His first coming, His earthly ministry, but that He is ruling now in a real sense at the right hand

01:19:25.840 of the Father. And that rule and that reign and that kingdom does have a presence in the world,

01:19:32.060 although it functions with methods that are not of this world.

01:19:36.120 So, would you say when Jesus says, my kingdom is not of this world,

01:19:39.600 when he says my kingdom, that is talking in addition to the gospel going out into men's

01:19:46.020 hearts, it's also talking about political kingdoms where Jesus is supposed to be king

01:19:52.040 in theonomy where the law of god is reigning on earth right now is that inclusive is that his

01:19:57.740 kingdom is both of those things can you rephrase say the question again i didn't quite uh maybe

01:20:02.540 i'll say it a different way yeah i understand what you just said now i understood to mean that

01:20:06.440 jesus's kingdom is both inside you know the lives of those who follow him but also

01:20:11.900 part of political power that's supposed to be subservient to jesus through a theonomy

01:20:17.300 view yeah i don't i don't think kingdom refers to both not not one or the other but both

01:20:23.300 yes i i would so one i would distinguish the church from the kingdom of god the church of

01:20:29.020 god and the kingdom of god i think are two distinct things massive overlap and massive

01:20:32.660 similarities but the church you're a paedo baptist right uh no i'm i'm oh okay because 0.64

01:20:37.380 that's what i usually hear from the paedo baptist i'm a credo i'm i'm credo but um okay yeah but 0.82

01:20:42.880 But my point- 0.64

01:20:43.360 Which I should have known

01:20:43.760 because you said you were-

01:20:44.620 Right, 1689.

01:20:45.860 But with that, so no,

01:20:47.840 the church only numerically grows one way, conversion.

01:20:51.280 But the kingdom of God, I think can grow

01:20:53.060 even if the church isn't numerically growing.

01:20:56.220 It doesn't have to grow in a one-to-one ratio.

01:20:58.340 Okay, but wait, wait, but here,

01:20:59.400 I'm getting at something here.

01:21:00.320 I wanted to get this if I could,

01:21:02.080 which was to say, if that's what Jesus means,

01:21:04.660 if that phrase kingdom refers to the political powers

01:21:06.820 that are subservient to Christ and the church,

01:21:10.900 both of those two spheres,

01:21:12.880 um this qualifier becomes really strange because he says otherwise my servants would fight

01:21:19.760 which implies if it's talking about both spheres that the government can't fight

01:21:24.620 no i don't i don't think so can you explain that another way because that right to me that doesn't

01:21:32.720 matter to you it looks i'm looking at your face and it seems like just a clear logical conclusion

01:21:37.620 but it's not so clear for me i i mean which is fine go ahead enough say it again i'm sorry

01:21:42.360 If the phrase my kingdom refers to, you've used this three sphere discussion, a way of framing home, church, and government or state.

01:21:53.540 If the my kingdom refers to not only the church, but also the state, that's also his kingdom.

01:22:01.120 The state is a part of Jesus' kingdom?

01:22:03.260 Amen.

01:22:03.660 Yeah.

01:22:04.060 Are you asking that?

01:22:05.200 Right.

01:22:05.680 Yeah.

01:22:05.880 He's king of kings.

01:22:07.360 So when he says my kingdom's not of this world, otherwise my servants would fight.

01:22:10.560 i've always taken to be followers of jesus wherever they're at and you're you would you

01:22:14.740 would say this also means whole governments that follow the theonomy way they can't fight oh i get

01:22:21.160 you okay that makes sense no i would and so the way that i would counter that as i which i'm i'm

01:22:25.680 just to be clear for anybody who's watching i'm using this as a way of saying see i think this

01:22:30.000 interpretation doesn't fit the text because as you try to be consistent throughout the text it

01:22:33.900 starts to go away that's not really working but what was your rebuttal to that my rebuttal would

01:22:38.920 be my kingdom is not of this world doesn't mean that it's not in the world and doesn't mean that

01:22:42.240 it doesn't encompass the state. Jesus is king. He's not just king of the church. He's head of

01:22:46.780 the church, but he is king of kings and king of civil magistrate kings. His kingdom is in the

01:22:53.740 world. But I would say that when Jesus says it's not of this world, what he's getting at is the

01:22:58.780 way that his kingdom functions and especially particularly the way that it's going to get

01:23:03.280 its start. So you're right. I believe that Jesus is king over the government and Romans 13 says

01:23:08.000 that the civil magistrate is his servant, deacon, it literally means servant. That's right. So if he

01:23:14.040 says, you know, if my kingdom was of this world, my servants wouldn't fight. Well, then you would

01:23:18.600 have to embrace a pacifist view that we just shouldn't have governments at all, or they

01:23:23.020 shouldn't bear the sword. But Romans 13 completely would debunk that because Paul says that God gave

01:23:29.160 them the sword and they're supposed to, they're God's avengers, you know, to be a terror to those

01:23:34.800 who do evil. So what I would say is that when Jesus says that my servants are not going to

01:23:39.760 fight, well, elsewhere, Jesus says them to take a sword. And they say, well, we have two swords.

01:23:44.800 And he said, yeah, that's enough. I think what Jesus is saying is, my kingdom's not of this

01:23:50.400 world. It's not with these methods. I'm not going to get my start this way. It's not a hostile

01:23:56.060 takeover of Rome today, but it is going to be a gradualistic takeover of Rome in real terms,

01:24:03.800 not just a spiritual reign but a real tangible physical reign even over kings and kingdoms

01:24:08.960 on earth christianized governments but it's going to start like a mustard seed it's going to grow

01:24:13.460 we're not going to take over in a in a in a day a moment of revolt but as a gradual gradualistic

01:24:20.900 mustard seed slowly going into a tree and first i have that mustard seed has to go into the ground

01:24:26.840 has to be planted, I have to die. So, let me recap what I think we just said to each other.

01:24:37.140 You tell me if you agree. Your statement was, hey, my kingdom's not of this world. What it doesn't

01:24:42.320 mean is that his kingdom's not in this world, okay? That I would actually agree with. The in,

01:24:47.500 not of thing, you know, I was a youth pastor for many years, so like, yeah, I've said that many

01:24:51.620 times but i don't think that enough is alone is enough to establish a theonomy view but what would

01:24:57.700 establish the theonomy view is if when jesus says my kingdom he's talking about both spheres church

01:25:02.020 and government and he's claiming that they're his kingdom as well um but then i'm my pushback is but

01:25:08.040 if my kingdom means that then he says my servants don't fight because my kingdom's not of this world

01:25:14.160 this would imply that governments can't fight if they're going to follow the theonomy way

01:25:19.180 your response to that was it sounds like it was um well romans 13 shows that they don't bear the

01:25:25.700 sword in vain so obviously they do need to fight which i would agree with i'm saying that that

01:25:31.920 view is not consistent with that interpretation of my kingdom you know what i mean we both agree

01:25:36.800 on romans 13 it's the so i'm not really sure i get i get what you're saying but just just romans

01:25:41.940 13 alone um if if caesar is god's deacon is it fair for me to say that god is caesar's right well

01:25:49.440 the word deacon is very tricky there because the word servant we all understand but deacon is a

01:25:55.060 very religious terminology for modern english but it wasn't diakonos was not a religious special

01:26:00.800 religious term for ancient for greek so i just wanted to be clear he is god's servant even you

01:26:08.700 could say god's minister but outside the country of the united states you know they literally have

01:26:13.380 oh i'm in the ministry of agriculture like it's normal to call those ministries because they're

01:26:17.760 services they're not religious things they're um but anyway i i do think god is sovereign over the

01:26:24.000 nations but i don't think the nations are part of christ's kingdom i think the the the daniel 2

01:26:29.260 example right of this like sort of tiered structure of all these different kingdoms

01:26:33.060 and then the kingdom of christ comes and smashes in and replaces them rather than invades them

01:26:39.500 my own view on this um the the kingdom of christ is meant to come in and invade

01:26:44.700 with teachings of christ all of these different governments in the world and we could fit in a

01:26:50.160 socialist government and a capitalist government we could fit in a communist government we could

01:26:54.200 fit in a you name it a the um a royal what are those called uh aristocracy i can't remember the

01:27:02.020 the right term for when a king is in charge i can't remember what that's called monarchy there

01:27:06.080 you go thank you it's not the hardest word but um but i think we're supposed to blend in and

01:27:12.560 that's why we don't fight we spread the word and and not the law so to speak but here's a here's

01:27:20.080 a verse i'd like to get your thoughts on first corinthians 5 verses 12 and 13 and here's where

01:27:24.900 Paul talks about how he doesn't judge the world.

01:27:30.160 And my understanding of the context here is he's judging a church member for sleeping with his father,

01:27:36.820 probably his father's step wife or his stepmother.

01:27:39.600 I mean, his father's second wife, most likely.

01:27:42.220 And and it says in First Corinthians 512, he says, you know, kick him out of the church.

01:27:46.660 But I'm not talking about judging the world.

01:27:48.240 And he says here, I'll read First Corinthians 512 and 13.

01:27:51.400 for what have I to do with judging outsiders is, is it not those inside the church whom you are to

01:27:58.380 judge? God judges those outside purge the evil person from among you. And I'll just offer my

01:28:03.780 quick understanding of this. And I'd like to hear your thoughts. Um, I'm sure you've probably heard

01:28:06.920 this one before. So judging most, most Christians that I encounter see this phrase, don't judge

01:28:13.700 those outside, which means like, don't disapprove of the behavior of people outside the church,

01:28:17.660 which is totally not what this verse is talking about.

01:28:20.660 We should absolutely expose error

01:28:22.080 and go and preach the gospel and even confront sin.

01:28:25.460 He means judge like in the sort of judicial sense

01:28:28.820 of using this sort of,

01:28:29.760 I have this elder's authority to say,

01:28:31.860 you are excommunicated from the church.

01:28:33.440 You are not part of our fellowship

01:28:34.360 until you repented these sins.

01:28:35.560 We want to have you back, brother,

01:28:36.980 but you are in rebellion against God.

01:28:39.180 That kind of judgment.

01:28:40.340 And he goes, what do I have to do

01:28:41.860 with judging those outside the church?

01:28:43.660 God judges those outside.

01:28:45.280 You guys need to judge those within the church.

01:28:47.660 And this, it's fuzzy in my head, other than saying there's two spheres.

01:28:56.680 Oh, that's the church sphere versus the government sphere.

01:29:00.500 But it doesn't seem like the perspective is those outside that the government is dealing with or whatever are part of that kingdom of Christ at all.

01:29:11.580 They're just outside and God's judging them.

01:29:13.800 What do you think of that?

01:29:15.600 Yeah.

01:29:15.760 Yeah. It's exactly what you just said at the end would be my view. It's just this

01:29:20.380 separation of church and state, you know, three sovereign spheres, home church and state. So

01:29:23.980 what have I to do? Well, who, who is I, Paul? What, what is Paul? What's his role? What's his

01:29:29.840 function? He's an apostle of Christ. He's, he's not a civil magistrate. He's not a judge or a

01:29:34.940 ruler or, and so I 100% agree with you that he's not saying don't make any judgments, but it is

01:29:41.460 absolutely talking about the judicial judging, which the church does even that, but the church

01:29:48.120 only does of its own. And that's the same thing, principle for states, right? America should not

01:29:54.220 make judicial judgments for a citizen of Brazil, right? There's jurisdiction. You do that with

01:30:01.200 counties and with cities and all those kinds, and states, and then countries. So authority always

01:30:06.860 has boundaries. It always has a jurisdiction. It's always limited. Nobody has a limitless

01:30:12.780 authority. It's divested. It's not inherent authority. It's divested. All human authority

01:30:17.300 is divested authority. And so with that, there are limits, there are jurisdictions. And I think

01:30:21.340 Paul is just, I think that that's what he's highlighting. You do judge outsiders. You judge

01:30:25.320 anybody in terms of making a judgment. Because really, if we say that we can't do that, then

01:30:30.160 we're basically getting rid of the whole Christian principle of discernment. What is discernment but

01:30:34.600 to make judgments. So I'm with you 100% on that, discernment ministers, all those kinds of things.

01:30:39.060 So the church can make certain judgments about people outside of the church, like Joe Biden say,

01:30:45.220 yeah, I judge that I'm not going to vote for Biden in 2024 if he's still alive. So we should

01:30:51.140 make judgments like that. But no, we don't have this judicial, I can't go and punish Joe Biden.

01:30:57.860 So I would say that the church does have judicial authority. There are ecclesiastical courts. And

01:31:02.080 Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians 6, this idea of why are you going to the pagan courts?

01:31:08.020 The church is supposed to have more wisdom than them.

01:31:10.560 And so it's not just, oh, it's fleshly and carnal to sue your brother.

01:31:13.560 That's said also.

01:31:15.040 But it's also this sense of like, do you not know you're going to be judging angels?

01:31:18.460 Why are the pagan courts trumping the ecclesiastical courts?

01:31:22.420 If it's a brother, if it's two brothers, you can settle this at home in the church.

01:31:26.440 And the church not just making a judgment like discernment, but a judicial ruling for the members of the church.

01:31:32.560 But any government, including ecclesiastical government, the church, it has its tools, keys of the kingdom for the church, sword for the state, and it also has its jurisdiction.

01:31:41.120 The church can only deal with people that are within the church in that judicial sense.

01:31:46.000 And so if we're talking about somebody who's not also a member of the church, they're unregenerate, then no, we can't give this judicial thing.

01:31:51.900 And I think that's why Paul's saying, I don't have the authority to do that.

01:31:54.880 they don't belong to this church. I'm an apostle of Christ sent to the church. I'm not a civil

01:31:59.140 magistrate. It's outside of my jurisdiction. So when he says, is it not those inside the church

01:32:04.020 whom you are to judge? In a theonomy perspective, wouldn't a lot of the government leaders and a lot

01:32:12.540 of the people enforcing the laws be those inside the church? Absolutely. A lot of them would be

01:32:18.200 Christian. Again, not necessarily each and every individual, but yes, many of them would be members

01:32:25.360 of Bible preaching local churches, but there still would be a separation. So, they could be judged by

01:32:31.280 their church that they belong to for certain matters under that ecclesiastical court. But

01:32:36.820 again, it'd just be the separation, a distinction of those two sovereign spheres of the church and

01:32:40.220 the state. But not told what laws they have to pass or something like that?

01:32:45.620 Well, they would be told that, but not with governmental binding.

01:32:52.760 Their pastor, right?

01:32:54.540 So if George Washington, these guys, I mean, it's not a crazy hypothetical situation.

01:32:59.020 We're talking about things that have happened in this nation not that long ago.

01:33:02.560 Like George Washington was a church member and he was influenced by his ministers and they're preaching God's law.

01:33:10.440 But being influenced and being under the control of another is different.

01:33:12.980 That's right.

01:33:13.280 And within theonomy, it likewise would still be influenced.

01:33:16.940 It wouldn't be the minister.

01:33:18.140 Because there's a difference between a theocracy and an ecclesiocracy.

01:33:22.500 And theonomy is not advocating for a church-run state, where the pope is over the president and a pseudo-governor.

01:33:30.640 So we're not talking about an ecclesiocracy.

01:33:33.800 We don't think there should be a church-run state.

01:33:35.360 We also don't think there should be a state-run church, like in China, with the three-self church, you know, those kinds of things.

01:33:42.120 But we, we think there should be a separation of church and state, but not a separation of

01:33:45.980 Christ and state. And it should be a theocracy in the sense that God is over the state. 0.63

01:33:51.020 Now, would you say that any government in human history has ever successfully done this and been

01:33:56.040 a good example of this? Yeah, I think Constantine did a pretty good job. I think that he, again,

01:34:02.240 there are plenty of bugs, but I think that the people of God, genuine regenerate people at the

01:34:08.920 time rejoiced they would i think they rejoiced uh when constantine came into power and and then i

01:34:15.180 think america um has has been the closest uh with many of them being the founders being um american

01:34:22.020 puritans and uh and so i would say um i would say constantine and america would probably be

01:34:27.700 two of the closest examples that i can think of right now if the church is supposed to push forth

01:34:32.400 theonomy then you you would say that other than two one partial instance and one best example we

01:34:40.400 have in um in uh early you know well rome constantine's rome right um that other than

01:34:50.140 that you'd say it's it's basically a theonomy hasn't been a reality for the vast majority of

01:34:56.100 places where the gospel is gone gone rooted had massive responses that theonomies wasn't there

01:35:01.360 and that it took about 300 years before it started to have that effect in the one example that you

01:35:08.600 would say is like, here's like a good example of it. Absolutely. Yeah. And, and, and I'm interested

01:35:13.400 in this. Yeah. In line with that, I would also say like, I think that we're still within the

01:35:17.200 early church. Yeah. Like you and me are, I think, I think it's likely that Jesus could tarry for

01:35:23.500 another 30,000 years and people will say, Hey, you know, it took them, you know, three, four,

01:35:27.940 500 years to get the you know to understand the hypostatic union and just the nature of christ

01:35:32.420 is fully gone fully man took him 500 years for that and maybe it took him 5 000 years to understand

01:35:37.540 um uh the scripture as it applies to government interesting yeah so i guess i still have more

01:35:45.380 questions but i think i just have to like sit and marinate all this stuff um do you have any

01:35:50.420 explicit new testament teaching that just straight up says like you know like well i let me put it

01:35:56.660 this way what what are your best proof texts for theonomy if you could just maybe list a few of

01:36:02.000 them for me to think about yeah that's a great question um i i you know i i would hang my hat

01:36:08.680 um in many cases just on matthew 28 all authority you know jesus so this is now the resurrected lord

01:36:14.120 about to ascend all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me um go therefore make

01:36:20.460 disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the father the son the holy spirit and

01:36:24.560 teaching them to obey all of my commandments theonomy in many ways it's not so much that

01:36:30.500 there's just this explicit text although i think first corinthians 15 would be another one he must

01:36:35.800 reign until all his enemies are put under his feet that would be kind of theonomic but also

01:36:40.480 that'd be like a blend of post mill for post yeah exactly because in the now would you would

01:36:45.720 you be a theonomist if you weren't post mill that's a good question i don't know i i don't

01:36:51.340 think it's a coincidence that i came into both um at the same time i don't think that's a

01:36:55.380 coincidence so yes i do think they play into each other and then let's let's look at this verse so

01:37:00.540 okay let's take these two spheres idea right you have matthew 28 18 through 20. imagine that we've

01:37:06.260 got this idea there's two spheres church rules here government rules here both part of the kingdom

01:37:11.500 of christ um who is this instruction to matthew 20 18 right all authority in heaven and earth has

01:37:18.320 given to me go therefore and make disciples of all nations would you say that's church

01:37:23.200 government or both well the command is being given to the disciples all scriptures for us

01:37:28.400 not all scriptures to us there's an immediate human audience he's speaking to his disciples

01:37:32.240 which would represent the church they need to go and do that right and so they're to baptize

01:37:37.040 go to make disciples of all nations so you take nations they're not just to refer to peoples of

01:37:43.200 all nations but but of the whole government structures themselves right well i think

01:37:48.000 fundamentally it's absolutely dealing with individual people actually need to be baptized

01:37:52.640 into the triune god into the name of the triune god so i think it's talking about preaching the

01:37:56.480 gospel conversion and and and giving them the initiating oath sign of the christian faith

01:38:01.520 which is baptism um but then i okay i think it's also teaching them to obey all of my commands

01:38:07.120 which I think have civil application.

01:38:11.720 Okay, so doesn't that make the church

01:38:18.440 the one that's enforcing theonomy?

01:38:21.520 Doesn't that put the sphere of the church over the state?

01:38:24.200 That's a great question.

01:38:25.200 Again, I think George Washington,

01:38:27.520 but it's that same concept of when you have,

01:38:30.720 so first, so one question,

01:38:32.440 this is what I asked some of my friends is,

01:38:34.300 do we believe that a Christian can, can serve in a position of government? Can a Christian be in

01:38:40.940 the military? Can a Christian be a police officer? Could they run for city council? Could they be a 1.00

01:38:44.600 governor? And I believe that Christians can and should. Not that every Christian, people have

01:38:49.620 individual calls on their life, but this is not only permissible, but it is commendable.

01:38:54.960 And so, in those cases where you have a Christian serving in government, you have a dual office.

01:38:59.520 you know just like i you know i i don't i have certain authority as a pastor in the realm of the

01:39:04.700 church that i don't have with my wife and children as as husband dad um in the home and then i have

01:39:10.900 certain authority with my wife and children like for instance with spanking which i know is

01:39:14.500 controversial but i i believe in spanking so i i can't spank members in my church but i can with

01:39:21.000 my kids and so i'm holding you know what i mean like the weirdest yeah yeah okay don't don't try

01:39:25.560 to picture it yeah don't try to picture it but you know but i can't that would be in highly

01:39:29.460 inappropriate and weird you know and make people cry and laugh and it'd just be bad so so anyways

01:39:34.900 the point is um but but i'm hoping it's the same it's one person joel who is dad over here and and

01:39:41.520 pastor over here and has one tool keys of the kingdom over here a rod over here this responsibility

01:39:47.560 and that responsibility and jurisdiction in between right so i i would actually agree with

01:39:52.780 all of that everything you just said there i think i think i'd agree with all of it my

01:39:56.460 my pushback in matthew 28 and this will be the last pushback i'll give you but it's good

01:40:01.020 would be um that um if we do okay i i'm sensing what i think is an inconsistency right i would

01:40:09.140 take this to be back go into all the nations make disciples of all nations um baptize them

01:40:16.700 right teach them this is all the same category of people they're it's christians discipling and

01:40:22.660 teaching and baptizing other christians and it's not teaching them to make government laws that

01:40:27.940 enforce the commands of christ um but if you do view it as making government laws then it all

01:40:33.620 funnels back to the church as the one that is over the government not as separate spheres so i'm just

01:40:40.140 i'm just saying this seems like an internal inconsistency in that view the separation of

01:40:45.180 church and state thing i'm saying i think theonomy okay i don't i don't currently think that that's

01:40:48.980 That's the biblical view. And I haven't heard all the reasons for it either. So I'm not saying, you know, more than that. But I think that this separation of church and state idea doesn't fit if you were to hold the theonomy position. You would have to say the church is over the state for the reason, and it would conflict with other scriptures, I admit that, but for the reason that the proof text would put it that way, right?

01:41:12.060 all authority has been given to me right go therefore make disciples of all the nations

01:41:15.340 that's the that's that's the disciples and then as it filters down to all those who become

01:41:20.540 disciples go and disciple all nations baptize them in the name of the father and the son and

01:41:24.300 the holy spirit teach them to observe all that i've commanded you if i interpret that as make

01:41:29.100 laws governmental laws that enforce the commands of jesus which i interpret secondarily as being

01:41:36.940 under the law of not under the law of moses but but being under the theonomic understanding of

01:41:42.920 the law of moses um then the church is the one who's in charge of that if that's my proof text

01:41:50.320 then the church is in charge that's my point with matthew 28 what do you think of that phrase if

01:41:54.400 that's your proof text then the church is in charge of the state i completely understand what

01:42:00.260 you're saying. So my response would be, I'm not saying, so go, therefore make disciples of all

01:42:07.520 nations, baptize. So I look at it as really, it's one commandment. I think it's disciple.

01:42:12.600 And I think we have sub commandments that serve that. So it's disciple, make disciples. And to

01:42:20.100 make disciples, it's going to involve going, baptizing, and teaching. And so with that,

01:42:28.420 the teaching component, it's disciples teaching disciples. I think you're absolutely right.

01:42:34.140 Now, that being said, I do think teaching them to obey all my commandments, that gets into the

01:42:38.660 three uses of law. And one of the uses of law is preaching the law even to the unconverted sinner 0.99

01:42:42.340 because the law shows them, like Romans chapter seven, when the law came to sprung to life, 0.53

01:42:47.480 I died. And you know, like the law is good and holy and right. Is it the law's fault? No,

01:42:51.680 it's not the law's fault. It's sin's fault, but the law shed a light on sin and that drove me

01:42:56.140 to Christ. So I think teaching them to obey all their commandments, it's disciples teaching

01:43:00.360 disciples. I think your point is sound. It's disciples teaching disciples to obey God's

01:43:06.420 commandments, all Christ's commandments. But in addition to that, I'm just giving the disclaimer,

01:43:10.060 it's also, I think, disciples in their quest to make disciples, teaching people to obey

01:43:15.360 the commandments, knowing that they haven't obeyed the commandments and will drive them to Christ,

01:43:19.360 but still within this evangelistic effort.

01:43:23.020 My point is that, and again, because it was very insightful.

01:43:28.160 I think you hit the nail on the head, but it's the post-mill theonomic combo.

01:43:33.900 It really is two peas in a pod.

01:43:35.920 It's a combo.

01:43:36.980 Because my thing is, I think theonomy is inescapable unless you're a pessimist.

01:43:44.600 And, you know, like, like, unless, and I don't mean that as a slam, but I mean it in just in terms of, like, for me, my post-millennialism says that the Great Commission, when I look at the Great Commission within my post-millennial framework, I think it's actually going to work.

01:44:00.940 I think it's going to work.

01:44:02.080 And so I'm going to look at Matthew 28 and I'm going to cross-reference Matthew 16.

01:44:05.520 I will build, not just sustain my weak church, but build, expand my church and the gates of hell, the gates, the hell's on the defense.

01:44:13.340 The gates are a defensive mechanism.

01:44:15.120 The church is the battering ram of Christ.

01:44:16.820 It's going to expand.

01:44:17.640 It's going to grow.

01:44:18.440 And so for me, what I'm thinking about is, so like when a Roman centurion would say, what does it look like for me?

01:44:24.960 I've just become a Christian, right?

01:44:27.180 And it wasn't so much, so it's disciples teaching disciples to obey the law of God.

01:44:31.640 It's not like they're going so much, although I think there is this function, but it's not so much like I'm going and I'm telling, you know, the civil magistrate what to legislate.

01:44:41.860 It's, no, I'm making disciples, but to me, here's the inescapable reality.

01:44:45.840 What if the Great Commission actually works?

01:44:47.460 What if Christ actually does build his church numerically to the point where you have centurions,

01:44:53.040 you have members of the civil magistrate who are also now members of Christ's church,

01:44:56.560 and they're asking the question, which we do see in the New Testament, questions like

01:44:59.360 this being asked, what do I do now?

01:45:01.060 What does it look like for me as a soldier to follow Christ?

01:45:04.260 And Jesus talks about, do not take more taxes than you're told.

01:45:08.420 like there are certain morals that are binding on you, meaning there is, following Jesus looks

01:45:15.520 different based off of your station of life. So, 1 Corinthians chapter 7, I remain in whatever

01:45:20.060 station the Lord called you. And I know that, you know, he gets into that and really applies it to

01:45:24.440 singleness and marriage. But the point is that being a male husband follower of Jesus, I have

01:45:33.020 certain specific obligations that my female wife follower of Jesus doesn't have.

01:45:38.000 Ephesians 5 and 6, the dynamic of husband and wife, parents and children, slaves and

01:45:43.600 masters or employers, employees, all these different, and I think civil magistrate is

01:45:48.320 one of those functions.

01:45:50.420 So, what does it look like to be a governor who's a Christian?

01:45:53.480 And what does it look like to be a police officer who's a Christian and a councilman

01:45:56.980 who's a Christian?

01:45:57.440 and i think that's an a foregone conclusion an inevitability in the mind of christ even in the

01:46:03.640 giving of the great commission because he already said in matthew 16 i will build my church and i

01:46:08.540 think the only way to escape christian governments is the the pre-millennial outlook of of the church

01:46:15.420 just is never going to get that far and and jesus is probably coming back in the next 15 minutes

01:46:19.220 does it does that make sense but i think if you think jesus is going to tarry and the church

01:46:26.700 really is going to be numerically built we're going to have to come up with some and i'm not

01:46:32.140 saying the bible perfectly clearly you know like like i'm not saying it's easy but but what i'm

01:46:37.240 saying is i think we're going the christians are going to have to come up with a civil magistrate

01:46:41.820 doctrine we're going to have to come up with oh well i totally agree with you there you know with

01:46:46.580 an idea of what do christians in government yeah yeah i totally agree with you there and and i'm

01:46:52.480 not going to try to answer in detail, but my short answer is look at what God judges pagan nations

01:46:57.140 for in the old Testament and you'll see what he expects of all nations. And your answer is look

01:47:02.140 at what God commanded Israel and you'll see what he expects of all nations. I think that would be

01:47:06.560 the short version. Your answer, your answer. And yeah, you said that earlier. And my answer would

01:47:11.620 be like, look at what he commanded Israel in the 10 commandments and then find the general equity

01:47:17.720 of the civil commandments and know that the ceremonial has been fully fulfilled and abrogated

01:47:22.900 in christ yeah to give a fuller general we both would look for general equity and i think you're

01:47:29.300 on the on this would look for general equity but maybe theonomist would look with more of a fine

01:47:33.820 tooth comb you know yeah and i think the biggest difference is just the ten commandments that you

01:47:40.240 would say ten commandments are binding for christians but in terms of governments actually

01:47:44.360 legislating like commandment one through four that's where i think that's the biggest difference

01:47:49.140 between us i don't think the 10 commandments are binding for christians so well you believe nine

01:47:55.220 of them are i believe there is overlap with god's moral rules for for mankind which isn't the same

01:48:03.860 as his his his expectations on all governments but i believe there's an overlap with the 10

01:48:08.380 commandments um but the way i would parse it out would be not that i think nine of them apply to

01:48:14.440 me and one doesn't that would be a very weird view in my and very open to criticism that's most

01:48:19.760 christians view it's not my view i think i think that's almost i think that's how most christians

01:48:24.420 express it right but i but if they think about it carefully which most people don't and they've

01:48:29.380 never been challenged to um then they're gonna go gosh like am i under the 10 commandments

01:48:36.600 or is much of my behavior consistent with the Ten Commandments because there's this massive

01:48:41.360 overlap of morality in the Ten Commandments? I think that the Sabbath is probably the most

01:48:47.280 obvious outlier because I think that Romans 14 makes it very clear that we don't need to observe

01:48:53.420 the Sabbath. And you can if you want. And so I would never criticize someone for doing it. I'd

01:48:57.560 be like, great, do it, do it unto the Lord. And you don't, don't unto the Lord. And my view is

01:49:00.960 other interpretations of Romans 14 ignore what seems like an obvious application of the passage.

01:49:05.760 But obviously, I'm just explaining my basic ideas here.

01:49:10.240 I'm not trying to get a case for them.

01:49:11.260 Yeah, go ahead.

01:49:12.800 Yeah, so yeah, Joel, thanks, man.

01:49:16.240 So theonomy, it seems to me, is different than what I was expecting from the little whispers I've heard about it.

01:49:22.800 Because I've heard very little about it, to be honest.

01:49:24.300 I've only heard little bits here and there.

01:49:27.200 And you've helped me understand it a lot better.

01:49:29.340 And I also know that me and you as brothers in Christ, we agree on so much stuff that, like, we could hold hands together, at least metaphorically.

01:49:38.200 I'm not really comfortable just holding hands with the guys.

01:49:41.020 It wouldn't be quite as weird as the spanking analogy.

01:49:45.780 Not quite.

01:49:46.740 But we could we could hold hands together and stand shoulder to shoulder, you know, with so many important and essential doctrines in Christ, even against the sway of where a lot of people are going in very westernized countries that are more too modern for their own brains.

01:50:08.280 so so that's that's true um and and but i i think that my own perspective on theonomy is i'm not

01:50:15.280 really closer to it here i'm i'm going okay yeah it doesn't seem to me that i've currently

01:50:20.600 understood that there's these clear texts that really strongly establish at least for my

01:50:25.260 understanding yeah um yeah anyway what do you think no that's that's totally fine and i i think

01:50:31.620 you know if you do explore more and i know that one thing that's difficult is you know

01:50:36.600 when you're a pastor or, or even just, you know, in a position of teaching Christians theology,

01:50:43.520 everyone wants to dictate your study schedule. Have you noticed that? You should read this book.

01:50:48.900 You should read this book. You should read this book. And so you're doing, you've got something

01:50:52.600 lined up. So you do you and, and do that and do it to the glory of God and do it thoroughly and,

01:50:57.840 and come back up for air, you know, five years from now or whatever it takes.

01:51:01.300 but if you ever do get to it and i'm not saying you have to um if you ever do get to it you'll

01:51:07.920 you'll probably will come back and say i don't feel like joel was being honest with me about

01:51:11.960 this theonomy thing because there is such a wide spectrum some people the simple definition of

01:51:16.680 theonomy is the civil codes not just the ten commands but the civil codes given to israel

01:51:21.680 should they they are uh we are nations today are obligated so that's what i think i've run into

01:51:28.860 with my whispers that i've heard because it felt very much this was years ago and i was like i'm

01:51:33.620 pretty sure these guys want to enforce the totality of the civil law towards israel or basically

01:51:38.960 the laws towards israel except for what we would consider purity um right yeah and and not the

01:51:44.920 civil coats i'd have a hundred more pushbacks against that that i didn't didn't even bring up

01:51:51.260 because that's not your view right so i would be of of like jeff durbin james white doug wilson

01:51:57.340 these are some of the guys that i would align with and and they kind of coin use the phrase

01:52:02.460 general equity theonomist which really does seem to be the the the confessional reform position

01:52:08.460 if you're westminster or 16 it seems like it is now the confession is not the inherent word of

01:52:13.400 god confessions can air but i'm just saying if you're going to say right i'm i'm a confessional

01:52:17.240 presbyterian confessional reform baptist then the general equity theonomist seems to be the right

01:52:22.100 thing and the reason why we want to is like why not just call it something else why do you have

01:52:26.320 to use the word theonomy because theonomy is a good word. It's God's law. I don't think Christians

01:52:30.020 should be having aversion. We want to take that word, stand on that word. And guys who are maybe

01:52:35.040 further, a lot of what they said is fantastic. Greg Bonson, I would agree with 99% of everything

01:52:41.300 that he said. Rush Dooney, I would agree with probably 85 to 90%, so less. Gary North, I haven't

01:52:48.620 gotten into a whole lot, but I've heard great things and especially his application of the

01:52:53.020 christian worldview not just to to the civil realm but to economics i heard that gary north

01:52:57.380 has done some phenomenal but the big idea is all of christ for all of life all of christ for all

01:53:02.280 of life like god has written us a book and and there's there's a lot of things that can be known

01:53:07.540 about god not everything but but it's not a 30 page pamphlet it's 66 books there's a lot of

01:53:12.220 information divine revelation so that the man of god might be equipped for every good work not just

01:53:17.640 his pietistic, privatized, quiet time in his backyard as his kids get shipped off to the 0.54

01:53:23.380 gulag and he allows for a total Marxist takeover. I think the reason why post-millennialism and

01:53:28.880 theonomy are on the uprise right now is because of providence. It is circumstantial. And that

01:53:35.020 doesn't mean they're wrong. And it also doesn't make it right. That's not an argument that proves

01:53:38.220 something either way. But I will admit there is something significant to what's been going on in

01:53:43.120 the world over the last two years and in our nation in civil tyranny and medical tyranny and

01:53:48.060 being told you have to get something in your body or you have to all the, and then all of a sudden

01:53:52.320 it's like, yeah, man, like, does God have something to say about this? And does the Bible, does it

01:53:56.880 just apply to the home in the church, the home of the, another conference on parenting, another

01:54:00.480 conference on parenting, or does the Bible say something about the political realm and the

01:54:05.400 economic realm? And I think the general equity theonomists are saying, yes, it does. And the

01:54:11.340 old school theonomists that get the bad rap, I think they're number one, way better than people

01:54:16.600 are willing to admit. But number two, I think, yeah, maybe there are some areas where they go

01:54:20.800 too far. So that would be my sign-off thought. There's a world in theonomy. Well, thanks for

01:54:28.600 getting me exposed somewhat to it. I appreciate the talk, the brotherly chat, and thanks for

01:54:33.100 letting me push back somewhat. And yeah, good stuff. Yeah. Thanks so much for coming on the

01:54:38.180 show really really appreciate god bless you thanks man wait wait wait real quick before you go do me

01:54:44.560 a favor subscribe to our youtube channel click the bell so you'll be notified with all our new

01:54:49.740 content as it comes out on a daily basis and if you're willing to support this ministry you can

01:54:54.580 do so by going to rightresponseministries.com donate thanks so much god bless

The NXR Podcast - September 06, 2022

THEOLOGY APPLIED - What Does Mike Winger Think About Theonomy？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript