Is it just me or does the Bible have PLENTY of examples of national and familial identity laced throughout? And every time nationhood is mentioned, it's "the sons of..." not, "the citizens of..." Everything throughout the Bible assumes family, race, nation. And it's absolutely a curse to be replaced. (Deut 28: 43-47)
Just for some clarity, the Bible speaks of the nation of Israel, which is also made up of 12 tribes (sons of…). So a nation is not necessarily made up of one sons of, but can be made of many. Now, if we push this back the 12 tribes are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so they are not ethnically separated tribes, but they are ethnically distinct at least as time passes on. How far back do you think this goes? For example: England is largely constituted of Angles, Saxons and Jutes. These are different tribes which came together. Now those 3 tribes are all Germanic, so far enough back they would be of one tribe. Do you think it stops there? Celts are also a big part of England, and obviously more so Britain and the British isles. They are not Germanic, they are not sons of Germania. Do you think they can live amongst us? Because if we push it back further they descend from the Indo-Europeans, the same group as the Germanic tribes. All of these are genuine questions, and I probably align with you in 99% on this issue, I’m genuinely just seeking some clarity for my own understanding.
Interesting . CJ’s point in his tweet that scripture doesn’t give us practical guidance for living in the material world . I think that it definitely does and should be given more credit here.
That phrase threw me when I first heard it as well but I'm trying to consider all the examples they made throughout the episode of where the Bible doesn't give all the specifics on a host of issues that we have to utilize our experience and wisdom to figure out. Car maintenance, details of foreign policy, calculus etc. Its not a jab at Scripture being the infallible rule for everything it does speak to but they are trying to make room for the places where Scripture doesn't explicitly talk about.
@@chrismatthews1762 The problem is scripture does do this and you aren't seeing why they're trying to make the point they're making. They're trying to establish outside justification to ideas and philosophy they believe in that to most would be non-biblical. Like going about calling for anonymous mockery online or partnering with a worshipper of Mary who condemns the reformed. You're missing the very reason they want to make these claims. Dig deeper.
@sethfarmer590 Bingo!!! Top comment. This is devious and they need to come into repentance for this intentionality here. Years ago all these things were warning flags. What comes after that? We're in the "I tried to tell you all" phase. Scripture IS sufficient for these things. What is isn't though is satisfactory for all our personal likes and dislikes. I cannot allow us to stay the person we've always wanted to be. Making a point that scripture cannot guide is to fix our storage issues on our phones or cook fish properly or change a tire safely on the roadside is the opening of a door to something ABSURD on the other side. That is a tell that you are conversing with a person stroking their own ego and that person is getting ready to slap God in his written word right in front of your face. Again I say these guys will be Eastern Orthodox in a few years. Not truly E.O. actually. More like ostensibly orthodox. So much that they share the part where scripture is very important but leave the door open to other things that allow them to be their natural self. Comfortably.
@@sethfarmer590 I think they are being careful not to downplay Scripture. They are just trying to get people out of the idea that the Bible provides every detail for every question that will come up in life. It obviously doesn't, but because we are rightfully wanting to guard sola scritpura and the sufficiency of Scritpure is hits our ears wrong and makes us nervous.
The way Joel has totally flipped in a year's span from being a theonomist dependent upon OT law to natural law/2k (if he's not officially there he will be soon) is hilarious. Maybe if he had actually seminary/theological training he would've known about these things before becoming a UA-camr. lol
@@jahnvantuttlesma8215 Not today’s seminaries. How do I know? Because all the seminary trained pastors made all the same mistakes (but far worse). They shut down for a year with Covid, went to the BLM rallies, are functionally egalitarian, etc, etc, etc. One main difference: When those guys change positions, they just never say it. They pretend they’ve held their new position all along. Glad we could clear that up. You’re welcome.
@@RightResponseMinistries This isn't honest and you know it. Not all seminary trained pastors made these mistakes, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good grift I suppose. Dance monkey, dance! (from what I remember you were the pastor who masked. My seminary trained pastor never did).
Joey is immature and, yes, lacks training and wisdom. But the hole that he has been digging on UA-cam dictates that he must smugly argue. Quasi-intellectual.
Hey guys. You mentioned that you have a meal together as The Lord’s supper. Glad to hear that. The old thimble of juice and crumb of bread, is in no way regulative. I appreciate hearing that you have a meal together for celebrating The Lord’s supper, as was done by Christ and the disciples.
@@SaintBonifacesGhost "And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish." Enough to be satisfied, plenty to save and share afterwards as well.
@sethfarmer590 is that 2000 calories or 2500? What about for the guys that are trying to be stronger for providing for their families. Do they go past satiation or not? Is it a sin if they do this time, or no? How do you tell?
@ I think maybe you are misunderstanding the word "sufficient". Synonyms include "enough" and "adequate". Specialized knowledge and goals such as those you mentioned are indeed outside the scope of scripture (the Biblical authors never heard of a calorie), although they would still be governed by Biblical principles, as all things are.
@sethfarmer590 If there's specialized knowledge outside the scope of scripture, then it's insufficient to provide the specialized knowledge by definition. There is no denial of principles and precepts. This is not hard at all.
1:36:00 or around there. I still think having it in the paywall was good. We need to drive Christians to be able to pay for something they want, and think is good. Support a ministry
How is general equity theonomy in opposition to realizing the Law isnt laying out every detail and wisdom is needed to apply the case law to modern day situations?
Just because people take verses like Gal. 3:28 out of context does not mean that the Bible is not the standard for how to organize a nation, set up borders, and so on. There may be things in which it has not given an exact, specific command, but it still speaks to all things, and we must take what it says and apply it. The Bible speaks in direct commands, generic commands, general principles, approved examples, and necessary inference. All these things are needed. God's law given to Israel is God's standard of justice and of how a nation should be run, and is a model, being much better than we often think. If you go outside the Bible, where is your standard? Patriarchy is firmly taught in scripture. Where is it taught consistently in nature? Is it found in horses, who are led by the oldest mare? Is it found among spiders, when the female kills the male after mating? Nature is not in its ideal state, having been cursed to discipline man. Furthermore, nature is there to show us God's existence, power and wisdom, not to communicate to us his will (rom. 1:18-20). It seems to me that you all are observing the compromised positions of people who would claim to be theonomists but are not, since they are not in fact using the scripture but Liberalism, and are going too far in the opposite direction. Without the Bible as the ultimate standard, what keeps a ruler from using the "It's a reason of state" excuse to do whatever he thinks he needs to do? The answer is: nothing under the sun. There is no objective standard for any part of human existence without scripture. Again, I would argue from my own study, that the Bible is sufficient for every part of human existence, not withstanding the need for deep study and wise application of general principles in some cases. This includes politics, and how a nation should be run. That is one of the expressed purposes of the law of God (Deut. 4:6-8). God's law, and the Bible as a whole, when properly studied, understood and applied, is much better than believed, and most certainly is sufficient. Even Andrew's example from Master and Commander from his show, though being a horrible situation, is still firmly within the command in scripture for a leader to protect life, and in the case where that is not possible, to protect as much life as he can. Therefore, that is not an example where one goes outside the Bible to make political decisions. God's instructions for kings is that they should read and study the law of God every day of their lives, showing that all their decisions must be based on what God says in his word (Deut. 17:18-20).
I understand why the Regulative principle is attractive to people disillusioned by "smoke machine" services, but I hope and pray that you apply the general principle discussed in this episode back to how you conduct your Divine Services. Traditional and respectful historic liturgy are a terrible baby to keep mixed up in the bathwater of "contemporary worship."
Not sure if something is wrong with my Apple podcast app, but I tried listening to this episode and it just went silent from about 44 minutes onward. Finishing listening on UA-cam. But I wanted to mention it in case others had that problem maybe Right Response could look into it?
Christian authors who have been compelled to reference a Bible verse for every true fact in life, have provided us with the watered down out of context utilization of verses we see in so many books. They act like a self help self esteem book is suddenly holy and biblical because they ripped verses out context for every paragraph in their egalitarian feminist self books.
Perhaps Mr. Engel isn’t reading enough of the book of Proverbs in between his nonscriptural reading. If he thinks he can ignore the basic biblical analogy of the individual man and the city as microcosm and macrocosm of each other I’d like to know what else he ignores in scripture.
What about most of church history then? Do they ignore scripture, they’re much more robust and actually had the ability back in the day to directly apply their methodologies.
That’s what I’m saying, it’s like you’re telling me on this issue, the last 2,000 yrs of the church have been in error and it’s just now we’re getting it right?
What about church history? Which part? Which community? “They” only had some political options, depending on where you are pointing at. The Bible is talking directly to all people and peoples. Natural law is an abstract entity in the creation that is dimly apprehended by all that provides hooks and handles for greater things.
Explain how JCay is ignoring the proverbs in the political. Where is every single issue that can be construed as political given a specific, individual prescription in Proverbs? 2nd question, did you listen to what CJay said at all on this?
You men are discussing important things most Christian’s are too afraid to discuss. Keep doing what you do. God bless you men,
Weren't you on another page talking bad about joel webbon a few weeks ago?
Loving the new studio gents
@@sheridanfalkenberry5611 Thanks!
Is it just me or does the Bible have PLENTY of examples of national and familial identity laced throughout? And every time nationhood is mentioned, it's "the sons of..." not, "the citizens of..." Everything throughout the Bible assumes family, race, nation. And it's absolutely a curse to be replaced. (Deut 28: 43-47)
As long as you don't mean the modern Darwinism notion of race and mean something more like ethnicity, this a good comment.
Just for some clarity, the Bible speaks of the nation of Israel, which is also made up of 12 tribes (sons of…).
So a nation is not necessarily made up of one sons of, but can be made of many.
Now, if we push this back the 12 tribes are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so they are not ethnically separated tribes, but they are ethnically distinct at least as time passes on.
How far back do you think this goes?
For example: England is largely constituted of Angles, Saxons and Jutes. These are different tribes which came together. Now those 3 tribes are all Germanic, so far enough back they would be of one tribe.
Do you think it stops there?
Celts are also a big part of England, and obviously more so Britain and the British isles. They are not Germanic, they are not sons of Germania. Do you think they can live amongst us?
Because if we push it back further they descend from the Indo-Europeans, the same group as the Germanic tribes.
All of these are genuine questions, and I probably align with you in 99% on this issue, I’m genuinely just seeking some clarity for my own understanding.
Good ongoing conversation about how Christians truly live and apply God’s word to all of life
Interesting . CJ’s point in his tweet that scripture doesn’t give us practical guidance for living in the material world . I think that it definitely does and should be given more credit here.
That phrase threw me when I first heard it as well but I'm trying to consider all the examples they made throughout the episode of where the Bible doesn't give all the specifics on a host of issues that we have to utilize our experience and wisdom to figure out.
Car maintenance, details of foreign policy, calculus etc.
Its not a jab at Scripture being the infallible rule for everything it does speak to but they are trying to make room for the places where Scripture doesn't explicitly talk about.
@@chrismatthews1762
The problem is scripture does do this and you aren't seeing why they're trying to make the point they're making.
They're trying to establish outside justification to ideas and philosophy they believe in that to most would be non-biblical.
Like going about calling for anonymous mockery online or partnering with a worshipper of Mary who condemns the reformed.
You're missing the very reason they want to make these claims. Dig deeper.
@ That isn't what "sufficient" means. They are redefining that word to mean "exhaustive" and are doing that as an opportunity to downplay scripture.
@sethfarmer590 Bingo!!!
Top comment. This is devious and they need to come into repentance for this intentionality here.
Years ago all these things were warning flags. What comes after that? We're in the "I tried to tell you all" phase.
Scripture IS sufficient for these things. What is isn't though is satisfactory for all our personal likes and dislikes. I cannot allow us to stay the person we've always wanted to be.
Making a point that scripture cannot guide is to fix our storage issues on our phones or cook fish properly or change a tire safely on the roadside is the opening of a door to something ABSURD on the other side. That is a tell that you are conversing with a person stroking their own ego and that person is getting ready to slap God in his written word right in front of your face.
Again I say these guys will be Eastern Orthodox in a few years. Not truly E.O. actually. More like ostensibly orthodox. So much that they share the part where scripture is very important but leave the door open to other things that allow them to be their natural self. Comfortably.
@@sethfarmer590 I think they are being careful not to downplay Scripture. They are just trying to get people out of the idea that the Bible provides every detail for every question that will come up in life.
It obviously doesn't, but because we are rightfully wanting to guard sola scritpura and the sufficiency of Scritpure is hits our ears wrong and makes us nervous.
The way Joel has totally flipped in a year's span from being a theonomist dependent upon OT law to natural law/2k (if he's not officially there he will be soon) is hilarious. Maybe if he had actually seminary/theological training he would've known about these things before becoming a UA-camr. lol
@@jahnvantuttlesma8215 Not today’s seminaries.
How do I know? Because all the seminary trained pastors made all the same mistakes (but far worse). They shut down for a year with Covid, went to the BLM rallies, are functionally egalitarian, etc, etc, etc.
One main difference: When those guys change positions, they just never say it. They pretend they’ve held their new position all along.
Glad we could clear that up. You’re welcome.
@@RightResponseMinistries This isn't honest and you know it. Not all seminary trained pastors made these mistakes, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good grift I suppose. Dance monkey, dance! (from what I remember you were the pastor who masked. My seminary trained pastor never did).
@@Midwest-e3i And this uneducated (maybe even self ordained?) guy has been shepherding a flock. Scary stuff. I wonder where he will go next?
@@RightResponseMinistries"they all went to BLM rallies." No they didn't. You are a liar and unfit to lead.
Joey is immature and, yes, lacks training and wisdom. But the hole that he has been digging on UA-cam dictates that he must smugly argue. Quasi-intellectual.
Hey guys. You mentioned that you have a meal together as The Lord’s supper. Glad to hear that. The old thimble of juice and crumb of bread, is in no way regulative. I appreciate hearing that you have a meal together for celebrating The Lord’s supper, as was done by Christ and the disciples.
What?! The Gospel is sufficient for anything.
Is it sufficient for telling all individuals how many calories they should eat in a day?
@@SaintBonifacesGhost "And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish."
Enough to be satisfied, plenty to save and share afterwards as well.
@sethfarmer590 is that 2000 calories or 2500? What about for the guys that are trying to be stronger for providing for their families. Do they go past satiation or not? Is it a sin if they do this time, or no? How do you tell?
@ I think maybe you are misunderstanding the word "sufficient". Synonyms include "enough" and "adequate". Specialized knowledge and goals such as those you mentioned are indeed outside the scope of scripture (the Biblical authors never heard of a calorie), although they would still be governed by Biblical principles, as all things are.
@sethfarmer590 If there's specialized knowledge outside the scope of scripture, then it's insufficient to provide the specialized knowledge by definition. There is no denial of principles and precepts. This is not hard at all.
The Bible is authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. - Cornelius Van Til
Love your program!
1:36:00 or around there. I still think having it in the paywall was good. We need to drive Christians to be able to pay for something they want, and think is good. Support a ministry
I think I want to unsub, why is his position on theonomy changing when exegesis lead him there and seemingly no exegesis is leading him out?
comment
The release schedule for the patrion podcasts is so complex that I'm going to subscribe just so I don't have to learn it.
@@yellomoth 😂😂😂
How is general equity theonomy in opposition to realizing the Law isnt laying out every detail and wisdom is needed to apply the case law to modern day situations?
Comment
Sufficient does not mean exhaustive. Those are more like antonyms.
Just because people take verses like Gal. 3:28 out of context does not mean that the Bible is not the standard for how to organize a nation, set up borders, and so on. There may be things in which it has not given an exact, specific command, but it still speaks to all things, and we must take what it says and apply it. The Bible speaks in direct commands, generic commands, general principles, approved examples, and necessary inference. All these things are needed. God's law given to Israel is God's standard of justice and of how a nation should be run, and is a model, being much better than we often think. If you go outside the Bible, where is your standard? Patriarchy is firmly taught in scripture. Where is it taught consistently in nature? Is it found in horses, who are led by the oldest mare? Is it found among spiders, when the female kills the male after mating? Nature is not in its ideal state, having been cursed to discipline man. Furthermore, nature is there to show us God's existence, power and wisdom, not to communicate to us his will (rom. 1:18-20). It seems to me that you all are observing the compromised positions of people who would claim to be theonomists but are not, since they are not in fact using the scripture but Liberalism, and are going too far in the opposite direction. Without the Bible as the ultimate standard, what keeps a ruler from using the "It's a reason of state" excuse to do whatever he thinks he needs to do? The answer is: nothing under the sun. There is no objective standard for any part of human existence without scripture. Again, I would argue from my own study, that the Bible is sufficient for every part of human existence, not withstanding the need for deep study and wise application of general principles in some cases. This includes politics, and how a nation should be run. That is one of the expressed purposes of the law of God (Deut. 4:6-8). God's law, and the Bible as a whole, when properly studied, understood and applied, is much better than believed, and most certainly is sufficient. Even Andrew's example from Master and Commander from his show, though being a horrible situation, is still firmly within the command in scripture for a leader to protect life, and in the case where that is not possible, to protect as much life as he can. Therefore, that is not an example where one goes outside the Bible to make political decisions. God's instructions for kings is that they should read and study the law of God every day of their lives, showing that all their decisions must be based on what God says in his word (Deut. 17:18-20).
I understand why the Regulative principle is attractive to people disillusioned by "smoke machine" services, but I hope and pray that you apply the general principle discussed in this episode back to how you conduct your Divine Services. Traditional and respectful historic liturgy are a terrible baby to keep mixed up in the bathwater of "contemporary worship."
Not sure if something is wrong with my Apple podcast app, but I tried listening to this episode and it just went silent from about 44 minutes onward. Finishing listening on UA-cam. But I wanted to mention it in case others had that problem maybe Right Response could look into it?
God is trying to tell you to not listen to these charlatans.
Jay Dyer and RRM are beefing? That's my two favorite internet guys 😢
You need better internet guys.
@JW-tg1nn nah
@@Ransetsu yah
Christian authors who have been compelled to reference a Bible verse for every true fact in life, have provided us with the watered down out of context utilization of verses we see in so many books. They act like a self help self esteem book is suddenly holy and biblical because they ripped verses out context for every paragraph in their egalitarian feminist self books.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Perhaps Mr. Engel isn’t reading enough of the book of Proverbs in between his nonscriptural reading. If he thinks he can ignore the basic biblical analogy of the individual man and the city as microcosm and macrocosm of each other I’d like to know what else he ignores in scripture.
What about most of church history then? Do they ignore scripture, they’re much more robust and actually had the ability back in the day to directly apply their methodologies.
That’s what I’m saying, it’s like you’re telling me on this issue, the last 2,000 yrs of the church have been in error and it’s just now we’re getting it right?
What about church history? Which part? Which community? “They” only had some political options, depending on where you are pointing at. The Bible is talking directly to all people and peoples. Natural law is an abstract entity in the creation that is dimly apprehended by all that provides hooks and handles for greater things.
Explain how JCay is ignoring the proverbs in the political. Where is every single issue that can be construed as political given a specific, individual prescription in Proverbs?
2nd question, did you listen to what CJay said at all on this?