Autonomy vs Theonomy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лют 2020
- Briefly mentioned the issue of theonomy in light of a meme floating around featuring a few words from Toby Sumpter.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio.com/go/336785
Why I am coming to a very deep interest in Theonomy is, I find myself naturally trying to defend the law of God; even to non-believers. 99% of Christians will proudly proclaim "pro-life" or the superiority of heterosexual marriages; will say murder, lying, cheating, stealing, abusing, etc. is wrong, but still believe that a society governed by Gods law would somehow be oppressive. Freewill has always been our biggest enemy; whether it was in the Garden, or whether it is holding the Constitution up as a more sacred societal guideline than the Bible. Since our inception we were created to be governed by God, yet, most Christians today are more happy to live in a nation where observance of Gods will is optional. I had to ask myself the question, "Am I already an ideological Theonomist?" And if I am, why am I ashamed to proclaim Gods law is perfect? (Psalm 19:7) Its like Dr. White said, the tough work would be application, not identification. Gods word already identifies Gods will. But, how we would apply it in a context of non-belief amidst grace is far too complex for my small mind to grasp. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though, and, it doesn't mean I don't argue on Facebook with people everyday acting like I already believe it should. Why be passionate about Gods law politically in one or two points, but be passive about the rest? Either go all in or go home.
Thank you so much, Dr. White! I appreciate this and the sermon series on the Holiness Code. I listened to all 38 sermons and understand the law much better.
Do you have the link to the first one?
ua-cam.com/play/PLzOwqed_gET38HNI6V5U5k9NlKaHBfnZs.html
@John Sixfourteefour ua-cam.com/play/PLzOwqed_gET38HNI6V5U5k9NlKaHBfnZs.html&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE
ua-cam.com/video/3U6sb2_IsKw/v-deo.htmlsi=WMeXhv35qFY3wIxq
It's amazing how many evangelicals hate God's Law today.
Heb 7:12 KJV For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:19 KJV For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
I’m assuming you know this.. but worth saying anyway.. you are among those who need to confess and repent. I learnt from a wise man to learn to take responsibility for your sins and the sins of the collective group you are a part of in order to serve and lead the group away from sin and to Christ. Hope that makes sense.
@@provotoprevo2609 Not sure if your comment was meant for me or the original post.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17that’s semantically speaking, the ceremonial part of the law, and we never say that the law perfects. But is perfect in its character to uphold morality and justice. And point to Christ. Hope this makes sense
Wow, that statement about our level of commitment relative to the comment of the Jews was powerful!
Theonomy seems to answer so much of the issues I've run into with people willing to lie, (inconsistency) to others in the church. I hope our current situation will force the church to take it more seriously.
Don't you think that there is a disconnect between how people see the old testament. I mean, I don't think everyone who rejects the law is just embarrassed about it. I think it can be simple ignorance (which is still a sin, but of a different sort) of the connections, due to lack of exegetical preaching in churches.
I think people get confused with the tradition keeping of the Pharissees, legalism, and legitimate Psalm 119 style Theonomy.
🔥Facts🔥 You either have autonomy or Theonomy. I’ll take Theonomy any day everyday!
I think that is just an opinion, not a fact. For example: Heb 7:19 KJV For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
The Law made nothing perfect, but a bringing in of a bettwr hope did.
Think on that and ask yourself if what White is saying is a fact.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 I think you’ve got some EyeSoreJesus (eisegesis) going on.
Tell me, what part of Gods laws are imperfect?
How do you reconcile James 1:25 with your interpretation of these Hebrew passage?
James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed
@@ContraMondial I simply posted a verse and somehow I am guilty of eisigesis? Perhaps you need to ask God that question. He is the one who wrote it.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 the law made nothing perfect. That doesn't mean the law itself isn't perfect. It didn't make people perfect, Christ did through faith. It's not saying the law itself isn't perfect
@@joelmatchett6599 Before we continue, did I say that the Law was not perfect?
Started reading on this subject tonight, after I watched your vid.... Glad to see we are reading the same thing.
"
3.For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.… Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:9, 10, 14; the entire passage, 9:1-14, is an interpretation of the law).
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward (1 Tim. 5:18, cf. 5:17; the illustration is to buttress the requirement of “honour,” or “double honour” for presbyters or elders, i.e., pastors of the church). These two passages illustrate the requirement, “Thou shalt not steal,” in terms of a specific case law, revealing the extent of that case in its implications. In his epistle to Timothy, Paul refers also to the law which in effect declares, by case law, that “The labourer is worthy of his reward.” The reference is to Leviticus 19:13, “Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning,” and Deut. 24:14, “Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates (cf. 5:15). This is cited by Jesus, Luke 10:7, “The laborer is worthy of his hire.”
If it is a sin to defraud an ox of his livelihood, then it is also a sin to defraud a man of his wages: it is theft in both cases. If theft is God’s classification of an offense against an animal, how much more so an offense against God’s apostle and minister? The implication then is, how much more deadly is stealing from God. Malachi makes this very clear:"
Rushdoony, R. J. (1973). The institutes of Biblical law, volume one (pp. 11-12). Nutley, NJ: Craig Press.
to read these volumes for free go to:
chalcedon.edu/resources/books/the-institutes-of-biblical-law-volume-1
chalcedon.edu/resources/books/institutes-of-biblical-law-law-society-vol-2
chalcedon.edu/resources/books/the-intent-of-the-law-the-institutes-of-biblical-law-vol-3
Thank you Dr. White for making this video. Can you explain Romans 6:14? I know you mentioned people usually take this text out of context.
Top shelf, to James White’s left. Is that a warp core??
Yes.
We can’t talk about this today because the church is too intellectually and spiritually fragile.
This sounds pious enough but what exactly are we suggesting here?
Sounds like White wants to execute sinners. I wonder which one of the potential stone throwers never sinned.
Is James White a Theonomist?
Yes I think he might be more in the general equity Theonomy camp but yeah he is theonomic
Sounds like it. Run...
Dr White,How would you interpret John Winthrop's Mass Bay Colony? I know this is a colonial Government! I ask the question because if it was Theonomic,it was a benevolent autocracy! I ask this also because some theonomists today sound like radical Libertarians on economic issues! I am curious of your opinion! Thanks!
Paul on the subject of muzzling the ox: "If others have this right to receive benefits from you, don’t we even more?
However, we have not made use of this right; instead we endure everything so that we will not hinder the gospel of Christ."
You didn't answer the question should a woman be stoned for adultery or not?
YES,paul says God's OT laws is righteous,david says so too,OT says all God's law is FOREVER,if someone from future says its abolished he is a FALSE TEACHER/PROPHET,Christ didnt come and say "i come to destroy the law not to fulfill it why would i fulfill such a barbaric commandment? dont you guys use your FEELING on it? God is just givin us trial ya know because he wanna test you whether you idiots will follow these idiotic laws or not!"
Should non believers be forced to follow God’s law? Would that create a ton of resentment like in Arab nations that are full of false converts under threat of death?
I thought he was going to tell us how it applies. So basically word for word? Didn’t he say the penal application was different? Or, are adulterers are to be stoned still to this day? Is there room for repentance and grace?
My point on the cutting off a womans hand for grabbing a mans testicles during a fight is how oftern does that happen
I don't understand what's going on with James here. In 2015 he was talking a very different story when it came to Theonomy. He seemed to realize back then that the problem we had with it wasn't that it was "God's law", but that the people promoting it had a very public and political agenda with it. He seemed to get back then what the problem was. But now he's like 'I don't see the problem!' Well, we don't have a problem with it when it's properly applied. Here he is in 2015 (watch from about 4 minutes to 30 minutes): ua-cam.com/video/Z3zLZ2RplzY/v-deo.html
Jonathan C he got Durbinized! Jeff is a theonomist that has given free tattoos in his church. So I suppose he picks “which laws” of God he wants.
Elijah
The verse seemingly prohibitung tatoos are part of Hebrew ceremonial laws, and if any part of it is a moral issue, it is if the tatoo is idolatrous. You don’t know anything about theonomy if you don’t understand the distinction between moral and ceremonial law.
@ Johnathan and Elijah.
If you actually listen to Dr. Whites 2015 show you’ll see (hear), he’s not “against theonomy” he’s simply pointing out how the penal portion would be dealt out in a non-Theocratic Israelite nation.
There is a third option: "Other people's law" -- which is still not God's law, but is an important distinction. It's one of the 3 laws that people like Ayn Rand KNEW to ignore. :)
She went with autonomy, we go with theonomy -- but MANY go with "other people's law" and that's not good
So condescending and sarcastic yet doesn't give an opinion as to what to do with a rebellious son.
Exactly
Moral of the story, Theonomy is an ambiguous term and arguments like the one Dr White presents does not adequately represent the criticisms put toward theonomy
Explaining and defending biblical theonomy is a losing battle. Christians look at me like I have three heads, and atheists walk away from me as soon as I mention anything from the Old Testament. Neither nonbelievers nor mainstream evangelical Christians will give me the time of day. Obviously I don't care what human beings think (God's Word is perfect, after all), but being a theonomist is a lonely road indeed.
Let God be true though every man a liar. Keep preaching the truth. Believe in God and his promises for a glorious future. Read Psalm 72 and Isaiah 2. God bless you, amen.
Jesus died for the curse of the law not for the law itself.
Romans 7:4-6 (ESV): Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
@@alexmusser7482 What's the difference between Gods grace and Gods mercy ?
@@ChiliMcFly1 Grace is a gift - getting something you don't deserve. Mercy = God holding back something you do deserve (wrath)
Why do you ask?
@@alexmusser7482 There is a problem when you repent God shows mercy this is the true gift because he shows mercy to the one who repented. If you rely on grace you might say no need to repent for I am under grace.
@@ChiliMcFly1 What do you think the gospel is?
Sorry James but once you start going down the ceremonial law vs moral law then you go down the SDA route: You need to keep the Jewish Sabbath as Saturday and avoid shrimp and ham because those did not point to Jesus' sacrifice, they were simply honoring God.
Food laws and the Sabbath set apart Israel from the unbelieving nations. As did circumcision.
@@rutatutut According to Paul. Matthew doesn't think so. James doesn't either. But in the end this is the compromise of christianity to unite the Pauline and Jewish christian groups: Jews Keep the full torah, the rest, just odn't eat meat offered to idols. Too bad Mathew and James Letters don't agree.
The dietary laws still apply not the exact writings but the spiritual principles found in it which is living a holy separate life which causes others to notice that you live for your God
False dichotomy
No, it's a true dichotomy. Either God rules or he doesn't. It's really that simple.
@@SammyNeverEver The position offered is, “agree with my understanding, or defy God.” That’s why it is a false dichotomy.
Christians have a law"Wolfie", no thanks, we'll stick with Scripture. This kid has no idea what Christianity is.
My Middle School students could see through this informal fallacy. It's called false dichotomy.
If not Autonomy, what do you call it?
@Johnathan
If you’re going to make such a statement, please back it up
It is not a false dichotomy. You either have God’s law or man’s law.
Sorry James, but you are not only wrong, but you are opposing the words of Jesus Himself.
Jesus says to love God and love your neighbor and, "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Why are you trying to change that?
Sorry, I really don't get how White supporting all the law and the prophets somehow means he is denying what Jesus is saying here. If anything, it seems to me that those who reject God's law in favor of what seems right in their own eyes are the ones who reject the very measure of how to love God and our neighbor as taught by Jesus here. But maybe I misunderstand your point.
@@oracleoftroy I think there is ground for more than just those two options. White seems to think you are either following the Law of God or you are self ruling. That is silly, especially when Jesus says the Law is fulfilled in loving God and your neighbor.
Jesus comparea His Law with that of Moses and will say things like, "Moses said this, but I say this."
That is the point I am getting at. I choose to believe the WHOLE Word of God in its proper context and I will reject any OT Law that does not fulfill the Law of Christ.
The Book of Hebrews is VERY clear that the old Law was ready to pass away and that the truth presented in those Laws are in Christ, a "better" Law.
@@oracleoftroy
Heb 7:19 KJV For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
If theonomy means that a woman should have her hand cut off for striking a man in the groin, then I'll take autonomy. No doubt about it.
Anybody male or female who strikes this man in the groin should not he suprised if they have their hand cut off that's for sure.
@Rebuked Falsehood I am saying that if God's law mandates dismemberment for the reason stated, yea I'll take man's law.
Jesse T
That is a ceremonial law same as the prohition against eating shrimp or requiring women to seclude themselves during their period. It is only moral law, and civil laws based on morality, which are eternal.
Jesse T
So James White is wrong about that verse because he fails to see that the purpose of that law was not “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” but was a bout uncleanliness. Theonomy isn’t easy, but it is right.
Rebuked Falsehood
Genitals are unclean in Mosaic law, especially when touched by another adult of the opposite sex.
Antinomianism has always gone right along side with Protestantism. To portray it as a new thing in American evangelicalism is just dishonest.
Where did White say this was a new thing? All sects of Christianity have had both legalists and antinomians leading people astray throughout the centuries.
Theonomy is not legalism nor is it judiazing.
If you're talking about how works of the law don't justify us before God, then yes. They don't justify us. That's an essential tenet of Protestant Christianity and the Biblical gospel. That isn't the point of the law.
the new covenant rebukes theonomy. the OC laws were to the people of israel. we can use the general equity of the law but the 10 words are not the definition of the moral law, Christ is per Deut 18:18
Theonomy autonomy false dichotomy. I have for years wondered why White and Durbin attacked JWs with such zeal while remaining silent on the greater heresy of Seventh Day Adventism. Finally I have tumbled to it. It is because they share the underlying heresy of theonomy. Here is a favorite theonomic text: _"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."_ Rom 2:14,15
Somehow overlooked is the very next verse, 16 _"This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, _*_as my gospel declares."_** AS MY GOSPEL DECLARES!* Paul was the ambassador of the New Covenant. I could fill this page with Pauline quotes declaring the same, but I won't. Well maybe just one: _"Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. _*_By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."_*
How about this: _"Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments"_ - _"By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."_ Ex 34:28 - Heb 8:13
By the same Word which I defeat Adventist I will defeat Theonomist. It is not I but the Word of God which tears down every false doctrine. Jesus came as a layman, not a PhD teacher of the Law, likewise the apostles. If you are aligned with God's Word you can defeat every strong tower of deception.
Theonomists, provide an answer to Rom 2:16, Ex 34:28, Heb 8:13.
~ 22:00 All of humanity makes up the people in Romans 1. We are all terrible sinners in need of Christ. We all deserve death. Christ set us free from that. Now we are free in Christ. Read Galatians, especially chapter 5. We do not need to be put back into bondage under the Law, for what the Law could not accomplish, Christ accomplished for us. We are now led by the Spirit.
Furthermore, read this from Hebrews 8:
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Presuppositionalists are a house-divided. We atheists would be justified, if we so chose, to ignore them, since ignoring them would be the best way to ensure we don't add "heresy" to our list of sins.
Sure. No contradiction among atheists, just utter logical incoherence whereby you all can make absolutely no rational sense of any aspect of your experience or existence lol.
“We atheists would be justified…” by what standard? Lol. Your borrowing from the Christian worldview is apparent. Your incoherence is showing!