Theonomy vs Natural Law?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 23 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 107

  • @chrismatthews1762
    @chrismatthews1762 3 місяці тому +6

    Glad to get a chance to hear more from Wolfe.
    Most unexpected aspect was how often he said things like "I wonder what a theonomist would say about x" and then x would be some common and basic point of the debate.
    Came across as "Let me give a bold argument against a position I apparently know nothing about".

  • @CultureDweeb
    @CultureDweeb 3 місяці тому +3

    Glad you’re back to uploading, seems you had a beautiful vacation. This is a very helpful non threatening video on the topic in my opinion. I was a theonomist before becoming Establishment and really do *appreciate my theonomist brothers regardless of our differences. God bless

  • @ronaldmaday
    @ronaldmaday 3 місяці тому +11

    Babe, wake up. New kino just dropped.

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому +4

    God never suggests in the Bible that our (mankind’s) problem with executing His justice is bad laws, but infidelity to the law God has given.

  • @silentcal275
    @silentcal275 3 місяці тому +4

    Theonomist here. Gary North is my hero.

  • @jamescook5617
    @jamescook5617 3 місяці тому +13

    This is a good start, but it would be better to interact with a general equity Theonomist. They probably agree with 95% of your examples, and they don't reject politics. So, I'm a bit at a loss as to who you are arguing with. Maybe I just don't get out enough.

    • @Thecogmom
      @Thecogmom 2 місяці тому +1

      I had the same thought. I would love an example of a pure theonomist. everything he said seemed to jive with what I know about general equity theonomy. I've only listened to DW, Ogden, JW, and a few others. (i'm new to the game) but I had no problem with anything he talked about. The buzz word of "natural law" seems to be an issue for most people.

  • @44golfreak
    @44golfreak 3 місяці тому +7

    Every mad genius needs a lap cat

    • @Thecogmom
      @Thecogmom 2 місяці тому

      My daughter LOVED the cat. She said, "The tail up means he's glad to see him." haha

  • @1stkazoo754
    @1stkazoo754 3 місяці тому +3

    Thanks for the video. Interesting topic. Would like to hear a critique of general equity theonomy. Some interesting ideas here and I want to think through this more but it mostly just came across as straw man arguments to me since I’m not really familiar with anyone who claims “pure” theonomy as you described it here. Would love to see more direct interaction here in the future.

  • @CC-ii3ij
    @CC-ii3ij 3 місяці тому +8

    I think your definition of theonomy is flawed, in that it is so fringe that ‘nobody’ would support it. I recommend contacting AD Robles to have a non-Strawman version of theonomy so a productive and constructive dialogue who can result.

    • @coreywiedenfeld3689
      @coreywiedenfeld3689 3 місяці тому +1

      Ay. This monologue by Wolfe is a good start but we need more/a response. Not sure AD is the best candidate for push back, although I think could still be a good watch/listen. My understanding/impression is that he is closer to Wolfe, than say maybe Toby Sumpter who seems to be more solidly in general equity Theonomy?

    • @marcusmuresan3402
      @marcusmuresan3402 3 місяці тому +4

      Joe Boot would be the best representative of that camp. He’s sharp and a good communicator.

    • @gentledove6804
      @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому +2

      Future of Christendom or The Lancaster Patriot would be happy to have a friendly debate, taking the “purist,” non-legislative theonomy side.

    • @jrhemmerich
      @jrhemmerich Місяць тому

      There is a strong anti-natural law criticism in Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical law. He was the founder of theonomy as a reformed school of ethics.
      It’s not really a strawman to address this viewpoint-the father who named the viewpoint. Gary North was also a critic of NL.

  • @andrewduggan4836
    @andrewduggan4836 3 місяці тому +1

    Keep pressing on. I appreciate the honest thinking through these issues. A great presentation on stewardship without using the word.

  • @doejohn215
    @doejohn215 3 місяці тому +14

    Calvin’s doctrine of sin, which is Paul’s, does not allow for human reason to be untethered from Scripture.
    Arguments from “general revelation” alone do not recognize that Calvin observed that general revelation cannot be interpreted aright without the spectacles of Scripture.
    In other words, fallen reason cannot define anything of natural law without the OT-NT.
    Aristotle’s categories are not exegesis. Calvin could have cited Aristotle but he broke with Aquinas’s methodology on the first page of his Institutes.

    • @HOKSevin
      @HOKSevin 3 місяці тому

      @@doejohn215 👏

  • @gaiusSatyr
    @gaiusSatyr 3 місяці тому +2

    This is one of the most interesting subjects for discussion for me, and it also makes me realize how ignorant I am. Thanks

  • @44golfreak
    @44golfreak 3 місяці тому +5

    Theonomists cooked

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому +2

    It seems like you are assuming that a State is needed for people to have water, roads, septic/sewer, fish available, live away from warehouses if they want to, etc.

  • @cameronsharp9218
    @cameronsharp9218 3 місяці тому +2

    When theonomy is taken to this logical end, it almost becomes a form of political Anabaptism.

  • @zach2923
    @zach2923 3 місяці тому +1

    Thank you for bringing this up and fleshing out some of the issues. Still figuring out exactly where I stand, and your book and podcasts have been extremely helpful. Thank you, Brother.
    I think many of the issues you raised are a consequence of public property and could be solved via privatization (e.g. roads, waterways, etc.). And I think customs are more a matter of public shame/honor, rather than a matter of law.
    But, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on voluntary associations wherein a people can organize themselves for a common purpose and for the common good, but where the force of the collective community is used only for punishment of injustice. Churches, as an analog, have a formal form of government and punish disobedience, but members are free to disassociate (e.g., in case of tyranny or irreconcilable differences). In this, I tend to agree a lot with Hoppe’s conceptions of how little decentralized societies could organize, govern, and cooperate. America need not be a single entity, but could be a collection of a thousand Christian “nations.”
    Anyway, I appreciate your service to Christ’s Church, helping us figure out the most faithful path forward for our people!

  • @shannontederoff246
    @shannontederoff246 Місяць тому +2

    Wolfe does not have a good understanding of what theonomists believe. Lots of straw men here.

  • @mikebowden3730
    @mikebowden3730 3 місяці тому +5

    Thank you for this. You should do another one about general equity theonomy, as it appears to answer most of your issues in this video, and it's in our confessions.

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому +3

    Don’t you think God knows more about human nature and what we need than Aristotle did?

  • @ericknieves9136
    @ericknieves9136 Місяць тому

    Thank you for a very good chat. Plenty of good insights.

  • @TheSanePentecostal
    @TheSanePentecostal Місяць тому

    TLDR: He's proposing the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in politics: Scripture, Reason, Tradition, Experience.

  • @coreygelbaugh4530
    @coreygelbaugh4530 2 місяці тому

    Agreed that these arguments apply to “abolitionist theonomy” but I’d like to see you interact with “smashmouth incrementalist general equity theonomy”

  • @Truttle
    @Truttle 3 місяці тому +1

    I suppose speed limits would fall under things like the roof parapet laws under a general equity system. I don't know about "non-legislative."

  • @burningsodium
    @burningsodium 3 місяці тому +1

    If the Bible says that stealing should be punished by paying back double or quadruple, is Wolfe okay with violating this command by punishing people in other ways instead?

  • @kylej.d.
    @kylej.d. 3 місяці тому +1

    @43:15 you ask yourself if Durbin and White are non legislative theonomists; you prove that you havn't listened to a word they say or the work they do regarding legislation. What an actual joke. Moronic.

  • @samuelhaupt3217
    @samuelhaupt3217 3 місяці тому +3

    Love the grandpa vibes

  • @trentcurtis7925
    @trentcurtis7925 Місяць тому +1

    This video is extremely ignorant of the true theonomic view, and erects a stupid strawman in many cases against the classic theonomists. It is also extremely ignorant of economics. I doubt he has read any of Mises or Hayek or any theories to address his “collective action problems” via private property. This video made me question whether Wolfe has ever talked to an actual classic theonomist or if he learned about the position by only reading random, unpublished, uncredentialed individuals online.
    After watching this video I’m certain that Rushdoony and Bahnsen would identify Wolfe as a statist. If he was honest then he would debate Joe Boot on the issue.

  • @marcusmuresan3402
    @marcusmuresan3402 3 місяці тому +4

    We need a dialogue/debate with Joe Boot on this issue

    • @StevenSmith-1863
      @StevenSmith-1863 3 місяці тому

      Yes, or the other conservative/traditionalist Dooyeweerdians like the works of Willem J Ouweneel.

    • @tychicusoftexas
      @tychicusoftexas 3 місяці тому +2

      @ReformationRedPill recently did that somewhat with Boot vs Rigney

  • @jaredlovell2672
    @jaredlovell2672 3 місяці тому +23

    Having identified as a theonomist in the past and having read a lot of theonomist literature, your critique here is spot on. Postmillennialism is the bailout mechanism used to avoid answers to the practical questions. The theonomist hermeneutic is that if the Mosaic law doesn't say it, than government can't do it. Thus, when it comes to banning something like the distribution of pornography, the theonomist will say, "The Mosaic law doesn't have a provision on porn. Therefore, government can't address it." I realize someone might jump on here and say, "I identify as a theonomist and I think it ok for government to ban porn." Well, that is not the position of the theonomists who write the books and produce the conferences. So I would check with them. Maybe you are not a theonomist after all. When it comes to speed limits, the theonomist will reply that in a theonomic society the roads would be privately owned. So no, a government should not impost speed limits because roads should be privately owned to be biblical. This goes for all the regulations mention in the video about over fishing and whatever else. All resources are privately owned. Thus, no need for regulation of anything. As for foreign policy, Gary North says in his book "Healing of the Nations" that countries should be bound more by covenant than treaty. Christian nations would enter into covenant with other Christian nations. How does that actually work in the real world? Well, you don't have to worry about the real world because of the postmillennial escape hatch. In the long term, postmillennialism says all nations are going to become Christian. So the problem will actually work itself out. And here is the biggest problem of all...even if we grant all the theonomic premises, they assume that a Christian world means all Christians agree as to how biblical law should be applied in every situation. That doesn't even work now among theonomists! Is it true that when the world becomes Christianized all Christians are going to agree exactly as to how to apply the principle of putting a parapet around your roof? We have self-proclaimed theonomists today who say any public schooling in any context at any point in history is evil and wrong based on the admonition to parents to teach their children. Yet there are other theonomists despite explicit prohibitions on usury in biblical law who say that they don't apply today and defend the usurious financials system we currently have. We have theonomists who are non-interventionists and theonomists who are neocons. We have theonomists who are kinists and theonomists that are for open borders and everything in between. The idea that as everyone becomes Christian and embraces theonomy, everyone will agree and there will be no need for politics is completely ridiculous.

    • @jacobcornwell4981
      @jacobcornwell4981 3 місяці тому +2

      I completely agree. And I'm postmill and a general equity theonomist. 😂
      The people in my camp can be the most idealistic, idle and insufferable people.

    • @skylinefever
      @skylinefever 3 місяці тому +3

      When I hear theonomic arguments, I just hear "All our problems would go away, we just need to Godpill 100% of the world."
      Life is never that simple.

    • @thepreservationistne
      @thepreservationistne 3 місяці тому +1

      If you think theonomists don’t get it right you’re failing to understand General Equity.

    • @trentcurtis7925
      @trentcurtis7925 Місяць тому

      The statement “they assume that a Christian world means all Christians agree as to how biblical law should be applied in every situation.” Seems to be an overstatement. I’ve read the “book publishing” theonomist authors and never read anything that even nearly suggests that. Bahnsen explicitly acknowledges multiple times that theonomists don’t always agree amongst themselves and that is to be expected, and that doesn’t mean there’s no right answer, but it does mean that deliberation and debate would still take place in a theonomic society. Also, postmillenialism isn’t an escape hatch, it’s the biblical picture of eschatology, so whether you like it or not it’s true. Calling it an escape hatch doesn’t make it false, it just tells us you don’t like it personally.

    • @joshuamichael2463
      @joshuamichael2463 11 днів тому

      So a man leaning authoritarian would probably prefer natural law, and the man leaning libertarian would probably prefer theonomy?

  • @southernisraelite5167
    @southernisraelite5167 2 місяці тому

    The classical Reformed view is the ancient Patristic doctrine of Logos Theology. Their rejection of Theonomy mostly comes from the Logos Theology and therefore Wesleyan interpretation of Matt. 19:8. In order for them to use this passage against Theonomy they have to reject Total Depravity and demand that humanity has been somehow raised above having a hard heart. If you know anything about the ancient soteriology of the Patristics, Theosis and Christus Victor, the Logos jumps in humanity and raises it up the chain of being according to Patristic Theology. It has ever since been evolving and progressing to a state of perfection pace Wesley. This is obviously a rejection of the doctrines of Grace especially Total depravity.

  • @alreyindustries
    @alreyindustries 3 місяці тому +2

    I think a much better title would have been politics vs theonomy

  • @CC-ii3ij
    @CC-ii3ij 3 місяці тому +3

    I pray God raises up a Christian nation for my children & grandchildren.

  • @theoppositionpodcast
    @theoppositionpodcast 3 місяці тому +2

    That camera is killing me

  • @kylej.d.
    @kylej.d. 3 місяці тому +1

    This really only applies to "purist" theonomists which are a fairly small minority of an already small minority of the reformed community. I agree with his points, that it wouldn't function the way he's portraying it. This doesn't apply to general equity theonomists (most of us) who would take the general moral principles of the law and debate and deliberate how to apply that moral principle to real tangible issues in society, from fishing laws all the way up to blasphemy laws

    • @Thecogmom
      @Thecogmom 2 місяці тому +1

      That's what I thought. I see it the same as parenting. You have some basic principles that guide your decisions. Every family will be different but the principles behind the "regulations" are the same.

  • @micahlantz905
    @micahlantz905 3 місяці тому

    I really like the relaxed atmosphere

  • @justinyoung2281
    @justinyoung2281 14 днів тому +1

    I'm both. Plus post mill. And James White and Jeff Durbin would do the best to establish biblical Justice and support Christian God fearing magistrates. So it's simple. The straw man here is acting like theonomists can't use reason and logic when it's all of Christ in all of life. Do what is most God honoring when we do legislation.

  • @ryangallmeier6647
    @ryangallmeier6647 3 місяці тому +2

    Simple question: does Wolfe believe that the State (Federal Gov't) should enforce the 1st Table of the Decalogue?
    He has criticized those who are, "2nd Table Only-ists," so does that mean the 1st Table should be enforced by Law, too?
    That would include the enforcement of Theology and Worship, not too mention a repeal of the 1st Amendment to the US Bill of Rights.
    Too many problems with this (oppression; tyranny...etc.).
    Isn't Rev. 17:2 a cautionary tale against the kind of Sacralism Wolfe advocates for?
    As for me (just an ignorant Baptist, what do I know?), I say the Gov't can keep its dirty, filthy, stinking, wicked, evil, Satanic hands off my Theology and my Worship.
    And, as a 100% Native American (German/Irish heritage), I have the 2A to back-up my 1A Rights.
    *Soli Deo Gloria*

    • @Narikku
      @Narikku 3 місяці тому +2

      If you had read his book, the Case for Christian Nationalism, you would know he fully supports it.

    • @skylinefever
      @skylinefever 3 місяці тому

      I heard of Christian Nationalism, but I always visualized it as rule by the 700 Club Karen.

    • @ryangallmeier6647
      @ryangallmeier6647 3 місяці тому +3

      @@Narikku Thanks for that. So, he would be in favor of repealing the 1A. of the BoR. Got it.

    • @andinorth1507
      @andinorth1507 3 місяці тому +1

      @@ryangallmeier6647if he was consistent he would

    • @raskolnikov6443
      @raskolnikov6443 3 місяці тому

      @@ryangallmeier6647blasphemy is not free speech

  • @_ZachB_
    @_ZachB_ 24 дні тому +1

    Stephen this is just you being Neil DeGrasse Tyson on theonomy. Deconstructing ideas to absurd minutiae and thinking you've cracked to code. You might do well to actually read Bahnsen, before supposing to understand theonomy. This is straw man at its finest. The Bible clearly has guidance for every topic you addressed. Acting like the Wesleyan quadrilateral is novel, bro...

  • @KildaltonTheologicalStudies
    @KildaltonTheologicalStudies 3 місяці тому

    Pro Tip: don’t ever shoot video in which you are back lit, especially if it is natural light that will continually change as your autofocus will be constantly trying to adjust. You want your primary lighting in 3 angles in front of you. There are plenty of videos available on UA-cam on how to do lighting. On the topic at hand, I have to agree with John Frame when he says natural law is a confusion of categories, ethics and metaphysics. Trying to govern by natural law is like video recording in front of a large window.

  • @dustindentremont7056
    @dustindentremont7056 3 місяці тому +5

    The Apologia guys are working non stop with legislatures to enact better laws.
    I'm sure there's some guys out there that match what you're describing but it isn't any of the bigger players.

    • @ReformedSooner24
      @ReformedSooner24 3 місяці тому

      Playing devil’s advocate, could part of it be that they’re inconsistent on certain points without realizing it? Not making accusations, just asking because it’s worth considering..

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому

    Would corporations exist apart from legislation? Or are they legal fictions created by man-made legislation?

  • @ReformedSooner24
    @ReformedSooner24 3 місяці тому

    As a postmill guy myself, the idea that military alliances or law enforcement will be unnecessary because of the Postmillennial hope is laughable. Those get done away with AFTER Christ’s second coming. Not before. I personally don’t see how that’s not obvious to other postmills.

  • @CartersvilleEngineer
    @CartersvilleEngineer 10 днів тому

    Stephen,
    What theonomists hold to the positions you refer to as theonomic or purely theonomic? What are there names, and where have they said or written the positions you believe they hold to? I have read Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, and Gary Demar for years. I cannot recall them ever saying there should be no legislature, or no political process, or no involvement in the political process. Does James White say this? Jeff Durbin petitions state legislators in the name of God to enact laws against murdering babies. This is high octane involvement in the political process. I mention Jeff and James because they are two theonomists you mention by name.
    If the natural law political process resulted in outcomes that are in line with scriptural punishments for crime (e.g., restitution for theft, death penalty for murder, rape, witchcraft, sodomy, and man stealing), would you be okay with that?
    As for treaties that bind nations to fight for one another, there is the biblical example of the covenant with the Gibeonites.
    The constitution was not written in a theological vacuum. It was written in an environment of largely Christian (though of course imperfect) thought. Therefore, you cannot say the wisdom of the constitution comes from men reasoning apart from biblical principles.
    -Luke Mullins from Georgia

  • @TheTheologizingSubject
    @TheTheologizingSubject 3 місяці тому

    Great talk to listen to whilst roasting coffee

  • @BavinckGuy
    @BavinckGuy 3 місяці тому

    Excellent job

  • @danielroberts1012
    @danielroberts1012 3 місяці тому +1

    Love the cat btw

  • @KingdomofGodResearch
    @KingdomofGodResearch 3 місяці тому

    Keep up the good work for the Kingdom!

  • @RightSaid-Fred
    @RightSaid-Fred 3 місяці тому

    Great stuff

  • @joeadrian2860
    @joeadrian2860 3 місяці тому

    None of this is difficult and none of it should be controversial. The emotionalism seems to come from the "White" camp, I cannot fathom why even though I listen to both of you. He's right from the specific theological perspective of saving grace and you are from a political perspective. There is no contradiction or there SHOULD be none.

  • @christopherjames1160
    @christopherjames1160 3 місяці тому +4

    I love when people who misunderstand theonomy, pretend like they have the right to talk about theonomy.

  • @thundergrace
    @thundergrace 3 місяці тому

    The famous recliner

  • @aidanmcglothlin7294
    @aidanmcglothlin7294 3 місяці тому +1

    He's growing out the facial hair, the lone bulwark of clean shaven CNs has fallen :(

  • @th3ist
    @th3ist 3 місяці тому +1

    evil wholes made solely of good parts. allowing this into ones philosophy has massive implications.

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому +2

    Theonomists can’t have customs? Or a way of life? 🤷‍♀️

  • @threeformsofunity
    @threeformsofunity 3 місяці тому +2

    Comment for the algorithm

  • @geoffbischoff816
    @geoffbischoff816 2 місяці тому

    Yes, sir, I agree. This (completely alien to me, and as far as I can tell, uninstantiated) version of Theonomy is entirely untenable.

  • @liammcneely4013
    @liammcneely4013 3 місяці тому

    Fall vibes

  • @romansyoutube
    @romansyoutube 3 місяці тому

    Thank you for this!

  • @grahamoliver1996
    @grahamoliver1996 3 місяці тому

    Commenting for the algo
    This is a helpful discussion.

  • @jiggerypokery427
    @jiggerypokery427 3 місяці тому

    Adam Ragusea's natural law arc.

  • @WellDressedCaveman
    @WellDressedCaveman 3 місяці тому

    Natural law and natural rights...peanut butter and jelly!

  • @skylinefever
    @skylinefever 3 місяці тому

    Theonomy sounds like the problem of creating AnCap.

  • @justcody4615
    @justcody4615 3 місяці тому +1

    Iguess the question i have for Theonomists who aren't Non Legislative Theonomists is- if you have legislation what would you base it on?
    You dont have to base your policy on how much debris you can leave in orbit around Earth on Natural Law, but it seems like anything scripture would have to say about it would have to be twisted by our human intuitions first into something that fits natural law anyway.
    I understand the argument that fallen man can't have perfect knowledge of natural law because of the Noetic affects of sin, but is biblical interpretation suddenly immune from our noetic deficiency? Aren't we just twisting such and such a passage in deuteronomy about leaving the chicken but taking only the eggs from the nest a little abusively to make it say what we want about natural stewardship?

  • @genophillips7130
    @genophillips7130 13 днів тому

    Idk how people listen to this and think it’s good. A lot of his questions and problems would be answered if he just read the Bible with his eyes open and his mind engaged.

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому

    Yes, God prescribes a different civil and societal structure than our current political structure.

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому

    Does God give mankind the authority to enact civil laws anywhere in Scripture?

    • @andinorth1507
      @andinorth1507 3 місяці тому +1

      Yes, Scripture does provide evidence that God gives mankind authority to enact civil laws, though this authority is always framed within the context of God’s ultimate sovereignty. Here are a few of the many passages that illustrate this point:
      Genesis 9:6 - Authority to Administer Justice:
      After the Flood, God establishes a covenant with Noah and his descendants, giving them the responsibility to administer justice. He says:
      “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6, ESV)
      This passage suggests that human beings are given the authority to enact capital punishment in cases of murder. It establishes a foundation for civil authority in administering justice, as human beings are responsible for enforcing this law.
      Exodus 18:13-26 - The Establishment of Judges:
      In this passage, Moses, following the advice of his father-in-law Jethro, appoints judges over Israel to assist in resolving disputes and upholding the laws:
      “You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God… Moreover, look for able men… and place such men over the people as chiefs… And let them judge the people at all times.” (Exodus 18:19-22, ESV)
      This delegation of judicial authority shows that God endorses the idea of setting up a system of civil governance to maintain order and justice.
      Deuteronomy 16:18-20 - Appointing Judges and Officials:
      In the law given to Israel, God commands the appointment of judges to maintain justice:
      “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.” (Deuteronomy 16:18, ESV)
      This passage demonstrates God’s directive to establish civil authorities responsible for executing just laws.

    • @gentledove6804
      @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому

      Oh, yes, I agree the Bible shows that God commands men to adjudicate cases and execute penalties to guilty parties.
      I guess I meant to ask: does God give mankind the authority to make up their own laws?

  • @jeremyvoss5877
    @jeremyvoss5877 3 місяці тому +5

    I see Natural Law and Theonomy as wholly compatible ideas.

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому +1

    CHRIST IS KING

  • @MrNanonen
    @MrNanonen 3 місяці тому +2

    Theonomy does speak to traffic laws, to say otherwise is to not have done one’s own homework in the matter.
    For example.
    Matthew 5:37 (ASV):
    But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.
    This is both the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction.
    The Law of Identity;
    Yes is Yes, and No is No.
    The Law of Non-Contradiction;
    Yes is Yes AND Yes is not not Yes.
    No is No AND No is not not No.
    An application of this would be that you cannot have a traffic light being green for both crossing intersections, because, it would be saying yes you can go while at the same time telling another person they can go at the same time would cause a vehicle collision. This would be confusion of the evil one.
    Same thing for having lanes that go in one direction. It would cause a vehicle collision to say two vehicles can travel towards each other in the one single lane. This would be confusion of the evil one.
    I’m in Australia and we drive on the left side of the road and so this next example just needs to be changed to a right side rule for those other countries.
    If I want to turn left at an intersection that has a pedestrian crossing and there is a traffic light for both vehicles and pedestrians, and the traffic light gives me a green arrow allowing me to have the right of way to turn left, BUT, at the same time the traffic light gives the pedestrian a green man allowing them the right to cross the road, then this is confusion and of the evil one. Sadly this specific example is allowed at many intersections. Let your YES be YES and your NO be NO.

  • @random_person6041
    @random_person6041 Місяць тому

    👀👀👀

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому +2

    Reality of Natural/man-made law: U.S. Military Authorized to Use Lethal Force on American Soil: D0D Directive 5240.01

  • @thepreservationistne
    @thepreservationistne 3 місяці тому +5

    The biggest problem with Wolfe’s position is he does not refer to Scripture first. If it’s truly Christian then it must start with Scripture as a bedrock. Establish this first then identify what “natural” laws can be identified. Realistically, if you spent more time in Scripture you’d find the truths you’re looking for in Aristotle etc. it’s all there. Dig into Genesis and you’ve got more information than a lifetime could uncover.

  • @samr3012
    @samr3012 13 днів тому

    These theonomists sound like Muslim fundamentalists, reeing about “manmade law”

  • @gentledove6804
    @gentledove6804 3 місяці тому +1

    God in His word has a lot to say about law, righteous judgment, equity, justice, just penalties, jurisdiction, boundaries, living in community, property rights, money and economics, treaties, taxes, war, international relations, deliberating and meditating on His law, what is good for people, etc.

  • @TheHighCalvinist.
    @TheHighCalvinist. 3 місяці тому +1

    First.

  • @HOKSevin
    @HOKSevin 3 місяці тому +1

    This was really not good or helpful.

    • @CultureDweeb
      @CultureDweeb 3 місяці тому +2

      Neither is your comment buster. Move along 👉

    • @HOKSevin
      @HOKSevin 3 місяці тому

      @@CultureDweeb simmer down dweeb. I'll stay