Is Theonomy biblical?

Рет қаралды 2,493

Reformed Theological Seminary

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 27

@SaraSmith-e4r Ай бұрын

Dr. Waters with the wisdom!

@jman956 Ай бұрын

3:26 what is meant by “they don’t have ongoing application?” I only ask because in a prior statement Paul “applied” the principle of an Old Testament civil law. That last sentence causes a bit of confusion. Thanks in advance.

@bradregan7889 Ай бұрын

what he means is that the civil law from the old covenant gives us principal for application in the spheres of our life within the church and society, given the context etc. But the literal application of the civil law of the old covenant on the government or society of today as a whole (Theonomy) is not according to new testament interpretation by the Apostles in Christ. but rest assured, in the heavens and the new earth, it will perfect theonomy for all eternity! rsrs, God bless!

@toddstevens9667 Ай бұрын

I agree with this guy. The Mosaic law has some principles that can be applied to the church, but not to the secular state. The Mosaic law was meant to order relationships within the nation of Israel. That nation no longer exists. But there are principles of justice in the Mosaic law that have application to the church, but not to secular, civil government. They are principles that order and regulate the people of God, not the world at large. But I suspect that the dividing line on this issue tends to be eschatology. Post-, A-, and Pre-Millennials will have very different approaches to this question, as he rightly points out.

@AVL-Tree 12 күн бұрын

This "but they don't have ongoing application" is the very flaw that nations, including an increasing amount of churches, are being more lawless. And the love of many growing cold. With the integration of God's Laws, Torah, in our society, I reckon that we'll be in a more joyful state. Certainly not as many pastors with "moral failures", I say this to our shame.

@steverobinson2501 Ай бұрын

The true meaning of theonomy is just God's law! God's Law is to love the LORD with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. To deny this is to deny the vary nature of God! Not all theonomist claim that every civil law of Israel should put in effect. All though most people associate Rushdooney, North and Bahnsen to be the standard, the real standard is the Bible. A law against murder is an application of civil law. Keep in mind those civil laws were given by God. The goal would be how to apply God's law to all of life!

@toddstevens9667 Ай бұрын

The problem, of course, is that you seem to be mixing personal application with public application. How exactly would we legislate “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself”? Legislating against murder is one thing, legislating against covetousness is something altogether different. The practical issues of legislating the Mosaic law, which regulates attitudes as well as actions, in the United States is overwhelming. How can I legally define “covetousness”? Or even “love”? It’s just completely impractical within the context of a pluralistic (and basically unbelieving) culture.

@steverobinson2501 Ай бұрын

@@toddstevens9667 we have many laws that deal with covetousness. Laws of murder and stealing deal with loving your neighbor. What about the good samaritan law??? Mixing personal with public?? So if I break a law that is public not personal? A law about rape has nothing to do with personal morality? The two best arguements for theonomy is Christ's cruxification and Roman's. God will always rule by his law through out eternity! We live in a theonomy whether we believe it or not. Just because we rebel against God does not mean the Day of Judgement isn't coming. There is a big weakness of Man's camps of theonomy. They tend toward legalism and too much stress on political venue. Last it does no good to promote theonomy without personal godliness.

@toddstevens9667 Ай бұрын

@@steverobinson2501There’s a law against covetousness? When are we arresting all the billionaires? If there were laws against covetousness, 3/4 of the United States would be in prison. 🤪 But it seems to me that loving your neighbor would include considerably more than not murdering or assaulting them. And that’s the practical problem… who decides the content of these laws? Who defines covetousness or love? Do we make 1 Corinthians 13 the legal definition of love? Who couldn’t be convicted of trespassing against 1 Corinthians 13 at some point or another? And let’s face it, most of the things theonomists claim are Christian laws that we already have (say against murder) aren’t really Christian laws. China has laws against murder and theft and assault too. I think much of this theonomist talk is just post-millennial nonsense and extremely impractical. But you’re right that personal and community (the church) holiness is precisely the point of the NT.

@steverobinson2501 Ай бұрын

@@toddstevens9667I would agree with you as the WCF states that Israel's civil laws were for them. I do see though that we can glean much good from those laws. Thanks for the interaction.

@ryandyer2978 Ай бұрын

Dr. Waters, by saying, “they don’t have ongoing application,” and then quoting Paul when he apples the general equity of that specific civil law, you utterly contradict yourself and the WCF which teaches us that the general equity of the civil laws still apply.

@thespurge Ай бұрын

A distinction can be made between “principle” (which he explicitly said) and application, brother. I doubt he would be unaware of such self-contradiction, especially within a few seconds lol 😇

@toddstevens9667 Ай бұрын

@@thespurge Just re-listened more carefully. Got ya. It is a contradiction. He said that the principle had application in that instance. Then said in the last sentence that they had no ongoing application. So, it’s definitely a contradiction. But I think he misspoke. I think he probably meant, “no ongoing application outside of the church”. The OT law was originally a law code for a nation that no longer exists (well, kinda no longer exists). I could be wrong. But I do think he simply misspoke.

@jarebare555 Ай бұрын

Sounds like you don't know what general equity means. Furthermore, the WCF EXPLICITLY says that the civil laws of Israel expired with Israel

@jman956 Ай бұрын

@@jarebare555 hey good sir. It wasn’t a got ya question. I wasn’t being trite. This is a legitimate question. I only ask you show people who have legitimate questions some grace instead of implying they are ignorant. Thanks.

@jman956 Ай бұрын

@@thespurge I didn’t think so either, but I am asking for further clarification as it seems contradictory. We live out our principles. We apply those principles daily. I’m simply trying to parse out when / where those boundaries are for the Christian. Just a question without any nefarious motive behind it. If it was in person, he would probably provide a wonderful answer. He is a wonderful person. I’ve met him once…different topic.

@sharingthegospel8570 Ай бұрын

Theonomy = what you're trying to do. Postmil = what you think will happen. He tried to link Theonomy to postmil (I assume) to increase detractors. If so that was an unfair hit job regardless of what you think about Theonomy.

@toddstevens9667 Ай бұрын

Aren’t the vast majority of theonomists post-millennial?

@FRodriguez_ 29 күн бұрын

@@toddstevens9667they (I’d say all) are, but not all postmillennials are theonomist.

@toddstevens9667 29 күн бұрын

@@FRodriguez_ Got ya. Thanks