Natural Law, Theonomy, Postmillennialism: A Review Of Stephen Wolfe's Christian Nationalism

[@Happy-Hunter89]

Great episode. The concerns voiced about the flexibility and ambiguity of natural law reflect my own.

[@CorlosMazda]

To the end comments. It is said you want to have discussions on natural law but you won't with him it's always discussions about him without him. Whenever he's on with theonomic postmills they never disagree with anything he's saying to his face. Then there's countless excuses why we won't engage with him, but we'll talk about him endlessly, critique him endlessly, while ending each critique with "we would like more dialogue with Stephen". If he's come on a EM podcast before then he's willing to have the conversation. Canceling conferences and refusing to talk to him or debate him like some reformed men are doing isn't the way in my opinion. These call out formats aren't a conversation as now we have to wait to hear him defend himself during a reaction video to this video. This is becoming the norm and it's annoying. (When I say "you" I mean the proverbial you/us/theonomy guys)

[@salpiccolo9089]

Overall I agree but, to their credit, EM has had him on their show.

[@marekfoolforchrist]

You can't help wonder if it's in part because most of these men haven't studied natural law. Oftentimes they are unable to define it or its applications, or historic role in protestant political thought.

[@esperanzaenloinvisible4316]

Nathan here, I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience, Stephen is not willing to engage with theonomists. He been asked many times to respond to the review of his book published by the Chalcedon Foundation and he refuses to do so. He also blocked me on twitter a long time ago because I engaged in some of his characterizations of theonomy, so what you are saying definitely isn't what I have seen.

[@marekfoolforchrist]

​@@esperanzaenloinvisible4316he has given an open invitation to debate theonomists, no?

[@esperanzaenloinvisible4316]

@@marekfoolforchrist he has not; he offered to debate James White after over a year of being nasty to theonomists online and mocking anyone who suggested he should respond to theonomists critique of his book. As far as I am aware there has been no general invitation to debate theonomists. As I said I am still blocked by him so I am not holding my breath for an invitation anytime soon.

[@andrewclose4283]

Good discussion, thanks!

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

The Lord's saying about His kingdom not being of this world, refers top the fact that His scepter of authority is His sinless righteousness, not His ability to overpower. He is exceedingly able to overpower all, but a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His kingdom. The display of His virtue upon the cross of God's love, is the culmination of His demonstration of His omnirighteousness; therefore, in context to Pilot, Lord Iesus was making reference to His coming death as being His conquest of the world (this is also why His kingdom was said to be at hand, because He ascended to the throne a mere forty days after He raised from the dead). By proclaiming the Good News Of Messiah And Him Having Been Crucified, we are therein being used by God as instruments of conveying the reality of that conquest to our fellow humans. Who is he who has conquered the world, if not he who believes that Iesus is the Son Of God? In all adversities, we are exceedingly victorious in conquest through Messiah who loved us and died for us.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

For me, natural law falls apart at the fact that God has established His law. I don't need to go into my own assessment of the matter as if I am wise enough to judge law in place of God, because I'm not, and because God is trustworthy that we owe to submit to His law (in which submission we know our failure, and therefore submit unto the purpose of the law, which is the Good News that the law is fulfilled in Christ Iesus in order that He may save many alive).

[@katskillz]

You're not making sense, natural law is also God's law. Just because it is not in a specific codified form that you prefer, makes it no less God's law. Natural law is the revelation of God's basic moral law in the created order itself. IT IS WRITTEN ALL AROUND US EVERY MOMENT. Its not one individual's autonomous assessment lol. Think of it this way: God has made human beings with a particular nature; it *means something* to be a human being. Particular nature and purpose. And this world has a certain purpose and orderliness given by God. Therefore, there are certain ways that it are fitting or unfitting for us to live within this world: towards each other and towards God. This is by divine revelation, the revelation of God's basic moral law in the created order known through the natural capacities that God has given to us. We are all confronted with natural law, every moment of our Lives God impresses upon us our obligations to him. Scripture attests to this in many places. For example, no one is without excuse before God even if you've never heard a word of scripture you are accountable before God because of this natural revelation. Paul goes on in Romans 1 to speak prominently about sexual morality, how those who violate the natural sexual order are acting against nature. At the end of Romans 1 after listing a whole bunch of sins he concludes in verse 32 by saying that even though those who do these things know that they deserve death, they continue to do them and to approve of those who do them. In Romans 2 Paul expands that further and speaks about how the things of the law, the works of the law, are written on the hearts even of Gentiles who don't have the law of Moses. Furthermore, natural law is codified in the Noahic covenant, everything commanded and stipulated to humanity through Noah has all the implications of a well ordered God fearing society. No Mosaic civil code necessary.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

@@katskillz Nature is not a sufficient basis for assessing the parameters of God's law. When men speak of "Natural Law", in the vast majority of cases, they are using words to justify their own wisdom in lieu of God's wisdom. Scripture is a sufficient basis for assessing the parameters of God's Law. Nature includes sin. God's Law does not include sin. Humans have an innate awareness of God's Law. Why would I frame up God's Law as being "Natural Law"? Nature is not the one with authority to establish moral law.

[@katskillz]

​@@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah Incorrect. You are attempting to argue for a comprehensive law to order any or every society, rather than sufficient law. I am not talking about "men speaking of natural law" I am aware of the history of political, legal and moral theory in that regard. I am simply pointing out the efficacious role of divine revelation of moral law in nature and in conscience. It's in the texts I cited, bro. It's also universally self evident, which makes it somewhat hilarious this is even being argued. Men have no excuse, the revelation of nature and the conscience of man due to the nature man has been created with, is sufficient to accuse moral evil and excuse doing well. This is sufficient to order society. The entirety of the revelation of the Mosaic law was a clear covenantal context where God would in a very real way dwell with his people, particular through his Glory Presence. The covenant community (set apart from the nations) had to order their society around that redemptive historical reality, as it was a type of heaven on earth. Hence under the Mosaic law within the boundaries of the covenant community, holy war was waged. Outside of those parameters, it was and remains forbidden. And so forth.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

@@katskillz One's own natural awareness of God's Law is not a law, and human natural awareness of God's law is not sufficient to order a society in accordance with righteousness. Scripture is sufficient to guide a people to order their society righteously, but natural awareness of God's Law is rather rebelliously flawed and is therefore only sufficient for condemnation.

[@Godislove4ever-o8p]

Dont you think its just simple? As Christian we should allow God to work through us. Overcoming evil with good. Whether its in the government or church doing good can only produce good. I dont think Jesus separates as man does. Just do good...and let it produce more good.

[@Godislove4ever-o8p]

I mean there are only two types of people. The Just and the Unjust. Both work in every aspect of human life. God doesn't separate Christians by what they do as work..whether it be government, school teacher, law enforcement, or dog catcher. Gods ways are not our ways and we need to stop deviding good and evil by job title.

[@sammeisenhelder8447]

Why does anyone even remotely like Stephen Wolfe? Seriously, is just because this dude is a supposed conservative we have to accept him? We need to say no thanks to anyone who advocates statism, “conservative” or liberal.

[@bullphrogva1804]

I like him because he proposes a system that actually captures the fraternal spirit of Christianity, this comes at a time where "libertarians" and strains of Christianity abandoned, betray, slander, and back stab each other and everyone else while the left has their way with them and their kids. When I was an Ancap, people were treaded on and no one said anything, no one did anything, no one cared. Doesn't matter if they were Christian or waving Gadsden flags. Now they have institutionalized your destruction and the most we get is "Don't say anything bad about the Post-war consensus or will ruin you" while Christians in London, MI 5th district, Nagorno-Karabakh or Aleppo or in Palestine, etc. get ethnically and religiously cleansed. ME Christianity has drop from ~30% to 5% of the regions population over the last 24 years and you guys are no where to be found except complaining about the State and other bullshit problems. The gun isn't the enemy of the person wielding it, this is true for the state too, you gave it up to your enemies so now you whine and whine and whine like leftist complaining about guns while they destroy and subvert you, your family, your religion, your culture, your history and your future. Instead you go off to stab the backs of Christians who try to take the reigns from those enemies. As if the State is a God. I will pray for you and yours.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

I've been waiting eighteen months for the public discourse to address the errors in Stephen's doctrine in a proper and elucidative manner; this is the first time I've seen it happen; thank you brothers for it (though I also suggest this has come long overdue). Those with some public influence, who've found his doctrine to be repulsive (I mean literally that it drives them away), have been arguing by assuming their conclusion rather than by articulating actual argumentation. I am highly relieved to see this livestream which simply lays out the facts plainly for consideration. I agree with Dr White, but he says nothing to help prove to the CN movement that they are in error, rather he assumes the conclusion as if the argumentation goes without saying (which it should, but it obviously doesn't). I have a harsher take than yall, regarding Stephen's propaganda (by "propaganda", I mean that which propagates an idea and/or cause; I don't mean to imply propaganda must be a bad thing; I am a propagandist for the Gospel, and I am honored to so be). However, I would be glad to discover that I am wrong about Stephen's intent, and that all he has needed is some loving brothers to elucidate how grave his error is. In fact, I don't care about what one man believes, but my concern is that thousands of Reformed men are united in failing to offer him correction; at that point, they have failed to be Reformed. I was never offended that yall had Stephen on, but I was concerned. My concerns have been put to rest. If yall are going to be needfully productive like this, yall can have him on every other day and I'll be happy for it. I was originally down to put my support behind the CN movement, then Stephen tweeted that a revival is not necessary to Christianize a nation. I spoke up to ask AD and Jon to offer Stephen loving correction, but instead they covered for his errors and refused to help him. The whole matter is so obvious, that I cannot help but be suspicious that some of the key players in the CN movement may be Marxist infiltrators deliberately corrupting the Visible Church (by "Visible Church", I mean those church institutions which are reformed to the Five Solas and God's Soteriology Of Grace). There are specific reasons I an suspicious in this manner, but I'm not here to distract from yall's productive discussion by presenting argumentation for that, I'm just offering my sincerity in order to share myself as an anecdotal example of the need for this topic to be addressed in a productive manner (and I will be exceedingly glad if I am proven wrong on this point). I think it is fair that if men don't want to be seen as potential infiltrators, then they need to not present themselves as hellbent on propagating the setting aside of Gospel and Bible, because such propagation is a prime objective of the Marxists. Is it not a fair ask that Reformed men refuse to cast aside Gospel and Bible? I am confident it is a fair ask. It is all I ask. I just ask that the masses of Reformed men agree in offering Stephen loving correction; I don't ask anyone to share my suspicions regarding him and others, just that Reformed men behave like Reformed men.

[@marekfoolforchrist]

28:00 A COMPLETE strawman of using historically formed wisdom/prudence/lex propria. No one is saying you can "disobey God's law" because of prudence. Were Ezra and Nehemiah violating God's Law by using wisdom to apply principles to their particular circumstance? How about Esther in her request?

[@marekfoolforchrist]

Zero meaningful critiques here. Just surface, Twitter level engagements. At least Chris Gordon understands the theological concepts and can articulate and interact with them from the text and from systematics.

[@cesarchavez9897]

Why don't you sit with Stephen like you should? What are you so afraid of?

[@eschatology_matters]

We...literally....did. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmWroKeLhL2FpMUsi=sIKFDBPWmobQSRzZ

[@johnmichaelbullock594]

This was a waste of my time. Slowly but surely, these conversations aren't helpful. Nothing was gained or provided by this talk because nothing substantial was actually dealt with. It would be better to systematically steel man natural law and then dissect it, versus "natural law bad", "natural law unbiblical", etc. You now have one less sub.

[@eschatology_matters]

So you unsubscribed even though we also allowed Stephen himself to present his case positively? 🤔

[@Jay_the_giant]

@@eschatology_mattersyou cannot reason with most of the Stephen Wolfe faithful.

[@johnmichaelbullock594]

@@eschatology_matters no, I unsubscribed because there is not a lot of benefit to watching your videos, which haven't been beneficial for a while. Y'all do a lot of great stuff on eschatology and I was encouraged by your response to the Tobias incident; I just don't care anymore if there isn't substance and quality to what is being done. You had Stephen on, but there could be real quality content with the topic of natural law and dissecting it but it is missed. I don't even care if you deal with Stephen, because that doesn't matter. What matters is taking the time to deal with the real issue without superficiality. You don't agree with natural law, I don't necessarily fully agree with it because I do not understand it completely; now put in the time to steelman and then dismantle it. That would be beneficial. If really nothing is gained by this content, at which point do you reevaluate? Food for thought.

[@sammeisenhelder8447]

Wait, you don’t completely understand natural law yet you obviously know enough to know Eschatology Matters is “Steel Manning” natural law and that they aren’t doing substance or quality on the issue. Seems to me they’re not supporting your preferred position so therefore they stink.

[@johnmichaelbullock594]

@@sammeisenhelder8447 Reading is fundamental friend, you failed to understand what I said in plain English.

[@yellomoth]

This is the 2nd worst episode of eschatology matters yet. The arguments are terrible and then later contradicted by yourselves. Stephen has the internet. You can talk to him.

[@marekfoolforchrist]

Glad I'm not the only one who thought this...

[@eschatology_matters]

You realize this is a response to us literally having him on our show last week, right? His case was made in the affirmative. I could see if this was our only offering on the matter, but far from it.