Theonomy Made Practical | Obeying Jesus In All Of Life | with Dr. James White

[@NicoleCB]

Mr. White is a good speaker!

[@nolaneastman2263]

Been waiting, I saw the clips you posted from this on twitter Great quality and event

[@TheMaineSurveyor]

James did a good job here, talking about desiring to apply the law to his own life.

[@alexivonkuciak3786]

Oh yes I listened to the holiness code and church history series! hehe

[@jlandles]

You actually have ads in the middle of a sernon. Loving the respect for the word.

[@BEABEREAN10]

I was hoping he would actually talk about what practical theonomy would look like in the government and life...this was basically just him affirming what most true beleivers hold to anyway. Great message nonetheless!

[@TheMaineSurveyor]

Indeed! He was quite reserved in this conference, almost to the point of being a voice of caution, rather than charging ahead at flank speed.

[@JesusChristisYourLordandGod]

​@@TheMaineSurveyorExactly my thought too!

[@lindajohnson4204]

Theonomy is not me obeying Jesus. Theonomy is us forcing everyone else to (appear to) obey Jesus. "Appear to", because no one can force faith or obedience from the heart, the way God requires man to believe in and obey Jesus. But if we ignore the fact that we aren't to try to uproot tares (the field is the world, not the church), and ignore that Jesus's kingdom is "not of this world"/aeon/age, or "else would my followers fight", He said, then it would appear that we aren't obeying Him at all. Maybe we think we're wiser than He is.

[@DENZ85081]

Great point

[@davidrogers3920]

Is Dr White saying that all of the Old Testament Law is put in believer's hearts and written on their minds? Maybe I missed him answering this question he raised towards the start of his sermon. Hebrews 10:16 (ESV) 16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”

[@DreamingPhenom]

Considering this is from the NT, can you argue that you are completely certain this is not speaking of the laws from the new covenant; Matthew 22:36-40 and John 13:34-35 for example?

[@oracleoftroy]

@@WilliamK-bm6ih I think it would be worth spelling out a full argument for such an accusation against a brother in Christ, one that accounts for Paul's writing Galatians and yet still circumcising several people anyway, or saying what he says against the law, yet still constantly appealing to the law in Romans 7 and 13 and throughout the rest of his writing. One that accounts for Jesus' own high view of the law and lifting it up as how we are to love God and our neighbor. Completely excising the Law from the New Covenant is the error of antinomianism after all. It's hard to see how one can be a Christian and yet despise God's law. Yes the Judaizer error is also to be avoided, but it is really hard to see how that applies here. The Bible describes right uses of the law as well as errors in how one uses the law.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@WilliamK-bm6ih _"Ya, IMO....Old Covenant Law being brought into the New Covenant? Sounds like something the Judaizers would be doing...."_ _"I didn't accuse anyone of anything...."_ OK.......... sure. Scripture: Hebrews 8: 13 - "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." You: _"The Old Covenant ( exodus 19- Deuteronomy) is obsolete ( Hebrews 8:13)"_ This one verse says we can toss out most of the pentateuch? It doesn't even (by itself) define what the old covenant is or in what sense it is "obsolete" and "ready to vanish". Yet, earlier in the same chapter, it doesn't seem like the priesthood is vanishing, but rather that the administration of the priesthood is changing from the Levites to Jesus (verse 5,6, the Priests are a shadow of what is to come, and Christ obtains their ministry). Developing the idea, we see that the high priest isn't obsolete, but that Jesus is now the High Priest (9: 11) and that the sacrifices continue, not with the faulty sacrifices of animals but by Jesus's own blood (11-28 cover this contrast quite extensively). This should be well understood even before your verse, as chapter 7 is quite explicit, v12f "For when there is a *change* (not an abolishment) in the priesthood, there is necessarily a *change* (not an abolishment) in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar." I.e. the Priesthood shifts from the tribe of Levi to another tribe, and the High Priest is now Jesus. It's the same covenant structure that came with Abraham and Moses, yet applied to Jesus and his work on the cross. And all this should not surprise us given the book of Hebrew's own framing: Heb 6: 17,18 "So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the *unchangeable* character of his purpose, _he guaranteed it with an oath,_ so that by *two unchangeable* things, in which _it is impossible for God to lie,_ we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us." So in whatever sense the Old Covenant is "obsolete" it can't be understood in a way that would violate God's own nature. Treating God as a liar who breaks his oath and voiding the Mosaic covenant seems contrary to the explicit teaching of Hebrews, not to mention that Jesus explicitly says he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. And just given how much of the NT is really just commentary on the OT and showing how there really isn't anything new about the NT, it's all about God fulfilling the promises he gave long ago in the OT, I think we need to be very very careful not to dismiss the OT as if it is obsolete and vanishing, as if we could just remove it from our Bibles without losing a thing. _"We have plenty of commands in the New Covenant/ Testament, so I'm not antinomian."_ Which of those laws were not found in the OT? And this is again why I think we need to be careful. The OT law you just said is obsolete has "Thou shall not Murder" in it. Are Christians free to murder? You would say no, but why? Because the NT says it? Where does the NT get that from? This very OT law you say is obsolete. I think you are lacking caution and being overly reductionistic when you say that exodus 19- Deuteronomy is obsolete, and it leads to absurdity that you wouldn't agree to in a more carefully considered statement. Which is why I again would encourage you to be more intentional about whatever accusation you want to make against White here, even if it's just name dropping him right beside the Judaizers with no further elaboration.

[@alexglase765]

@@DreamingPhenom of course. Matthew 22:36-40 is a clear allusion to Deuteronomy, and John 13:34-35 provides no definition for what love is. In Jeremiah, where the author of Hebrews is quoting from, could only possibly be referring to the Torah; that is quite literally the Hebrew word used there.

[@solarjudgement4575]

Good speech but disappointing there were only a few examples of theonomy applied.

[@chrislabrec]

20 minutes in and I’m not sure what he is talking about

[@chrislabrec]

36 minutes in and he seems to be talking about the new covenant and the law written on our hearts, but keeps detouring to tell stories

[@theresaread72]

If you can’t see it in the Bible yourself, don’t accept it. Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, we could not and gives us His righteousness when we Believe. Acts 15 and the Book of Galatians state that the Law of Moses will not be put on the Gentiles, and was a schoolmaster to lead us to Jesus Christ. These messages are directed that the Great Commission is fulfilled Now that we ate in the Millennium as Jesus came in 70AD by discipling actual nations, baptizing nations using the Law of Moses. Jesus actual said that we were to make disciples who follow Christ by teaching what Jesus told us to do in the New Testament. We are not in the Millennium, every eye would see Jesus in their resurrected bodies, wars cease, Satan bound to no longer deceive the nations any longer. God Bless!

[@karanadon137]

Voldemort as a speaker. 😂😂😂

[@kaioken654]

You're definitely not obeying God in all your life when you're telling people they have no responsibility to believe the gospel, that God will choose them and make them believe. The believer has no choice in the matter because there's no free will to the calvinist.

[@ForwardTalk]

You think that’s what Calvinism teaches?

[@kaioken654]

@@ForwardTalk calvinist teach God is the author of sin and there's no weaseling out of that one

[@kaioken654]

@@ForwardTalk but yeah, the calvinist says God is responsible for you believing, the Bible says it's you responsibility and your choice to believe.

[@waltermclauren4746]

Pertinent? Most of the time.

[@velkyn1]

ROFL. Theonomy: "hypothetical Christian form of government in which society is ruled by divine law." That should be great, with each christian having a differnt version of what this god "really" wants. It's hilarious to see how wannabee theocrats fail miserably.

[@PeteJab]

This “hypothetical form of Christian government” has given you modern judicial government as you know it today. You’re welcome.

[@grahamdugas8729]

ROFL. Legal positivism. Your multiplicity of gods has brought forth our current polytheistic law-order. If you want to compare 1500s Geneva, Puritan England or the early colonial era on this side of the Atlantic, I'd be happy to do so. BTW, I'll own every bit of the "Salem Witch Trials" with maybe 14 deaths over 30 months if you own Chicago with 14 deaths per weekend. And Baltimore, and Detroit, and SF, and Oakland, and LA, and St Louis, and NYC, and Philadelphia, and Atlanta, and New Orleans, and Houston, and Portland, and Seattle and, and, and... Let's see which "theocracy fails miserably". Your humanistic "man-as-god" theocracy or Christ's theonomic Law-order.

[@grahamdugas8729]

@@PeteJab Actually it gave us the righteous form of judicial gov't prior the humanists corrupting it since the Civil War.

[@PeteJab]

@@grahamdugas8729 yes, you are correct.