44:00 regarding Bahnsen. I have not only read extensively the writings of Dr. Bahsnen I have also listened to several of his audio teachings. He recognizes the 3 parts of Biblical law to be Moral, Civil(Judicial) and ceremonial. What he does say is that you cannot properly understand them totally separate from each other, but rather as distinctions of an overall whole of law. And that the "case law" as he often called it with regards to the civil was the practical interpretation of the Moral law. And that he ceremonial law was not severed or deconstructed after the old Covenant into the new covenant but that Jesus has successfully satisfied the perpetual requirement of that part of the law.
JD Second opening statement ignores Joel's admission that he believes in a personal righteousness imputed by Jesus, and that it is compatible with Theonomy. You know this by his attacks on theonomic, sad to say, straw man that JD is putting up to shoot at. Dr. Bahnsen also on numerous occasions, truly at every opportunity, confessed a classically reformed understanding of salvation. His second opening statement tone was totally off. The civil law, according to theonomists from Rushdooney and Bahnsen to Demar and Mcdurmon say that they all have a "moral nucleus" and that is unavoidable in all ordinances of God. Ceremonial and civil/judicial have as their source-code the moral. additionally, the moral is realized in application through the civil/judicial, what Dr. Bahnsen calls "the case law".
Look at our Society here in the United States. Just since Gen X started being born in 1965. Ok the laws when broken LEAD to THIS MESS. If Adultery was still being stoned would there exist ALL THESE BROKEN FAMILES and COURT SYSTEMS and "FAMILY "courts" that are TERRIBLE for anyone looking for "justice". and everything else that goes with broken families. I am kind of new to this type of debate so whatever side supports the OBSERVING of that which keeps a society from DESCENDING into this kind of hell then that seems like "the winner". imho.
How about George Gillespie. He was one of the theologians responsible for writing the Westminster Confession of Faith. He wrote an article called: Wholesome Severity reconcilied with Christian Liberty. In the article he makes a theonomic defense of the judicial use of the Mosaic law. In the article he hints at what general equity meant to him.
The strongest arguments for theonomy did not come up/ or get fleshed out :'(. Really appreciative for these two brothers for this discussion/debate. There is definitely a lot outside this debate that we need to consider.
It doesn’t help that right after this debate McDurmon basically accepted a very weak position of Theonomy. Jeff durbin would have been a better guy to debate the topic.
I wasn't sure what you meant since I'm new to this debate and these men. Then I kept reading through comments and someone said that McDurmon had gone full blown "woke". He didn't mention Hall, so probably the same thing I'm guessing. Now I'm not sure I even want to watch it. It's just so sad how easily men can lose their convictions. Just proves they never really were convinced by the Word & Spirit of their positions. Would you suggest I go ahead and watch in spite of their "fall from grace"?
A 21st century man walks up to an Israelite in the first millennium BC and asks, "Is that a civil law, a ceremonial law, or a moral law?" Israelite: What?
@@greg7384If they had it memorized, what's stopping them from telling you whether it was enforced civilly by the town elders/judges, or ceremonially by the Levites, or was moral with no external human consequence?
@@oracleoftroy There's no problem with us using categories to understand the law. The point is, we need to hold these categorizations loosely because the ancient Israelites would not have viewed the law this way. OT scholars recognize this (Wenham in "Story as Torah" is one of many examples). Dogmatics has just not yet caught up. I proudly subscribe to the 1689, but we should be careful not to derive too strong of conclusions from anachronistic categorizations. That's all.
I had never heard of theonomy or either of these 2 guys before watching this. I stumbled across it posted on Facebook. I have to say that JD Hall was the clear winner. He used scripture over and again while McDermott really only used a section from 1 Timothy. McDermott also seemed to use most of his time attaching Hall instead of supporting his position.
Not to mention the arrogance seeping out of the other guy, his subtle headshakes, and constant smirking, and efforts to discredit t his opponent rather than his opponents argument. Yes, I too have never heard of theonomy, or either individual.
Yeah JD attacked a false definition of theonomy. His argument was rooted mostly in men's opinions, not the scriptures and he spend the weeks leading up to this, as well as a year and a half after this writing personal attacks, lies and slandering Joel McDurmon and other theonomists. I think maybe you were a late-commer to this situation.
@@TotsNater Nope. The late Greg Bahnsen (who wasn't a clown like Joel) laid out the Biblical and systematic case. John Frame (who wasn't a theonomist but sympathetic) was a WTS professor who admitted at Bahnsen's funeral that no one ever really refuted it.
@@TotsNater No, your antinomianism and bad takes are the garbage. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus, when asked for the greatest commandment in Matt 22:34ff, answered "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." So according to Jesus, all of the Law is about love - love for God and our neighbor. It is disturbing to see the gut reaction many people have for Theonomy where they assume Biblical Law is about oppression and hatred, not love. Jesus tells us in Jn 14:15,21 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. ... Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." And David says in Ps 119:97-98: "Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me." It gives me pause encountering those who reject and seemingly hate the law yet want to profess Christ. I'm glad to see this much needed levelheaded and well conducted debate on a topic that too often devolves to pointless name calling and vitriol. I hope to see more of them!
You make good points. Most people ready Matt 22:34 and come away with "well I love God and my neighbor... all set" and do not reflect further on what Scripture says/defines as what love for God and your neighbor is. You do not observe Jesus ignoring the civil/Judicial or ceremonial law with his "new" 2 commandments as sufficient. He said and the disciples were witness to Jesus keeping the whole law.
Law and prophets. Short hand for what we call the Old Testament. This principle of love existed before the Law and is perfectly expressed in Jesus not the Mosaic Law. So I ask this question: what is the New Testament?
@@EricEscander Not sure what you are saying. The mosaic law isn't about love? Was jesus lying then? After all, he quoted from Moses when he said al the law is about love. The new testament books keep turning to God's law when they appeal to how we are supposed to love each other as Christians, for example: Rom 13: 8-10, so I will as well.
@@oracleoftroy God is love. Yes there is expression of love in the Law because of God but the Law doesn't always reflect love. For example see what Jesus has to say about Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Finally my point about the New Testament is the authors already extracted everything we need to know from the Law/Old Testament in regards to how it applies to us. They didn't leave us with a hermeneutical principle for us to continue the job. They did the job for us. That's the problem. You are adding to the apostolic teachings. That's a big no no.
I thought JD pointed out right that Cain murdered. Why didn't God give him the death penalty? David murdered. Why didn't God give him the death penalty? David committed adultery. Why didn't God give David a second death penalty. Why did Jesus dismiss the woman caught in adultery? If God's laws are just and immutable why didn't God enforce justice? That would make God inconsistent and unjust. There is something here we don't understand. Joel's position was utterly destroyed in this debate for mw. I am left wishing I understood more though and JD has just left me wondering what is the moral and civil code we can adopt and God intended for the nation's to adopt.
Joel let him off the hook around 49:52-50:00 where Hall begs the question about Matthew 5:17 which has zero to do with the law being used in a civil sense. Classic antinomians will pit the civil law against the moral law in a salvific sense, thus accusing theonomists of working their way to Heaven. It’s really silly.
As someone said before, they should have debated eschatology first. Under JD's eschatology, he is the winner of the debate, but under Joel's eschatology he is also the winner. No point of view of each other makes sense in the view of end times of each other.
@@RealJustinReed is there a good and informative debate from the perspective of theonomy? And works to read on it as well? I've read Theonomy and Christian Ethics already.
Great debate. Hall did very well but the ultimate question that needs to be addressed is whether we are building the Kingdom or are we as Scripture says "recieving " a Kingdom when Jesus returns.
@@malachi7948 Nope. And since the time of this debate, Joel has left American Vision, gone full-blown woke and spoken ill of many of his former brethren.
I can’t find anywhere on page 463 of Rushdoony’s “The Institutes of Biblical Law” the quote that J. D. Hall mentions. That page is in the chapter on the 8th commandment, thou shall not steal.
JD's question about our righteousness exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees in relation to the law being necessary, can be answered by Paul in Galatians 5:14, "For the whole Law is fulfilled [pleroo] in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."" (NASB). We can do this only as regenerate men and women endowed with the Spirit given power to walk in love; a love towards God and a love towards our fellow image bearers. When we do this the righteous standard of the law is fulfilled according to Paul, something the scribes and Pharisees could not do, because they missed the point of the law. Salvation is more than justification, we as Christians are being sanctified as we follow God, "Narrow is the gate and hard is the Way."
***** I cannot do this in and of myself, but in Christ, yes. The first of the fruits of the Spirit is love, if I am not exhibiting a godly love in my life, then something is wrong. Do you think that the scribes and the pharisees understood that the Law of God in terms of love? Do you believe that a regenerate person does not have the ability to love God or his neighbor? Why then are we given the Spirit and commanded to walk in the Spirit and to bear fruit. Paul says in Romans that "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." See, he says that the Law is fulfilled in us who walk in the Spirit, this too is God's doing. This in no way merits us justification, however it is a part of our salvation, God reconciling us to Himself in Christ. Do you believe that you have the ability to love you neighbor as a regenerate person? Mr Hall, I am sure as a Christian pastor you preach to your people that they must love each other from the heart, and that they must bear the fruits of the Spirit....Do you expect them to?
@@route2033 No, that was only ever used in extreme cases as the ultimate punishment. That was not to be determined by the parents but by the elders at the gate or a court after a fair trial.
I've watched this debate 3 times in a row and just now realized Joel's shirt... nice
8 лет назад
Theonomists fail to make a distinction between individuals and nations. It's like they think nations can be saved like a man can. But groups, nations, bureaucracies, etc don't think. Only individuals do.
At 41:00 this JD guy gets humiliated. He thinks his view is consistent with church history but subsequently admits near total ignorance to church historians.
If Paul were a theonomist like Dr. McDurmon, why did he say in 1 Corinthians 6 after describing a laundry list of sins that will keep people out of heaven (adultery, stealing, coveting, etc.): "11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" If Paul were a theonomist, he should have said "we should have stoned you because it is just", right? This is why I think theonomy to this extreme of a degree is not biblical.
JD's comment on 2 Cor 5 doesn't follow. Counter example - theif on the cross. He admitted guilt, received penalty and was restored. roman law being unjust is still outside the point.
+Heather Marie , indeed, Brother Mc D won the debate by a long shot. i truly am not sure how you came of with the view that Mr. Hall has such a knowledgeable view of Holy Scripture; Especially comparatively! When we come to debate, just as [and Especially] when we come to Holy Scripture, We Must put away our traditions, and come to HIS HOLY WORD just as It Is Written. Since this debate he (hall) has actually gone out of his way to slander some of †he Brethren (which is some thing people often do when they know they lost, but should Never happen if you are in CHRIST), which is direct slander against YESHUA'S BRIDE, Sin against YHWH, and The APPLE Of HIS Eye! GOD Bless. Grace, Peace, and LOVE, to All †he Elect in CHRIST JESUS, WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, BLESSED FOREVER, AMEN; And WHO IS REIGNING WITH THE IRON ROD FROM HIS THRONE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED FOREVER, THE SCEPTER OF UPRIGHTNESS - JUSTICE IS HIS, The HOLY, Amen, and AMEN.
Watching this for a second time (after my other comment), i must ask: What "scripture"? Hall used far, Far, FAR More confessions of men's opinions than Holy Scripture. Even stating flat out that it is "our(his) authority", and then affirming the BIBLE as the authority. You may think i am a Theonamist, However, i merely have a High view of YHWH'S HOLINESS, Sovereignty, The GOSPEL, and GOD'S Torah; as it Is Written, when CHRIST returns HE Will Slaughter all those who do not Love the Torah! And many other things are said about Loving the Law. To be clear: Christians keep the Law, to Magnify The LORD JESUS †he HOLY CHRIST, to the Glory of GOD The HOLY FATHER, by The ALMIGHTY HOLY SPIRIT, in response to what has been done/accomplished for Us/on Our behalf!!!†!!!
The question is, are ALL civil governments answerable to God for how they rule their nations? If not, then this whole debate is a waste of time. But if they are, then by what standard will God judge them? The only civil code He has revealed is the code given in the Bible, via Moses. So if government rulers will be judged by God on how close the laws they made and enforced were to what He set forth in His Word, then we must say that the Mosaic Law is obligatory for all civil governments, not just OT Israel.
But I respond to myself by asking, what about those nations that did/do not have knowledge of the Bible? What standard will God use to judge them? It must be the knowledge of moral right and wrong that He implants in every heart, which implanted knowledge is in complete harmony with His detailed revelation given in Scripture. But in the modern world God's word is available to just about everyone, so that all government officials and political leaders (save perhaps a few tribal chiefs in remote jungles) in the world have Bibles to which they can repair to learn how God wants them to rule, and that their failure to do so will be judged by Him.
What does ruling have to do with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles? Nada. Which is why you need to point to the Mosaic Law for anything close to a guideline for rulers and nations. Too bad that's not an apostolic doctrine. Theonomy really misses the mark on what the New Testament is about.
@@gregb6469 the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The New Covenant does away with the Old Covenant. The Old Testament is there for context and New Testament is there to explain the context and bigger picture. Our eyes need to focus on the apostolic teachings. Otherwise you add to the New Testament and say what Jesus taught and what the apostles wrote is not enough. Tell me, does that sound like a good idea?
@@EricEscander -- So we should tear the Old Testaments out of our Bibles? Would that not also mean we should remove all OT quotes from our New Testaments? Your position is uncomfotably close to Marcionism.
If theonomy (McDurmon's proposal) wins, there will be quite a few blinded eyes and severed hands. I hope we can allow judgment to God. I liked Hall's example of the adulterer in 1,2 Corinthians, who was expelled from church, as per Paul's instructions, but certainly not put to death, as the Mosaic Law would demand (~52:00).
No, look at 2 Tim 5:18, it’s a two step process to determine which moral law the case law is dealing with. But if the penalty for thievery was to lose your hand I bet there would be less stealing.
@@jmsto87 Thanks for replying. There is not a 2 Tim 5:18, but in 1 Tim 5:18 Paul is referring to both Moses and Jesus, classing both as "the Scripture". Interesting, that Paul applies an OT law concerning ox with a NT "law" about ministers. Paul also cited "ox" in 1 Cor 9:9 applying to himself and Barnabas as unpaid ministers. OT can be used in NT context, in this case, as a "if ___, how much more ____."
Interesting people's opinion about Hall. After freshly watching this debate and being very familiar with both positions....and as one who comes to this debate neutral (me).....I do not see where Joel got destroyed in the least.....let alone "spanked" or "rocked." I was unimpressed by all of Hall's citations and opinions. I would also add that Joel's citation of John Gill at the very end was near enough to win the debate. That citation WAS impressive.
It's called bias, and people who say "spanked", "schooled", "owned", "destroyed", and "rocked" are called fan-boys. Hall could have ceded every point and changed his position mid debate and he still would have "smashed" Joel as far as they're concerned.
My question to all those who don't think God's Law should be the standard for all mankind is, What law do you think should be? The only alternatives to God's Law are various forms of false religious laws, or various forms of secular humanist laws.
As Christians who serve the Spirit rather than the letter of The Law, we can use principles from the Scriptures of both covenants to make laws for society. How are theonomists different from Hebrew Roots heretics and other modern day Judaizers who wrongfully accuse us (who don't believe that their interpretation and more importantly application of God's Old Covenant Law is correct) of not having His Word to teach us (to live Holy lives as worship to God in and through faith in Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ), or of outright antinomianism?
If you can understand that God gave the Jews a special law to make them a special people for His purpose if them being a light unto the nations, then you should be able to make sense of the fact that God didn't tell them to go and force all the lost nations they were to be a light unto to follow all of their laws. God didn't set that up. That is how I make sense of it.
@@yoshkebenstadapandora1181 But theonomists don’t believe that we must follow every aspect literally of the Old Testament law. They do, however, believe that we are obligated to obey the moral aspects of the entire law in the present age.
Simple. The Constitution. That famous document which grants us all religious freedom. You know, that thing conservatives claim to love so much but in reality believe only applies to Christians.
"J.D. is worried if a Baptist can make it into "Neo-Mosaic" Theonomy." Rushdoony interviewed and was very fond of the Baptist minister, Pastor John Weaver. Rushdoony wasn't as sectarian as most Reformed Baptists are.
I lean towards Theonomy, but I think McDurmon relies too much on attempting refutation of 2 kingdom approach. I’d have preferred more discussion on specific biblical texts.
Great debate. Vocab , trying to be 'cool' and 'entertaining' was nothing but annoying. Praises to both men for their presentations. Brother Hall really made his case. I'm glad to have heard him. It was interesting to see McDurmon become more animated and use more Ad Homs as the debate wore on. Some may think that he was winning the debate, but he didn't think so. Theonomy is not really biblical as good an idea one might think it is, so arguing for it will run you into road blocks along the way.
Not being up to date with Joel McDurmon I just learned since making my previous post that Joel no longer supports Theonomy. As I stated in my comment above I don't think that Joel believed he was winning the debate. It would seem that at least to some degree, JD's arguments sunk in and were very likely a contributing factor to Joel changing his mind. Again this is a positive witness to debates on biblical issues. Iron does sharpen iron, and discussing issues does get people to study their views more closely.
JD Hall may have won but his sarcastic words and him using a book that took theonomy out of context makes him look bad. As for ad hominids by McDurmon I didnt see any.
Joel McDurmon no longer affirms the obligatory nature of Mosaic Penology. Thomas Granger, the bestophile Joel repeatedly referred to in his claim that "if it's just, it's unchanging," he no longer believes should have been executed. He also explicitly denies enforcement of the First Table. For the primary resource, read McDurmon's new primer on theonomy, which is basically a rejection of the essential principles of theonomy. pulpitandpen.org/2016/04/06/ding-dong-the-onomy-is-dead/
JD Hall conflats the sovereign spheres of individual, church and state rather than address them as separate entities by distinguishing moral law, civil law and ecclesiastical laws/rules.
Fun debate to listen to. The cross examination at the 2 hr mark was the highlight for me. At that point I got all I needed to understand where the 2 positions differ.
CX is the very kernel that’s sought in a debate. All the preliminaries are only to set that up. Sadly, gone are the days of meaningful and intentional debates, gone are written debates, the gift of logic in men from God is being dulled by self idolatry and the loss of wide spread study particularly of the attributes of God and a lukewarm hand wave at the meaning of what is actually said in the phrase ‘sufficiency of scripture’. I agree it was a good debate
@@gch8810 I just don’t think he did a good job of presenting his position. Listening to this debate I thought that Jordan’s presentation was much more convincing over all. Of course; I am a convinced theonomist but, I would have rathered Jeff Durbin debate JD. It doesn’t help that shortly after this debate Joel abandoned his previous Theonomy position in favor of the Cherum principle, which simply wasnt a good look for him or the Theonomic position.
Based on many of the comments below, there are more than a few people who badly misunderstand theonomy. Theonomists are NOT Christian theocrats who believe in some sort of top-down power religion approach to civil government. In fact, quite the opposite. Rushdooney, who was arguably the spiritual father of modern theonomy, had strong libertarian leanings...hardly a sound basis for a "Christian dictatorship" as I have heard some refer to it. Theonomy has always gone hand-in-hand with two ideas. 1. Postmillennialism - The Gospel will have a long term pervasive influence worldwide. It will eventually "leaven" the entire world. Most if not all people will be converted to Christ eventually at some undesignated time in the future, thereby ushering in the millennium. 2. Reconstruction - Only in the event of Number 1 may we then rebuild society according to Biblical Law. In other words, this is NOT about some "Christian Taliban" enforcing Biblical Law by coercion. It is about a society which willingly embraces Biblical Law and lives by it. And for the record, I am not a postmillennial. I simply get weary of seeing theonomists so badly misrepresented.
Don C. "Rushdooney, who was arguably the spiritual father of modern theonomy, had strong libertarian leanings" Yes, because nothing screams individual liberty/small government (two of the linchpins of libertarian philosophy) like reinstating Old Testament punishments for victimless crimes. Nail on the head, for sure.
DreamsGoneToDie "Yes, because nothing screams individual liberty/small government (two of the linchpins of libertarian philosophy) like reinstating Old Testament punishments for victimless crimes. Nail on the head, for sure." From 'DGTD's Rules For Interweb Debate': 1. Set up straw man. 2. Knock it down. 3. Declare self winner. Have you read the relevant texts in this area of theology? Like 'Institutes of Biblical Law' by Rushdooney? Obviously not. Because if you had, we would not be having this discussion. In that book, Rushdooney makes clear that theonomy cannot work from the 'top down'. Meaning all attempts to establish theonomy through the use of political power will result in what amounts to a theocratic dictatorship. He expends three chapters arguing that this cannot work and that theonomy is only possible when the people of a covenant community all agree together to submit to God's Law. In other words, it will not happen until people are converted to Christ and willingly submit to His Word. Hence, the Postmillennialism of Point 1 above. In fact, Gary North has written an entire book about how power politics and coercion will never usher in the conditions which theonomists desire. If you're going to debate this topic, please interact with the points I posted.
I haven't read Institutes in its entirety (I'm not that much of an insomniac), but I've read enough of it and enough about Rushloony to know that he clearly had no idea what libertarianism is all about. The very fact that he, North, DeMar, Chilton, McDurmon, and the rest of their ilk even desire such conditions is demonstrative of just how clueless they all are about what it truly means to support individual liberty. Those who identify as libertarians don't concern themselves with what religion others choose to practice, if any religion at all. (Or, for that matter, their sexual orientation.) Since theonomists *do* unnecessarily concern themselves with such matters, what I said is not a straw man, but rather a truth that you just can't stomach. By the way, why do you attempt to make a distinction between theonomy and theocracy? I quote one of your heroes, David Chilton: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law." Operative word there being *theocratic*. Any differences between the two (or other such descriptors, i.e. Christian Reconstructionism, Kingdom Now, dominionism, New Apostolic Reformation, etc.) is negligible at best. It matters not whether the sweeping social change you all support occurs from the top down or bottom up. The end result is the same: those in power are all of one religion, and anyone who dares to disagree pays the price. Hmm. Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, the Taliban and ISIS! And yes, I would say all of the above to someone pushing for Islamic Sharia Law, too. Regardless of the religion in question, if you want your laws derived from its holy text, you are scum. And so, as my niece would say, "I-G-G-BYE!"
DreamsGoneToDie Once again, you have completely ignored my points. 1. Postmillennialism - If the vast majority of the world is converted to Christ, then on to point 2. 2. Reconstruction - If point 1 were to come to pass, then the vast majority would WANT to submit to God's Law. Hence theonomy. 3. I am not a Postmillennial, hence I do not believe this will ever happen. And it does matter greatly if the change occurs from the top down or the bottom up. Top down power is rule by coercion. In fact, all top down power is rule by coercion, be it democracy or communism or facism. The kind of bottom up change which theonomists envision would be, well, postmillennialism. The conversion of most people worldwide. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference. And once again, you have created a straw man. I never said there is a distinction between theonomy and theocracy. Of course the two are the same. What I said was: "All attempts to establish theonomy through the use of political power [meaning top down coercive power] will result in what amounts to a theocratic dictatorship." Which is absolutely true. You managed to conveniently leave out the word 'dictatorship'. It would not be a dictatorship if 1 were true. That's what you don't seem to understand. The ONLY way theonomy would ever be possible would be if 1 were true first. Otherwise, no theocracy. And no theonomist 'scum' for you to hate on. And by the way, David Chilton is not "one of my heroes". He's a smart guy. But I don't agree with him on any number of points.
So are you suggesting that "bottom up" change could not possibly result in tyranny of any kind? And how do you define "vast majority?" 70, 80, 90%? In any case, a percentage of people get the short end of the stick, so to speak and are subject to draconian laws and policies, i.e. the possibility of being executed for their sexual orientation. Again, that's not libertarianism. Here's another problem: It's assumed that the "reconstructed" culture/system will be run in perfect accordance with the Bible. The question is, whose interpretation of it? The Methodists? Presbyterians? Anglicans? Pentecostals? Adventists? Considering that there are literally thousands of Christian denominations in existence (most of which are spin-offs of spin-offs), I'm skeptical of the idea that all of them would just get along peacefully and that everything would be peachy-keen. If nothing else, theonomy is an inherently flawed system of thought because it is long-winded on rhetoric yet very short on specifics. I know this is cliche, but "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." One need look no further than the Islamic theocracies of the Middle East and Africa to see just how well things work out when government and religion are in bed with one another.
I'm really not fond of all the dramatic camera angles. I think it takes away from the genuineness of the debate, and feels more like a staged tv production.
I was in the audience for this debate. I was pretty sure that theonomy was correct, but was wanting to hear good arguments against it before I really was willing to admit in public that I was a theonomist. Joel brought up some good points I thought, but never forced JD to answer. JD never really gave any good arguments against the presuppositional reasons I believe theonomy is correct. If you look at the American Vision website after this debate, Joel shows a lot of his arguments are bogus anyway. Since then, I have continued to seek out decent arguments against theonomy, but have yet to hear any. I love God's perfect law of liberty.
I would say the biggest argument against Theonomy is if your daughter is not a virgin on her wedding day: are you personally going to kill her? Or if one of your children, relatives, or wife converts to a different religion; are you going to kill them. The problem with Theonomy is not the law of God, but it is all talk. All of these people talk, talk, talk about the law of God, but do nothing to enforce it it in their homes, communities, or country. Refashioning the law of God to include "equity" as deemed fair by men is no longer following the law of God, but the law of men. Maybe I will take Theonomy seriously if anybody who claims to be a Theonomist does something besides talk. Following the law of God starts today; not when the law of the land says its OK.
@@hisbidding By what standard do you judge God's law as undesirable? The theonomists I know, including me, are trying to live by God's law as much as possible. However, we aren't the civil government, so we aren't even supposed to carry out civil punishments. Theonomy isn't about figuring out who to give the death penalty to, but having a standard by which to judge good and evil and justice. When Christendom is restored, the death penalty will be rare, because people won't be committing death penalty crimes.
@@countysecession Thats just it. The instances I mentioned are to be carried out by the father, against the daughter; or the citizen; to fellow citizens or members of his/her own household. The point I am trying to make is Theonomy is all talk. No one is willing to give up their life to live by Gods law now. Too afraid of jail, too afraid of being considered crazy; not enough courage to execute the violators of Gods law in your own family. Again, trying to live by Gods law "the best we can" isnt good enough. The standard of the law is perfection. Plus, one cant base a standard of perfect law as perfect; without considering the standard of consequence as perfect from that same source. The only thing that restrains sin is the Holy Spirit, not the Law; a dominion republic would be no less sinful than it is now; but it would be less gracious; because sinners will become condemned before they can be converted; thus, the reason God chose to give the Law to Israel, and not the world.
@@hisbidding Deut 22:21 says the men of the town execute the girl, not the father. I'm not sure what you're referring to about the father being required to carry out the death penalty. What is the alternative you're proposing to citizens carrying out the death penalty against fellow citizens? That's what we have today, and there is no alternative. Do you think there might be a reason why the witnesses against a criminal would throw the first stones, and regular people were to throw the stones, rather than some socialist-funded government institution? When theonomists don't carry out civil justice, they're obeying Scripture, which teaches that criminal justice is for the civil government. If a theonomist executed someone, they'd be breaking God's law. No one in my family has committed a death penalty crime. Are you not trying to live by God's law the best you can? Theonomists trust Christ for salvation, and we show our love for Christ by obeying His commands (John 14:15). It's not that hard to not commit a death penalty crime. By what standard do you judge American law (or whatever law you're advocating) as superior to God's law?
@@countysecession The very verse you quoted demonstrates it wasnt the civil authorities, but the people. The verse didnt say "take them before the elders," nor, were those who were going to stone the woman caught in adultery civil authorities; yet they were not rebuked for following the law; but that they were unworthy to administer the justice. This is the point I am trying to make. Theonomists talk about subjecting the nations to Gods law, but, they are waiting until the nations become civilly subjected to it. Gods law starts now. Why would theonomist wait until following Gods law is socially acceptable. "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. " So Theonomist, are you going to stone your daughter, wife, or brother if they evangelize another religion to you? And if you are not, then are you not choosing the laws of this land over the laws of God?
When Joel said Gill was a theonomist, it didnt surprise me to find that the very next sentence Gill contradicts theonomy However, we Christians, under whatsoever government we are, are directed to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, and for conscience sake; even to everyone that is not contrary to common sense and reason, and to religion and conscience. I.e., Gill recognized that the civil law, even though good and perhaps the best form of civil government to ever be on earth, is no longer required by God, but that Christians are to submit to whatever form of government they find themselves in.
what theonomist (or anyone else) has ever loved the Lord our God with ALL his heart, ALL his mind, and ALL his strength ALL the time? and which one has ever loved his neighbor as himself ALL the time? grace and eternal life reigns not law and eternal life
bruce mercer john mark evangelism Bruce, Amen, I could not agree with you or Paul more with the response! Grace! I think you may not have heard what theonomists believe, because we believe strongly in the doctrines of grace. Theonomists are most often Calvinists that hold to sovereign grace soteriology. The issue of theonomy, is by what standard does the Christian live. What ethic? Brother, we contend that it is God's Law or Autonomy - humanism. We also hold that most of our brethren that disagree with us on the surface, are still theonomic to a point. For example, I am sure you, my brother, believe that the Christian is not free to murder. Even in the heart. Yet we both agree that when we sin, we confess and He is faithful to forgive us. Eph 2:8-10 tell us grace through faith, not of works, (v10) UNTO good works. Mat 7 Christ said many will say Lord, Lord. He will tell them I never new you worker of iniquity (lawlessness) Rev 14:12 and 12:17 tell us the saints are those that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. Remember a keeper is a guard. It is an esteeming. A guard may fall asleep, be overrun by the enemy, etc.. because he is week. But a keeper is not someone who despises the commands. Does someone have faith because they say they have faith (Lord, Lord?) Or do we know a tree by its fruit? BTW, I apreciate your being able to disagree strongly, yet maintain gentle conduct. Grace and peace!
i was a theonomist for years. so yes, i know. the grace was given lip service but was eaten up like the fat cows of grace by the lean cows of law (so to speak) in pharoah's dream. we believe in the gospel of grace and then it was law, law, law. and if you want to know who, it was rushdoony (it's not the institutes of grace), north, jordan, bahnsen, vam til, robertingram who i either met or knew personally. i have even sold books for them at conferences (not since the 80's). the problem is if one understands the gospel, then theonomy is anti gospel
CHAPTER XXIII. Of the Civil Magistrate. I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers. II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions. III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God. IV. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646) Did JD Hall read this part of the confession??
THIS REPLY IS ACTUALLY TO Amyra Bynt Yhwh. I just told you how you should comment, and my original comment still stands. No one cares about your personal thoughts concerning Afros. Just stick to the main points of the debate. Also, it's kind of interesting that you tell me "shut my pie-hole", then you mute me. I thought I was to voluntarily shut my "pie-hole," not have you do it for me. Anyhow, my apologies for sounding mean with my original comment, I just didn't think it was very charitable of you to judge a fellow brother's hair preference.
When they judged Tom Grainger and put him to death it was unjust, for we are no longer under the law we are under grace and we judge all things by grace and not as one under the law, when you're under the law the law judges but when you under grace you judge that is, you're free to judge, when they put Tom Granger to death they called it divine Justice however, divine justice is when they put Tom Granger to death they also have to put themselves to death, anyone who uses the law to condemn a person to death does this by his own judgement and not by the judgement of the law, therefore, we cannot use the condemnation of the law to put someone to death and call it a righteous godly judgement, it is simply the judgement of men, and it reveals what dwells in your heart, so when they condemned Tom Granger to death they did not love him for they did not show him mercy, they became the pharisee, one who is under the law, and unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees you shall not enter into the kingdom of god. As it is written, the law brings condemnation and wrath but grace brings love and mercy.
Corey T Interesting you say that. After freshly watching this debate and being very familiar with both positions....and as one who comes to this debate neutral (me).....I do not see where Joel got destroyed in the least.....let alone "rocked." I was unimpressed by all of Hall's citations and opinions. I would also add that Joel's citation of John Gill at the very end was near enough to win the debate.
@@gch8810 ok well he’s basically embracing critical race theory and making it a mission of the church . I believe it’s on the same spectrum as theonomy as it’s about cultural mission rather then gospel mission
It seems to that JD was againist the civil magistrate enforcing the first table of the law which is contrary to the WCF that he was apealing to. Westminster Confession of faith chapter 23. Section 3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:(1) yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.(2) For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(3) (1) 2Chr 26:18; Mtt 18:17; Mtt 16:19; 1Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11-12; 1Cor 4:1-2; Rom 10:15; Heb 5:4 (2) Is 49:23; Ps 122:9; Ezr 7:23-28; Lev 24:16; Deu 13:5-6, 12; 2 King 18:4; 1Chr 13:1-8; 2 King 24:1-25; 2 Chr 5:12; 34:33. (3) 2 Chr 19:8 -11; 2 Chr 29-30; Mt 2:4-5. A lot of bad arguments where offered againist the theonomic position and if you want to see a refutation of this go here and listen to these sermons refuting anti thenomic absurdities. www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerWithinSource=&subsetCat=&subsetItem=&mediatype=&includekeywords=&exactverse=&keyword=Brian_Schwertley&keyworddesc=Brian+Schwertley&currsection=&AudioOnly=false&SpeakerOnly=true&keywordwithin=theonomy&x=0&y=0
Showing people they are breaking God's law by sinning and on there way to hell if they don't forsake their sin and follow Jesus Christ is the gospel it's not a distraction. We are not free from the moral by grace, we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, Jesus Christ said, "go and sin no more". The bible sais if we sin we must confess and once again forsake the sin. That is the mindset of a Saint, a Christian. Not sin repent sin repent sin repent and planning to continue it all the while. That is why few find the narrow gate that leads to eternal life. That's bible. The bible sais "This is how we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. Those who say that they know him and keep not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
39:43 You find out why JD Hall was looking so nervous and disgruntled from the start. This wasn't really ever going to be a debate. It was a total mismatch. But it did provide an opportunity for an important discussion. JD just didnt have the facts or the ability on his side. He was quite brave in agreeing to this.
I think you are blinded by our presuppositions. I came into this debate wanting Joel to win. I went away thinking he was destroyed in this debate and theonomy is utter garage legalism.
@@yoshkebenstadapandora1181 You will only come to that conclusion by believing that JD accurately represented theonomy, rather than erecting a strawman of theonomy and trying to knock it down.
***** i don't see much nerves, maybe a little, but i think its mostly passion. the man obviously cares. this is such a good work from everyone. im glad this happened.
Well, Livingstone, I'm not the only one who thinks this. So, what's your point? Check out this Reformed Baptist fellow makes a similar assertion, "Hall appeared nervous and couldn't defend his position from the Bible." Enjoy crow: shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/2015/03/thoughts-on-the-theonomy-debate-mcdurmon-hall-were-like-two-dogs-chasing-their-own-tails.html
When Perkins writes, "Therefore the judicial laws of Moses according to the substance and scope thereof must be distinguished. . . . Some of them are laws of particular equity, some of common equity. [ . . . ] Judicials of common equity, are such as are made according to the law or instinct of nature common to all men: and these in respect of their substance, bind the consciences not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles: [ . . . ]" (taken from your website because I don't know/remember the source) It reads clear (to me anyways) that Moses was according to "the law or instinct of nature common to all men". This is consistent with a view that says the Mosaic was made in line with the Moral law even though there was a part of it that was "particular" for that nation Israel. I guess I'm not seeing how Perkins is helping the theonomist here. Thank you.
@@innovationhq8230 It's called religious freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution. You know, that thing conservatives claim to love so much yet in reality believe only applies to Christians.
Coming across Bahnsen started a life long thinking on the nature of lying and how prolific it is in our culture but even more disturbing is how prolific it is in the church with the willingness to be flippant with the tongue. As I delve more into theonomy and Post-Mill I can't help but think that the lack of progress in the church is connected somehow....
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 not gonna do your work for you. You can start with Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Here’s an overview, though you have to read the book. “The position which has come to be labeled "theonomy" today holds that the word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all reas of life. It also teaches that since the fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification. Commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace. Jesus said, "if you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Moreover, we will strive to teach others to observe whatever He has commanded us (Matt. 28:18-20). Such healthy and necessary moral standards are surely not burdensome to the believer who bows to Christ as the Lord (1 John 5:3). Dr. Greg Bahnsen left this world for His eternal reward in Christ on December 11, 1995. We that remain are grateful to him for his labor, scholarship, love, and most of all, for his faithfulness to Christ. "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" started as a quite masters thesis in fulfillment of a Master of Theology degree from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1973. First published in 1977, this volume unexpectedly shook the theological establishment in its call for a return to God's law as the only perfect standard of righteousness for civil ethics. Twenty-five years later it continues to challenge the church to unashamedly embrace the "Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the only rule of faith and life." This 25th anniversary edition of "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" offers a third preface by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., a larger, reformatted page over previous editions, and a few minor changes and added notes. The inclusion of the CD rom with this book offers not only an e-book form of "Theonomy", but also many other resources by Dr. Bahnsen related to the topic of Christian ethics.”
@@normanpatterson4462 I think I will stick with the Bible which says that Jesus fulfilled the Law and that one is saved by grave through faith, NOT OF WORKS, and that one who seeks to be justified by the Law is fallen from grace. So you can keep your books and seek a holy life all you like, it won't bother me because I am not your judge. But the Bible is my sole rule of faith, and the commandments given for me to keep are to love God and love my neighbor. I am not a Hebrew/Israelite/Jew. I am a Christian, a spiritual Jew who has righteousness already in Jesus, the perfect fulfillment of the Law. God bless.
I'm sorry, but theonomy has so many theological problems that it would take several posts to mention, but the main crux is this opposition to scripture that things will not be worse, but better. That we can impose the Mosaic law on the civil laws of an unsaved land. This is not Israel and our mission is not to change the world, but proclaim the gospel and make disciples. You can't make a disciple of an unregenerate world (or unregenerate) person and you can't make an unsaved mind love the laws of the very God they hate (John 15:18-19). We bring the moral law to an unsaved person to show them the need of a Savior and a pardon from the wrath to come. This is another version of kingdom theology here on earth now and the Bible says the end times would wax worse. If you believe thonomy, it then changes the plain meaning of verses in other doctrines. When you must interpret verses through a theological lens that the Bible doesn't support, it makes the Bible say something it doesn't say. For that reason alone, I reject theonomy. I believe those behind the movement are sincere, but Biblically speaking, they are sincerely wrong.
That is what makes theonomy thoroughly Biblical. I assume you are coming at this from a dispensational premillenial eschatological viewpoint. However, many theonomists are postmillenialists. Postmillenialism holds to the belief that Christ's kingdom is here and now and is establishing itself on this earth.
The Bible I read says that Joseph thought Mary was unfaithful to him and because he was a righteous man he put her away quietly. If he was righteous wouldn't he want her stoned to death. Theonomy just got destroyed in my eyes today.
Well, we all have a hermeneutic that we use to exegete the scriptures. That includes you. So yes, in that sense I am exegeteing scripture through the lens of my hermeneutic. The question we have to investigate is wether our Hermeneutics are sound.
We can see on the mount of transfiguration when Moses and Elijah, who represented the Law and the Prophets appears along side Jesus. The Father speaks in Matthew 17:5-8 and says that Jesus is His Beloved Son with whom He is well pleased and that He (the Son) is to be listened to. After falling on their face in worship they looked up and Christ was the only One standing there. In regards to who has authority and who we are obliged to take heed in the New Covenant, it would be the Law of Christ alone. Moses and the Prophets are not binding on is today.
bsp256 Islam is a demonic, self-refuting worldview. And since their source is demonic and false then their interpretations of the OT are irrelevant. Now if you wanted to know if a regenerate Christian can use the Mosaic Law to justify the removal of someone's hand, then I would say they can't. They have no justification in light of the New Covenant inaugurated by Christ's blood to do such a thing.
@@VenetianSnus I am not going to answer that. It is clear you don’t really understand what theonomists believe. We are not just advocating for killing people left and right.
@@gch8810 buddy you’re a caricature. Reconcile yourself with the fact that your so called Bible advocates things you can’t support, like stoning women to death.
Joel had the debate at first, but as I'm finishing up JD's second rebuttal I'm noticing how strong of an argument JD is setting forth. Can't wait to see how the rest of the debate goes.
Without looking at the original source, I cannot say wether or not they were twisted out of context. In all honesty, it seems to be a red herring to accuse JD of doing so because it takes the focus off of the overarching arguments that he was making.
How ironic of you to say that. JD Hall was actually the one guilty of a red herring: whether or not certain theonomic authors have said erroneous things does not disprove the resolution of the the debate, that God's civil law is obligatory on civil governments today. So each and every quote he used (and, all his arguments from the Westminster Confession for that matter) was a red herring.
But so, what with those Christians and non-christians who have already broken the civil/moral law? namely: stolen, or those who have got into adultery? Should they be punished? it is a seriously question.
Well, JD Hall was WAY more prepared than Joel McDurman. I wrote down maybe 2 dozen decent references from Joel compared to over 150+ from JD Hall. As far debating is concerned and supporting ones position using resources, JD Hall applied a civil law and spanked the heck out of Joel. #SpareTheRodSpoilTheJoel #Preparedness1Theonomy0
The last rebuttal from Joel was cringe.. JD didn’t bring boogeyman quotes he made an argument from Joel’s position 🤦♂️ because every non theonomist sees it Obeying the mosaic civil law is not commanded for a Christian, if it was it would be in acts during the first council.. but what was the point made by the apostles? The exact opposite of what theonomist say🤦♂️ Joel knows Calvin better than Calvin 😂
Where in the New Testament are the gentile new believers taught the 600 plus civil laws? Bibles nor written yet language barriers. If it's not in the book...... you can not presume it happened.
Just started watching! Stoked! I hold to New Covenant Theology and am hoping one day ***** and a known theonomist will go head to head over these issues.
Jordan Hartley Dustin Segers is gifted when it comes to apologetics. He is a solid Calvinist to my knowledge as well, but not Reformed. There are many "New Calvinists" who only believe in God's Sovereignty and TULIP. They divorce Calvinism or The Doctrines of Grace from Reformed Theology. Being Reformed means you believe in Doctrines of Grace, hold to a Confession of Faith, believe in Covenant Theology, etc.
