The Laborers' Podcast- Theonomic Government

Welcome to the Labor's podcast. We're thankful you have joined us tonight. We're going to talk about theonomy.

We're going to define it and get into a conversation about theonomy. Is it the fact that we honor just the

Ten Commandments, the moral law, aside from the Sabbath because it's not repeated in the

New Testament? Or are we looking for a government that will coerce everyone into becoming

Christians? The Labor's podcast begins now. Welcome to the

Labor's podcast, which is a part of the Truth in Love Network. Join us as together we strive to grow up together in all things into Christ.

Subscribe and follow the Truth in Love Network on Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, and iTunes.

Now let's join our laborers for tonight's broadcast. Welcome again to the

Labor's podcast. Hey guys, what's up? I'm doing good. How are you?

I'm doing good, doing good. The comment line is open, and so let us know that you're watching.

Give us a comment. Say hello. Let us know that we can pray for you. Ask a question. We'll bring a live program, so Tyler's gonna monitor that.

Hopefully they will begin to start rolling back in on StreamYard, the program that we're using. Maybe you have to give them permission.

So if you would like to be on the podcast giving your question or saying hello, you may have to give them permission so that we can see it live on the podcast.

Before we jump into our topic tonight, I do want to remind everybody, if you are the

Western North Carolina, Hickory area, please go support the Carolina Theater.

They are graciously playing the Labor's gospel presentation before each movie, and we're so thankful.

We're praying that God will use that and be glorified, and people will see and know Jesus through that gospel presentation, even though it's only 20, 27 seconds long.

But nothing is impossible with God, and we're grateful for that opportunity, blessed by them that they're doing this, working with us on that effort.

And one more thing before we get started, if you are a church, ministry, a

Christian business owner, and you say I like what you guys doing in the Truth and Love Network, the

Labor's podcast, contact me, and we want to support you as well.

Here's a little video montage of the people who are currently saying, hey, we like what you guys are doing.

So check out this video. Again, we're so thankful for these guys.

If you did not catch, if it was too fast and you didn't catch it, that video is on YouTube, or you can replay the video, pause it, and get their information.

We'd love for you to check those guys out. And the Labor's conference is coming up at the end of April.

We've got some advertisements up, some flyers up on Facebook. Go to verticallifenc .church

slash conference to register. Verticallifenc .church slash conference to register, and come be with us at the

Labor's conference at the end of April. We'd love to see you there. Okay, that was a mouthful.

Tonight we're going to talk about theonomy, and I'll just say that we have all admitted that none of us are experts.

We're just here having a conversation about it on things that we've picked up along the way, and we all hope to continue to grow in our understanding of theonomy, a theonomic government.

So let's first, let's define what theonomy is.

Anybody ready to give that definition? I can do that.

Okay. You know, theonomy, of course, theo is the first part of that, comes from the word

God, and the nonomy or nomos is the second part of that word, which is law.

So it is the belief that God's law should be what is the prevailing divine law over the land, like that it should be not just from a

Christian sense of us following God's law, but it should be the law of the land or the law of the society, the basis of even governmental law, if you will, and those kind of things.

And so that was my best short definition of it, but it's how we deal with God's law in culture and in society and the conviction that God's law should be the law of the land.

Right. Is that fair? Yeah, I think that's great, and so the next part of that is, you kind of lead us into that next question because you make the statement, the law of the land.

So when you gave that simple definition of theonomy, which is God's law, what

Christian would be against God's law? We're not going to be against God's law.

That would make us antinomians. Right. And we're not that.

That's right. But when we hear the word theonomy and in certain contexts, and you as a listener, hopefully we have some folks out there that are not familiar with these terms, and you're going to come along and learn with us.

Maybe you are listening and you know about theonomy and you're wanting to join in the conversation. We'd love to have you join in as well, but typically in this conversation, it leads to where you were taking us,

Jonathan, the law of the land. So that would encompass government, and then that's when some people kind of tap on the brakes a little bit.

So what do we mean by theonomic government? So I think in more simplistic terms,

I think what that would be, how that would look like fleshed out, would be assuming that the government would be directed and enforce the laws of God.

So to that, this is where I would do just like what you just said people do, would be to tap on the brakes.

Now the government is referred to as the deacon of God, the servant of God.

In the book of Romans, we see Romans 14,

I believe it is. I think it's Romans 14 that talks about,

I've got books here I can't type, but I think it's Romans 14, but the government is

God's deacon, right? So God has appointed authorities over man in the world to carry out and to basically wield his sword, right?

To wield his sword, as was set out in the Old Testament through God's people, right?

Israel, right? So would I be correct in saying that, and I'm asking you all this, would

I be correct in saying that wanting a full -orbed theonomic society, right?

Does that mean that society, even though government, even though it's not

Christian in nature, would enforce God's law?

How is that carried out? I think that's the direction that we want to go tonight, absolutely.

While we're defining this real quick, I think we should just throw in there real quick, the opposite of theonomy is autonomy, you know, would be that we are driven by man's law, and so while we're pushing back and forth and trying to figure this out,

I don't think anybody's for autonomy. We see clearly in Scripture, you know, in Judges 17,

Judges 21, the Book of Kings, the Bible says there was no king in Israel, so they just did what was right in their own eyes, and we know what the destruction brought there.

There was no authority that was pressing in moral standard or God's law,

God's standards. So when humans do just what's right in their own eyes, it creates devastation, it creates chaos, it creates destruction.

So that's why we would all say no one's opposed to God's law, God's parameters, God's ways, because we know

God's design in His law is designed that we can flourish.

It's designed to preserve His image in mankind. It's designed that we can have blessing and a higher level of security even in a sinful society and even in a sinful world, even with a sinful nature, even if we don't even believe in God or even if we're not

Christians but still abiding in the parameters of God's law, we'll cause an umbrella, an overall flourishing or form of blessing in the earth.

And so we definitely don't want autonomy. And then I think where some of us pump the brakes, we're trying to figure out is how do you apply theonomy?

You know, is this a militant takeover or how does someone get there?

What does that look like? And then I'll save this, but I have my own convictions about where that applies already.

But I think in defining it, I think we need to understand theonomy and autonomy.

One is God's way and the other one is man's way. And that's really what we're saying here is which one do you want,

God's way or man's way? Because one leads to life and one leads to death. One leads to blessing, one leads to curse.

And so that's important as we work through that as well. I think that's one of the primary reasons that I wanted to tackle this subject and you helped get me there to explain it with what you were saying.

Because we want to tap on the brakes not because we think

God is wrong, but because we want to make sure we're understanding him rightly and then applying it rightly.

So we want to tap the brakes. But then in my opinion, I think you're absolutely right.

In this scenario, in this topic, there's two options, theonomy or autonomy.

And so when you realize that the opposite of theonomy is autonomy and we don't want to go there, we're drawn back to theonomy.

So then we're forced to discuss what does it mean and what does it look like? How is it applied?

And so that's why I wanted to have the conversation tonight about theonomy. And Jonathan had a good idea.

If we want to do a little roundtable and discuss where you are at this point on theonomy, your understanding of theonomy, theonomy applied, theonomic government.

So, Big John, you're at the top of the screen, you want to start? Man, I really got to figure out a way to move my screen somewhere else.

I thought about dragging on the side of Claude and when it got to him, dragging it back over beside Rob.

So, you know, full disclosure, I had never heard of the term until about,

I don't know, you brought this up in a podcast a couple months ago, almost in passing. I don't know if you remember it or not.

I think it was a, it'd been a year ago, we was going through some of the post meal versus pre meal things.

I think this got brought up the first time I'd ever heard the word and then it never got asked of me again until about a week ago.

So, Jonathan has already said more than I know about the topic, if I'm being real.

One of the things that I thought of immediately, whenever I was reading through these questions, was how Christ approached the government that he was living in, walking out, ministering in, and of what we have record of.

And, you know, God's government is above every other government and everything that exists only exists because he allows it to exist.

We believe that God is sovereign. Therefore, there's nobody that's elected that God didn't allow for that to happen for whatever reason.

It may be all God's time. And so I think that in a lot of ways, it's impossible to have a government that isn't in some degree already ruled by God and his, if nothing else, just by his divine sovereignty.

Whether or not they walk in accordance to the wheel he wants them to walk into or whether they're walking just in a way that he allows him to walk into for a season.

Is that fair? So, uh, John, I think it's

John 18 when he's questioned by Pilate, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the

Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not of this realm. Therefore, Pilate saying, so you are a king. Jesus answered, you said correctly that I'm king for this.

I've been born. And for this, I have come into the world to testify of truth. Everyone who hears of the truth, hears my voice.

So even though there was somebody that was allowed for a moment, more authority, it seemed like more authority than Christ in a moment.

Ultimately, Christ was king, even over Pilate and Pilate wasn't allowed to do anything that he didn't allow him to do. So if we're talking about whether or not man's laws should be governed entirely by scripture,

I have no problem with that. So long as man's understanding of scripture is fine and you don't see some perverted view of scripture being carried out like you might in some cultures.

Is that fair? That's very fair. With that, Tyler's up.

So I think we're – John and I are on the same page with this idea of the law that this is a good thing.

This is a good idea that framing the way our governments operate around what

God has called good is a good thing. It's a good idea. I don't think we're opposed to that.

We talked a little bit about being opposed to this idea of the law of God. Honestly, the only caveat

I think in my position on this thing, theonomy, is however this gets applied, however we work out this idea of relating to the law, we are sinners.

We are imperfect people. Which means that if we go theonomic and we flip that switch and we implement the

Ten Commandments as our constitution, we will still be governed by sinners.

That's right. That whatever we do politically will still be imperfect in that this idea of theonomy will not be perfectly applied until Christ comes back.

Amen. Beyond that, what we see with theonomy in the here and now is incremental development, incremental sanctification, if you will, gradual growing into Christ.

In the same way that there's no perfect church, there's no perfect government at the side of eternity. That's right.

See, why don't you start with Tyler? Hold it together, old boy.

I'm just – I don't know. I want to take a jab, but I better not.

Go ahead, Claude. Do you want to go next? So again, the jabs are part of the

Labor's podcast. Well, it's not at any of you guys. I just noticed that Tyler was using the word incrementalism several times.

Abolitionist. My mind went to a different conversation. Your mind went to the abolition of abortion versus the incremental approach.

That's right. Abolitionists all the way. Absolutely. But all we can say right there, in my estimation, all we can say is amen to what

Tyler said right there because that really is the key.

We've identified that the issue is God's law versus man's law, like Jonathan said.

The problem comes in the application of this.

And I'm going to say this, that the theonomic position – and I'm going to call it the

Doug Wilson brand of theonomy. The Doug Wilson brand of theonomy is rooted in the idea of Presbyterian covenant theology versus –

I'll put my name out here – versus Reformed Baptist covenant theology.

And the idea that I'm putting behind this is this, that in the

Doug Wilson brand of theonomy, it's underlaid by the idea that the world itself is going to continue to get better and it's going to be like a heaven on earth.

When in reality, like Tyler said, there will be no perfect justice or application of God's law until we're in the new heaven and the new earth because sin will be eradicated.

Sin will be done away at that point. With theonomy, the idea that man is capable – to me, this is my pushback – the idea that man is in any way capable of executing justice on the basis of God's law is beyond my comprehension.

Because if we are focusing on God's law, God is perfect in His righteousness.

He's perfect in His holiness. He's perfect in His justice. He's perfect in executing

His justice. We were talking about this in Bible study tonight. One of our good friends at church, he brought this about.

He gave the example of how when the woman with adultery, taken in the very act of adultery, was brought before Jesus, cast down at His feet, the

Pharisees were saying, we caught this woman in the very act of adultery. What should we do?

And Jesus said, stoner, if any of you don't have any sin.

So what Jesus demonstrated was pure, unadulterated mercy as only

God can show forth mercy and justice. Because we as human beings are not

God, above all, we are not God. There is one God, and we ain't

Him. We are unable to carry out

God's justice and carry out God's law. It was set forth. God's law was given to Israel.

However, this is why it's good for us, for Christians to be confessional people so that we can have articulations of this.

So in the 1689 chapter 19, paragraph 3 and 4, this is what it states.

In addition to this law, usually called the moral law, we're referring to the Ten Commandments, God was pleased to give the people of Israel ceremonial laws concerning several topological ordinances.

In some ways, these concerned worship by prefiguring Christ, His graces,

His actions, His sufferings, and His benefits. In other ways, they revealed various instructions about moral duties.

Since all of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the new order arrived, they are now abolished and taken away by Jesus Christ as the true

Messiah and the only lawgiver. He was empowered by the Father to do this, of course.

And then section 4 says this, to Israel, which is a type of the church, right?

It's the church in the wilderness. To Israel, He also gave various judicial laws which ceased at the same time their nation ended.

These laws no longer obligate anyone as part of that institution, only their general principles of justice continue to have moral value.

That's my stand. All right. So behind stage,

I asked the question, why is this an important topic? What makes this a big deal?

And I think we're addressing that and we're figuring this out in the fact of dealing with theonomy versus autonomy.

That in itself makes it a big deal, makes it an important deal. I have hesitation on how it's applied.

When I got to thinking about this of God's law, am I willing to prosecute someone if they're not following God's law?

And when I asked myself that question, the answer is I absolutely am.

And here's why. Because there's already a basis, in my opinion, of theonomy in our system.

Thou shalt not commit murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

There are legal ramifications already in place, rooted and based upon God's law.

So the first of all thing I would say is in the United States of America, I think we already have a basis of that.

Whether the leaders actually would say this is God's law or not, as Christians, we know where it originated. And you can begin to see that moral code, that DNA of law, if you just read the

Ten Commandments. But where I would struggle is

I would agree you shall have no other gods before me. Speaking of the

God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Yahweh, you shall have no other gods before me.

Now, am I ready to prosecute someone who does not hold to that law?

And that's a place where I struggle. So would it be best for all of society to have no other gods except the one true

God? Of course it would be. You shall not bow down to idols and graven images. Would that be best for all of culture to throw down all idols, have an idol -burning bonfire, and only raise hands to Christ?

Of course it would be. But I don't know that where I'm at that I'm ready to prosecute someone legally because they don't do that.

And so that would encompass the divide of love the Lord your God and love your neighbors yourself.

So prosecutable in our culture worldwide is the moral law of how we relate human to human.

But I don't know that it's a one -to -one ratio in relationship of how we would expect humans to relate to God.

And so that's some areas where I'm at where I'm sort of pumping the brakes and trying to figure out. I would say we already have this intact in many ways where I am for improving theonomy and giving more power to theonomy in the context of those

Ten Commandments, especially the lower half of man to man. I see the culture that we're in and the governments that we have, and it's always been this way, not only the erosion of that, but the overthrowing of that.

For example, that's where we have gone to war with other countries when Hitler was annihilating the

Jews and genocides that have went across the world and those kind of things. No matter what culture you're in, someone is saying that's wrong, that's wrong, that's wrong.

And we've literally had world wars that this was the central part of the central topic of that.

And so there is an enemy in the world that wants to erode God's law and do man's way and do it by the mindset of a

Hitler or anybody else that would have eroded that and reduce the image of God in all people.

So I'm a proponent to press the theonomic law forward in those contexts.

So that's where I struggle with this just a little bit. And when I'm reading and hearing people, I don't know that I'm ready to prosecute people that don't abide to the first part of that law.

I don't know that that's a prosecutable offense in the heart of God. And so that's the first step of it.

And then, like I said, the second step of it is I feel like we already have a basis of that in the United States.

The final thing that I'll say, and as I've been doing a lot of research and I do agree with this, I do think that in all humans, whether they believe in God or not, do have an imprint of God's law on their heart even before the law was ever written.

Sure. It's very clear from Genesis one and two and God gave instructions.

And when God gave instructions, that's law. That is the fall. So there was a fall in the earth in Genesis three before the law ever existed.

So that's important, I think, for us to recognize in this. And then the written law came much later.

But then that's even Romans one, that even nature and the human nature and the natural law of humanity has this instinctive nature to know what's right and wrong.

So that's where I think it was in the Genesis three.

I mean, I'm sorry, Romans three, maybe it was Romans two where the Greeks, you know, the Greeks who knew not

God's law still had law. The Gentiles, that's Romans two. Yep. The Gentiles who had no law still were following God's law and they knew nothing about God's law, you know, because there is a nature that what is right and wrong, what is just, what is fair, what is how to treat humanity, that we don't murder each other.

We don't abuse each other. There's relational aspects of it. So that's why sometimes

I'm asking the question, you know, why is this an important conversation for us to have?

What's the importance of this if we already have a basis of this? And there's a lot of people think it's very important.

So that's where I'm at tonight as I'm listening. I'm wanting to learn why this is a bigger issue in some people's heart and mind in Christianity today, why this has been pressed to the forefront.

Where do we line up in some of these things and where do we disagree in some of these areas? But I think we all agree that the law of God is holy and it is right.

And even Jesus himself and Paul said himself, they come to do away with the law. That's right.

Paul said, am I calling the law sinful? No. So how we treat this subject, even in disagreement, we have to be very careful because the law is absolutely precious.

Apart from the law of God, I know I would never have been born again. That's right.

That's biblical. The law, I would just do what's right in my own eyes.

The law is what shows you you're sinful. It's right. I do think that's why it is important to teach law in church, not as a means to righteousness, but as an absolute evidence of our depravity and failure and dependency on Christ.

Amen. So it starts there. We can go into a whole bunch of subjects in that. But that's where I'm at, guys.

Sorry, it's a little longer explanation, but I'm not for it and I'm not against it.

I'm learning about it. Well, if we're asking questions, I've got one about it.

And this ain't pointed at any one particular person. But, Rob, if you'll answer this question. Well, you're the one that writes them.

So when I get the questions, they come from Robert most of the time. So in your worldview or in your eschatological view or whatever reason behind it, does the does the theonomy that I suppose people are fighting for, is it likened unto what

Israel would have been following prior to 70

A .D. where they ruled their country according to the 613 mosaic customs?

Or would it be one that has more of a what would be the word here?

Give me I've got a terrible education. Or would it be more of a hearkening to the bones of the intent of the law as opposed to the ceremonial aspects of the law as well as that?

Because oftentimes, I mean, you see that Jesus obviously never broke the law in any of the things that he did on this earth.

But everything he seemed to do as far as the Pharisees were concerned, drove a wedge between him and them.

And they appeared to be following the law, at least, of course, to to their practice. They were all lawful. And they had missed the mark where Christ was keeping the law, actually being the only person who had ever kept the law and its fullness.

But you see friction between two people who supposed to be on the same team. Right. So what would in a perfect world for the

Tyler already mentioned it in a perfect world, it would be one led by Christ and there wouldn't be no question like this.

But if we're going to be following, you know, if we're going to be American and an

American theonomy would look like, what do you think? Um, hopefully we can draw more of those conclusions at the end as we as we continue, instead of putting the cart before the horse.

But I think to answer some of your question, I think Claude was taking us in that direction with his response to where you were asking about Israel versus us.

So we've got to make sure that we're interpreting scripture according to that transition from the old covenant to the new covenant and how it applies now to us in the new covenant.

And so therefore, it's going to look different as a whole for individual, family, church, government, world, because we're in the new covenant and not in the old covenant.

So we've got to make sure that we're under interpreting scripture in light of that transition. So I think that's

I think that's taking us in the right direction. And just to just to take my turn to hopefully quickly share where I am.

I'm still learning. I'm still growing. I'm an infant in this subject as well. But here's here's what

I would say. I am now. Scripture tells us that Jesus is above all things.

Scripture tells us that Jesus created everything was created by him, for him and through him, starting in Genesis 1.

So therefore, I think I think we are already under theonomic rule because God and his law is above any other law or authority.

So we are just an active rebellion against it. Well, you're not wrong there. And so we need to going back to the word interpret, interpret scripture and get get the church, get us individually back to where we're interpreting scripture rightly and dividing the dividing the word, rightly dividing the word and applying it rightly.

And so and I think you were I like listening to your answer because you admitted to us where you were on this subject.

But then it's so wonderful about God, his word and how he works, because even if you if you're not familiar with the subject, you just begin to logically work things out.

God, God is going to be logical. He's going to be reasonable. And so you can start logic, logic and things out and it makes sense.

And that's what you were doing, even though you admitted you were new on the subject and you were making sense because of just plain logic.

One of the objections I think that you brought up, John, that I wanted to hit on is to theonomy is if we're looking at Jesus as an example,

Jesus did not try to. Of course, that's what this is, what they were looking for. But people will say

Jesus didn't try to overthrow the government and create his establish his law and rule on the earth.

So there's an objection. But then you answered the question. You said when Jesus was before Pilate, he made it clear that Pilate couldn't do anything that God didn't allow him to do because God's law was already above him.

That's right. And so the whole upper story, lower story thing. That's right. That's right. And so that that's the answer to that objection.

God's law is already above all things. Amen. I'm trying to think of how we how it would practically be applied.

I understand and in total agreement with you and everybody. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard one disagreeing opinion tonight unless I just heard wrong.

I don't think anybody, believer or unbeliever, is actually against God's principles, precepts and his laws.

I don't think. In fact, every every nonbeliever

I've ever talked to, the only thing they've ever had a problem with when it come to Christ is surrendering to him.

Is is is determining that that Christ is supreme in their life as well as he is everything else.

And they won't surrender to that, but they surely don't want you to take their wife or their children from them.

And they don't want to see you take things that are theirs as they lock stuff up tight because they want to keep it. And by and large, you know,

I've I've met very few thieves that in this in a regular working environment.

Most people that I've worked with have always just tried to do their job and go on about their lives and be left alone. Right. And they trust that everybody else does the same thing.

And though they may not be believers, one of the only reasons or the only reason that they're not a believer is simply because they will not surrender to the sovereignty of God.

They won't surrender to his authority or his will. They want to be gods unto themselves, but they do want everybody else.

Yeah, they want everybody else to follow God's law, whether they do or not. And that's right.

I don't know if I've misplaced this in the question log. I'm looking like. Well, maybe we can start heading in the direction of drawing some conclusions.

Sure. Because, I mean, we're going to run out of time anyway. Yeah, we're not going to get to hardly any of these questions.

So maybe I can direct us in the put us in the direction of getting to some of those conclusions. OK, I want to ask you a question and allow you guys to flesh it out.

So this week I was learning that Calvin, when he was writing his

Institutes, if I'm not mistaken, the introductory was maybe he was writing the whole thing to the king of France, the king of France.

So he was directing his Institutes of the Christian faith.

Is that what it's called? Institutes of the Christian religion. I can pull that letter up if you want.

Yeah. To the king of France. So he was making a direct appeal to the king of France, saying, this is your role, my friend.

And there it is. This is your role and God is above you and you need to behave in a certain way, because like like Claude was saying, you're just a deacon.

Yeah. So you've got a certain standard that you've got to live by.

You have a certain role as a minister, as a deacon of the government. So Calvin and others who

I believe lived or believed in theonomy, theonomic rule, also believe that it's because of this theonomic rule, it is it's

God's law only. That is the basis for religious liberty.

And so we don't believe in coercion or compulsion, but just the opposite.

We believe in religious liberty because of Scripture and because of God's law.

So can you guys flesh that out? Have you thought about that any at all? OK, so can

I get pushback here for a second, guys? Absolutely. So what you're talking about, about the purpose of the institutes and who it was written to is exactly right.

However. I would point us to the fact that we're talking about a state church.

A church government, as opposed to where we are.

And history has always taught us this, that a state government or a government church, not a state government, but a government church never winds up good.

Right. Because the government ends up, in a sense, overriding the church, dictating to the church what can be done.

So I think there's a challenge in that idea.

It's important for us to realize that, yes, it was written to the government, but it was a church government.

The context of the whole point of the institutes was in that setting, which can't be applied to where we are now.

So that brings a challenge in that. So can I give a response to that? Mm -hmm. Okay, so, correct.

That's who it was written to, and that was the state of the culture, the situation, the government at that time.

And you're right, we're in a different situation and a different culture. But God's law is above all authority.

The key word there, authority. So at His time, who was the authority? It was the king, it was the head of society and church.

Both in our society, we still have an authority. Mm -hmm.

And most would say it's the Constitution. Others would say we the people.

Some would say both and. So there's still an authority. Mm -hmm. And so here goes back to John's question, the application.

We're getting an application. God's law is above the authority of the land.

Who's the authority of our land? Constitution, we the people, both. So that's where we have to begin here with us.

So what happens when the law of the land requires you to go against the laws of God?

Let's go to COVID. Fail not to assemble yourselves together. Mm -hmm.

I would consider that law. And then we got a government that's saying you're not allowed to gather in groups.

Right. So now what do we do? Which one has the law? God's law. God's law.

Right. So I guess what I'm saying is that's why to me having clarification is important.

Yeah. But I think where the confusion comes is how can someone that doesn't believe in God's law apply

God's law? And the fact is they won't. So there is a people, there is a remnant in the earth that will.

That I'm going to be a good law -abiding citizen as long as the law of the land does not require me to cross conscience with what the law of God is.

But the moment that it does and those are at an intersection, then there's one that's going to have authority over the other.

And I also think the reason I'm bringing up COVID and other, I think this will be a strong word, but I do think it was a tyrannical approach.

I think it was a form of tyranny in many ways over the land. So now the people of God are going to face persecution in the world because we're going to follow the law of God.

That's going to become our standard. And so, but Robert, I think what we're dealing with,

I don't think anybody disagrees with what you're saying. The overarching ruling father, savior, and King, who's

King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who is already an authority over all things. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.

Where'd you go? Can you see me still? Yeah. Sorry. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.

Right. I think it's from man to man, human government to human, how is that balanced?

Because I would say in the United States of America right now, I would say we have a lot of people in authority that know nothing of God's law.

And then I would think, then I ask the question, why that? And we see all throughout

God's standards, not that we're Israel by any means, but in God's standards, when

God's people are not serious about God's law, what does he do? He turns them over to unbiblical governments, governments that do not love the law of God.

So there's an exile, if you will. And what happens in exile, at the end of exile, there's revival, right?

There's a returning to the things of God. There's a returning to the values of God. There's a returning to the love of God's design.

But I think the rub, that's what I'm trying to nail down. What's the rub? What's this a big deal?

Because I think everything we're saying, we're saying yes and amen. And I think the rub is when it hits to human government.

Is it right for Calvin to expect a, if I would still view the king of France at that time, probably not one who is in love with Jesus.

So it's just not like Paul standing before, was it

Herod? Felix, Festus, Herod.

Who didn't Paul get in their grits about? Standing in front of them and proclaiming the law of God to total pagans, people that were haters of God.

So then, is it fair for someone who does not have Christ obey the law of God?

Then in return, someone to come in and say, hey, start following the law of God. And if it was to happen, the other question

I think in this, and it's a misconception. I don't think anybody would say this, but the underlying thought, it leads one to the deduction.

And that's where Claude was going a second ago. In a state church, if someone becomes a member of the state, they're automatically considered

Christian. So like Constantine, when he flipped the switch to be, in order to be a part of the

Roman citizenship, you had to be a Christian. Or if you became a Roman, you were considered

Christian. And so if you joined the French government, you're considered

Catholic. And that's why we had all of these killings and the

Reformation and burnings and torturing of Protestants because of a state church.

And so my concern is too that we're moving back towards something like that. That if you become a

Christian, you're automatically a part of this. Or if you become a part of this, you're automatically considered a

Christian. And that's where I press back because of so much understanding, even of covenantal theology.

I deal with a lot of people in our area that come from a covenantal theology background.

And you ask them, how do you know that you're born again? Like, well, I was baptized as a baby, so I know I'm saved. So I'll second most of what you're saying with that, having walked through that personally in the different churches.

And I won't say its name, but as a young man, I was taught. And I can't remember how many

Saturdays in a row, all kinds of things about church leaders. Nobody ever asked me about Jesus.

I don't remember a single person asking me if I know who the Lord was. If we didn't pray together at the end of this lesson,

I was baptized and given a job. This is your job. And from there on out, my salvation was never brought into question because I was more or less a form of confirmation in a church body that didn't have the confirmation.

But I had followed all the rules, right? I didn't get out of line in any one thing.

Anybody asked me to do something, yes, sir, yes, ma 'am. I'll do whatever you ask me to do. And that supposedly made me

Christian. I didn't know the Lord no more than I know the man in the moon. And so that's what I'm saying,

John. I feel like that's what a theonomic government lends itself to. And that's why

I read it like true regeneration or salvation. Right. It actually creates a works -based

Christianity. Followed to its logically and its Christianity without conversion.

Exactly. And so that's what I'm trying to say. It's not that we're opposed to the law of God.

OK. But I have pushback on the application of it because of its deduction of logically where it lends itself as a state church, as a state government that,

OK, now I'm saved because I follow the law. Yeah. And so then why do we not just bring back then the ceremonial laws and the civil laws?

And this is going to bring it all back, you know, and make an attempt at it. So I want to be facetious, but that's that's what

Claude was saying a second ago, too. I want to ask a question about for people who are older than me. I wasn't alive during supposed blue laws.

Were any of y 'all alive during blue laws? I don't know. I was not.

I remember hearing about them. But really, I was born in 2013.

And my point is, is I've heard a lot of things in the last couple of years about wanting to get back to the way

America was in the 50s and the 60s. Right. I've heard a lot of people want to want to go back to America's heydays and all these other things.

And I'm not opposed to America being more moral by any means. Right. I'm not opposed to America being fearful of God and fearful of the word of God.

But wasn't America segregated in the 50s? Some places were. Some places weren't.

I mean, you have to look at that, you know, in terms of boundaries. What I'm getting to is, is that I've heard people say, well, you know, we couldn't go get gas on Sunday.

You better sure you had your gas on on Saturday because your Sunday, everything was closed. People could go. People could go worship

God in their churches. And they were trying to, in a sense, honor a Sabbath on a Sunday. And there were things that you couldn't do in some towns and things that you could do in some towns.

And then they go around and change all the laws and people adhere to the laws or people went directly to the fringes of the laws as they always do.

I'm saying it this way because if people were so noble in those days, then the minute that there was a law that says you can open your gas station on Sunday, they'd have kept it closed if it really meant something to them.

Right. The fact that they the fact that the day that that was allowed, they opened. It meant that they really didn't care that it was more of an inconvenience to be closed on Sunday than it was to go to the house of God and worship, as they had said that law was written for and towns that didn't allow for alcohol to be sold in it.

So there was a lot of sobriety in town. The moment that alcohol was voted in. It's like how in the world did a town like Cherville get liquor by the drink voted in when everybody

I talked to voted no. Right. It's like so you're telling me that everybody in this town is sober, but everybody enough people voted for it or now you can get it at a restaurant.

Right. Just because you create a law that forbids something that the

Bible forbids does not mean the desire to do something that is forbidden is gone from the people.

And if that desire is not gone, then even if your country is ran correctly, it's still not ran

Christian. Because your intentions have never changed. At the same hand, to be to be completely congruent on both sides of the issue.

I want my country to be better than it is. Right. And if you take my people who are called by my name, if you take that scripture the way everybody likes to use it,

I'm not opposed to it. Right. Well, humble yourself and pray and turn from their sins and seek my face and I'll hear from heaven.

I'll hear their land. That doesn't say that everybody in that country is to adhere to that law.

That's simply to say that God's people have an opportunity to live according to God's word and God's will and be blessed.

So much so that even their neighbors are blessed because of their obedience. Paul and Silas locked in a prison on the basement.

Midnight starts singing hymns and worshiping God. So just Paul and Silas for free. No, the Bible says everybody's chains were broken.

All the gates were open to people obedient to praise God and worship God in the bottom of a jail at midnight.

Reflected God's power or God honored that in such a way that every shackle came loose and every door was opened and even the prison guard was redeemed in his entire household.

So I don't think God requires Uncle Sam to make us keep a law. If God's people would just keep a law, the law that God's given us to keep.

I'm not talking about ceremonial law. I'm talking about keeping God's ordinances and worshiping God. You can you can see to it that abortion clinics are closed, even if abortions are legalized.

If you see the whole world saved, you don't need a law that allows that. I think it was a well survival that saw police officers lose their job because there were so many people saved in that period of time.

The jails closed and law had to find new jobs because there wasn't any reason to keep order because man was keeping order in his own heart.

On the Isle of Lewis, I believe that's what that was. There's an opportunity for man to see

God's God's will on this earth in periods of time where he'll humble himself and seek

God and spread the gospel and see those that are he that he sees converted, brought up in the most holy faith.

They'll become something that is far stricter than what the government allows. And you can absolutely have no need for a government whatsoever if you just do what

Jesus says in the first place. Amen. So I don't know nothing about this.

You know a lot about it. I mean, I think,

John, you're proving my point of what I'm trying to say is I think this is something that that is a level of common knowledge among Christians.

That we would have a lot of agreement on. So, Robert, I want to ask you, let me moderate this for a minute.

I want you to speak into it, OK? Because I know you always get to ask questions and don't get to speak into it.

So, Robert, in your opinion, you know, and the circles you run with Postmill and the discussions around that and those kind of things, you know, why is this a big topic?

And what is the heart? And it's brotherhood. This is not debate in this. These are all folks we're going to spend eternity with that are authentic believers in Christ.

This, we know, is a secondary issue. Even theonomy is what it's not a heaven and hell issue.

It's not a it's not a life or death issue. But there's a lot of great Christian leaders out there that saying, even though secondary, this is a top shelf secondary issue of what we're talking about tonight.

And so as you're leading us with these discussions, like what what is what is pressing on your heart that brings this topic to light tonight?

And why do you feel like it's important to a lot of these guys? So I want to ask the

Lord to help my recall, because you guys have said a lot. And I've been holding my tongue because and I appreciate the opportunity because I want

I wanted to respond to some of it. So I'll try to respond to a little bit of all of it if I can.

And to answer that question first. So we go back to what Tyler was saying and he was talking about.

We're not going to have a we're not going to have perfection until glory and until that until the end comes.

However, and Claude is going to be speaking of this at the laborers conference, Psalm 110. Jesus is going to be defeating all his enemies until the last enemy, which is death.

So that's a that's a projection. That's sanctification. That's going in a certain direction. And so if we're if we're growing in Christ, then we're going to be growing in a direction where Christ is going to be ruling.

The nation is going to be flowing to him. And so the more Christians there are, the more we're going to honor in Christ, the more we're going to have theonomy.

And so that's why it's an important subject to be talking about is what is what is it going to look like?

How do we apply it? How do we apply it correctly? If we're if we're going in that direction and you were asking about the circles that I run in or listening to,

I don't want to speak for any of them. I just want to speak for how I'm understanding the subject.

And so that's that's where I'm coming from, how I'm understanding the subject. So that's what I would say first on that.

And I think I think you're hitting, Jonathan, a lot of where the rub is from the application on the horizontal level.

And that's where a lot of the conflict and road comes in. How do we do that? What does it look like? Is it coercion?

Is it forced compulsion? And so I think if we go back to the question that I was asking a few minutes ago,

Christians believe in religious liberty. I mean, you know, that's that's where we are in America. That's where we were founded.

And it's a it's a Christian doctrine. And I believe that religious liberty and I believe that the law and it's only

God's law will lead us to Christian liberty. And it also and I think if we try to answer that question,

I think it will put it will ease the pressure of the objections that you were bringing up,

Jonathan. Why do we believe in religious liberty? And how does the law of God lead us to religious liberty?

And and to bring in where Big John was taking us with the 1950s in my perspective, and I could be wrong on this, but in my perspective and I do, you know, here have felt that sentiment.

What if it was like it was back then? Of course, we don't know how it really was because we didn't live then. But it may have been a lot different than our perspective on it.

But the perspective is, you know, everything was so much more church centered and the laws were more

Christ centered. You know, we have that mindset that everything was more what's that? Leave it to Cleaver or leave it to Beaver.

We have that mindset about the 1950s that everything was just hunky dory. However, it was church centered instead of Christ centered.

It was moral centered instead of gospel centered from from my understanding.

So I wouldn't want us to go back there. I want us I want us to leave that slippery slope that America has got into and get back on the gospel train and head back in the gospel direction.

And so we were in our discussion in the debate or not the debate, but our chat room that we have, we were talking about the three uses of the law.

And what is that first use of the law? It's it's a mirror. It's it's to show us our sin.

It's to it's a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. So if we are looking first and foremost at the law in that light, then we we are no longer showing partiality.

We we are loving one another when we don't show partiality. There's no more racism and that, you know, and it just it keeps going and going.

When when we live in light of the gospel, because of we can see that our sinfulness, we are gracious then towards one another.

So I am living in light of the law of God because I am being graceful to someone else.

And I think one of the goals of of theonomy and I made this as a post would be to get back to the simple few roles that the

Bible does give the government. And you guys brought up some of those, which was to wield the sword.

And then the other ones were or are to reward the righteous and to punish the wicked.

And that's very what we like to say, limiting government.

And we need to get back to a limited government. But then we need to re -centralize.

We need to decentralize government, have a limited government and re -centralize Christ. And so that goes back into this sphere sovereignty topic that we talked about.

We want to we want to honor Christ and his law above all in my own life, in my family, in my church.

And then it would just begin to spread into the other spheres of sovereignty, into the community, local community, into the government.

And once it begins to grow like a tree, the top level becomes smaller in their reach and their authority and their influence.

And we begin to have the rightful influence that we should be having all along. And I think that's where we've fallen short as a church is that we we are not honoring

Christ locally at its smallest level and being that influence because we see where the government is now.

Our government that is of the people, by the people, for the people. No, they're for themselves because we we've not honored

Christ here. And so I think that's why the theonomy issue is such a good and topic to talk about is because if we're going if Christ is taking us in that direction.

And he's drawing all men to himself, then government should be heading in that direction as well, where eventually they honor

Christ. So I think you're bringing up an important perspective on this because I'm not sure all theonomists have your perspective.

Does that make sense? I think you're talking about revival. You're talking about awakening.

You're talking about what John was talking about, the Welsh revivals and and and and a revitalization to Christian principle, godly principles from the heart of regenerated people.

I think I think the pushback from a lot of us to what of how theonomists are describing it from other perspectives.

It's not from a an us word outward. It's from a government judicial system downward.

And and and I think and I think it's even what Claude was saying a while ago, what we're all saying as far as a pushback.

We don't think that the answer is a judicial system that's that's theonomic or or a or a president that's theonomic or a

Congress that's theonomic. Like that's not the solution. It's not the solution or the goal.

It's the result. Could be. Right. It could be. But I think we can still have a theonomic point of view, even if that never happens.

That makes sense. When the Christians were moving throughout the culture, they didn't win over the

Romans. It wasn't like the Roman government went away right away.

You know what I'm saying? Or that the Roman government ever became Christian till Constantine.

And even then, I'm not even sure it was Christian except in name. You know, so I'm just saying like they're there.

I get what you're saying. But it's but it's as a result, because what happens in theonomic government among ourselves and we use that term when we're governing ourselves, according to theonomy, is what we're talking about now.

That doesn't always bring prosperity. Most of the time that brings persecution. So that's something that we need to be aware of as well.

I think that's an also a false teaching of the theonomic mindset is, man, we're light and dark.

There there there is like a total opposition to everything we're saying. So so America right now, when we live this way, my son this week was in public school and and it was a debate over abortion.

And and as he stood in God's principles for life, I mean, guess what happens?

You see now the popular kid and boy, we're glad you're standing for justice and rightness. No, it's like he gets suspended. No, but now now he's the lonely kid.

Yeah, he wants to hang out with that kid. So no, and he's doing great. You know, I mean, I'm thrilled to unpack with him.

But that's all I'm trying to say is there's like there's this place where, you know, I just think that's that's what we're pressing on.

And so I say yes and amen to you, Robert, what you're trying to say there that it should be this growth outward of the gospel and the people of God.

And I am confident in what First John says, that light always dispels the darkness.

Right. Always. You know, so but I think that's where the other Theonic view is. It's not from people out.

It's not from the church being the church is somehow we're going to have the government impose this point of view.

And then that that just I don't feel right. I don't taste right. They don't pass the smell test for me. You know, so that's where it's like,

I don't know about all that. You know, so let's see. I think it's a little it's reverse.

We get to the point where we're telling we're telling the government how to how to have its views.

We're coercing the government. Well, it makes sense if your government is run by people that vote and by people who set that government up.

You know, if the majority of the people rule and the majority of people are Christian, then, yeah, you would think that the government would follow the majority.

I think that I mean, honestly, you know, I'm not going to say my opinion on that because I don't want to make a mistake.

I need a tenfold hat. So I think it's important to go back to a comment that I made earlier that we need to we need to work on interpreting

Scripture rightly. Sure. And interpreting Scripture in light of the transition to the new covenant.

And we also need to. What was

I going to say? Oh, John, I'm sorry.

No, something Jonathan said, I want to I want to respond to it. So, oh, there's that recall.

Lord, help me with my recall. Is he talking about the reverse of government being a government institute and something versus us institute together as a coercion of government versus government coercion?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Thank you. So that's why I think it's important.

And I would ask you guys the same question. Do you think it's also important that you and I have this conversation, that we have this conversation in our churches, that we get back to teaching our churches and our people how to interpret in light of the transition to the new covenant and rightly divide the word of truth and have the conversation about theonomy?

Because there kind of goes back to eschatology because you have this dispensational premillennialism is is rampant and popular and has been for so long.

And it seems like those that lean more towards that side also have the dualistic mindset that church and state is separate.

We just leave them alone and we do our thing. We do our gospel evangelism. They do their thing.

But then on the other hand, those same people are some of the most patriotic people that you'll meet.

And they they believe and rightly believe that the government should honor

Christ. The president should honor Christ. Whoever's in authority should honor Christ. But they've got this theology that says, yeah, they should.

But aren't we supposed to just leave them alone, let them do their thing and we do our thing? We're supposed to stay separate when we know there's an expectation that and a knowledge and an agreement that Christ is above all things.

Everything was made by, for and through him. And so therefore, all of creation, no matter how smart smartphones get, they're still part of creation.

And God is always going to be above it. That's right. And his law is going to be above it. And so there's an expectation from from God's word that the ethics are in eschatology.

That's right. And the government should submit to Christ. Well, there's been a big shift and we're talking about government and voting.

Let's talk about that for a few minutes. I think there's still me included. I think there's still a lot of people that vote on the conviction of morality versus governmental polity.

And but there's been a shift in American culture that's no longer the case. That morality has become the exception and whatever they feel like the the platform that matches their polity.

In other words, in their view of economics is more important than morality. Even if you even have

Christians saying, I'm not voting for a pastor, I'm voting for a president. And so those kind of things.

And so so there is a move away from the evaluation of morality and even

Christian voting in government of our influence. And I'm a big John, like this is a whole nother set.

We probably need to have another another whole night behind the scenes conversation about about some of this stuff.

But let's just say hypothetically that and hopefully convictionally,

I hope that that elections are correct. They are sound. They are trustworthy.

If that is the case, then it's very clear that how America is currently voting, including the church, has abandoned moral conviction over over secular desire and and has put secular desire rather as a priority over moral conviction.

So so so we're losing ground, you know.

So so I'm going to ask him and make I want to make a statement in the form of a question and do with it whatever whoever wants to answer it, kick back against it.

That's fine. So I'm of the mindset that as a as a child of God, I'm following the supreme authority of the universe.

And I'll follow whatever he says, regardless of what anybody under him says, because that's the order of things.

And the only time that I'm going to listen to anybody under Christ is if what he says lines up with Christ. That's the way that I run my home in my home.

I say what I say is final. And I trust that my wife is going to kick back against me if anything

I say isn't biblical. And I've given her I've always give her that liberty to say, hey, you've got a question as to whether or not this is not right.

Or if I'm doing something is on Christ, like you need to pull me over to the side and tell me, hold my feet to the fire and she'll do it.

Now, I think it is impossible, Rob. I think that your view of eschatology and and maybe the view of the premillennial eschatology is far more similar in this.

And what I believe you're seeing with the premillennialists practices, they don't practice what they're preaching or what they believe or they don't believe what's biblical.

I think that it is impossible. It is absolutely impossible to follow the teachings of Christ and to do what

Christ has told us to do and not come to not come in contact with the government is impossible to have it separate to the point where you never interact with the state.

If you spend some time passing out tracks or street preaching, I promise you, you will come in contact with the policeman.

It is impossible to spend any amount of time in any country in the world doing the work of God and not be confronted by somebody of civil authority.

And by all means, stop me if you see there you go again, using

God's logic. Somebody who's been threatened with arrest, I concur. So with that, with that mindset,

I would question a premillennialist view. I'm a premillennialist for the sake of anybody watching.

Right. I would question their own view and their belief system if they view the church and the state is so separate that you can't you cannot see the church impact the state.

There's no way you're doing what you're supposed to be doing if you don't have some impact on the state. Right. You're talking about going to war.

Well, you're not actually going to war so much as you're just already in a war with the kingdom of darkness and you're the one carrying the lamp.

There's no way in the world that you can exist with them and not be dispersing some darkness to use

Brother Jonathan's statement a while ago. So a handful of apostles turned the whole world upside down, according to Felix.

And it wasn't so much their view of of ceremonial law or their or their teaching against it that caused the biggest uproar.

Everywhere they went was they wind up seeing people seeing people repent and turn to Christ that were otherwise funding these rulers and governors and layers of hypocrites.

I think that ultimately, when people are voting, Brother Jonathan, what you see is their morality is being affected by the

God they worship. And I think it's their pocketbook. Amen. Amen. I think that we were talking about ties the other week.

I said, you show me a checkbook and I'll show you your God. When you start seeing people vote because of the amount of money that is going to take out of their pocket to see a big company move in all the way up to Hoover, who's going to run for governor based off of his fiscal policy?

And they throw out his moral case. What they're actually doing is they're putting into practice their faith.

And that is that is the worship of mammon is what that is. Let me share with you why

I made the comment you're using using God's logic again, because I think this is this is proof that there is a

God and his spirit is working. So if you if you go back to the premillennial mindset and we they have we have been preaching that Jesus is coming back, he could be coming back.

We could be raptured out of here before this podcast is over. And that is preached week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade.

For how long now? It has been over and over and over that he could we could be raptured out at any time.

You follow that logic. And how does that logic work out? What should I be doing? I should be looking up and trying to get as many on board as possible.

And what does that lead to? That leads to easy believism. That's Jesus in my heart. Yeah, that's absolutely it.

But still yet the church is growing. People are working and doing missions.

They're doing mercy ministries and still working. And to me, that's proof that the spirit of God is still working.

Despite the logic of that theology, the spirit of God is still working. Those premillennialists that have that mindset and that theology that Jesus could come back right now, that's lead to easy believism, they're still working.

Why? Because the Holy Spirit of God is in their hearts and they're working despite their theology.

And that is just a portion of the premillennial camp. Now, we're not making a blanket statement that every premill is operating from this.

Thanks for covering my six there. That's all right. My viewpoint has always been one where anybody who is firmly have their hands planted in their pocket, looking at the eastern sky for the

Lord to rapture them out of a world that they've given up on, don't really understand what Christ is asking them to do in the first place.

You've been given a short period of time to work. The Bible says work while it is yet day. Right? There's a time to do what

God has called us to do. And instead of sitting back on your laurels waiting to be taken out of a world that God gave you as an inheritance and said to take it and subdue it and to preach the gospel everywhere you go until God preached on the whole earth.

They are not actually walking in accordance to their faith. They're not. They can't be.

Because these two things don't exist together in the same sentence and not make you a contradiction of terms.

That's good. My pre -meal guy was starting to get into some creation mandate dominionism there for a second.

I like it. All these fancy words you boys use, I'm telling you. Well, let's go ahead and wrap it up if you guys think we're okay there.

Any last thoughts? Tyler, you've not said a whole lot tonight. Do you want to give us some input?

Yeah. So if I could direct this to Matthew chapter 5 for a brief moment. This is part of the

Sermon on the Mount, verse 21. Jesus says, you have heard that it was said to our ancestors, do not murder.

And whoever murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

Whoever insults his brother or sister will be subject to the court. Whoever says you fool will be subject to hellfire.

So if you are offering your gift on the altar, and therefore you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar.

First go and be reconciled with your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.

And the reason I bring that up, hairball, is first of all, he gets down to the meat of it.

That it's not just the outward component here. But the presence of murder points to something within us.

And that's what the law was given for, was to address what's in here. But second of all, it also points to what?

Reconciliation. I've heard it said by several learned men that the purpose of the

Old Testament law was not a punitive, this is just the top -down heavy hand of the magistrate, but it's for us regular people.

This is how we deal with people. This is how we are reconciled to each other. And that's often, I think, a concept that is lost with a lot of the variations of theonomy.

We forget that it's for us regular people, and not just for Joe Biden. And I think that's something that, there's balance there.

Between that government approach to what God has called good, while also recognizing that the law is within us.

And that through the Holy Spirit, we are endowed with the power to live according to what

God has called good. To be His people. Amen. Amen.

Any last thoughts from anybody else? So where do we land tonight?

Claude, give us some summarization of where we've landed tonight. Just like, give us three points in a poem that we can take home with us.

So, point one, here's where we started. Point two, here's where we were.

Point three, here's where we be. So, I think what tonight was, was just a candid conversation of brothers in Christ, talking through an issue that most people don't want to take the time to walk through and to talk through.

And we come out, not necessarily having gained more ground yet, because it's a big subject.

However, what we do recognize and what we do realize is that there are nuances to theonomy itself.

And we realize that we've all got areas of growth in our knowledge of theonomy that we can build upon, and we can come back, and we can sharpen one another with in the long run.

Amen. Well, Jonathan, if you don't mind, would you share the gospel?

And Big John, when he finishes, will you pray for us? Yes, sir. So, every week, this has to be one of the best honors of this whole time together, is whoever

Robert picks to share the gospel. And I hold my breath every time. I was like, please pick me, please pick me. No, this is one of the greatest honors that any of us could have here.

Above all of our theology, above all that we talk about, this is what unites us as brothers.

This is where we love each other unconditionally, warts and all, and put up with each other.

It's because of this good news that I'm fixing to tell you. So, if you're listening tonight, if you have tons of questions about theonomy, that's wonderful.

Put it on the shelf and tune your ear to this, because the Bible tells us in Genesis 3 that man sinned against a holy

God. That man's sin, all men become sinful. I love how

Paul puts it in Romans 3, verse 23. The DNA that we received is for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

And if you read back the context of that, that God gives this huge indictment on mankind, that there's none that seek

God, there's none that know God, and they've all become worthless before Him.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And that all is how many? That means all.

That's every little sin and every big sin and every sin. We would not ever say that all sin is equal, but all sin has equally made us unholy, condemned before a holy

God. But God, in His mercy and love toward us, sent His Son to die for us, because that's the good news.

Because the consequences of sin, the wages of sin, the cost of our sin is death. The only way that we can pay for that sin is death, an eternal death.

For us, it's the eternal wrath of God. It is hell. And Jesus said,

I'll take that. I'll pay the price of death that they can escape the consequences of sin.

I'll be the satisfying thing so that God, who is just, never once ignored our sin, but He who knew no sin became sin, that we might have the righteousness of God.

And now because of that, for all that believe on Jesus, believe on this finished work. When Jesus said it's finished and He rose from the dead, conquering death, sin, and hell, and the grave, for all that have this resting faith in that, the

Bible says it pleases the heart of God. That God miraculously, mysteriously, supernaturally applies righteousness to sinful people and makes us holy in His sight, blameless in His sight, right and righteous before Him.

And Ephesians 2 says, which is a miraculous passage to me, and we're already seated in heavenly places with Him.

That is such good news to me, folks. That is such good news. And tonight, we would plead with you, turn from any confidence in yourself that you have any ability to overcome any of your sin because you don't.

But the good news is this, Jesus does and has and still is king of king and Lord of lords over our sin, over our failures, and tonight rest in Him.

Just throw yourself on Him and say, if there's any hope I got, it's Jesus. And guess what?

For all that call upon Him in that context, He won't dare turn you away. That's His promise to us that whoever calls upon me in that context, whoever's believing on me,

I don't care how wicked you've been, how terrible you've been. I won't turn you away. You'll be mine and I will be yours.

And that's what we would call being saved, being right with God. And so tonight we plead with you, believe on Jesus.

And if you do, please tell us, my goodness, please tell us, tell somebody. We want to walk with you in the joy of the

Lord and the freedom from sin and the hope and the glory that is in Christ. And we want to teach you the promises of God.

That's the beginning of the gospel. We want to teach you the whole counsel of the gospel, the promises of God that come along with that, that He sets up house with you.

He's never going to leave you nor forsake you. He's going to walk with you in difficult times.

And you've got an advocate with the Father. We want you to know the blessing of being a child of God. So tonight, if you would say, if you'd raise your hand and send us a message, whatever, and say, hey, tonight's my night, man.

I believe on Jesus tonight. Now what? Please let us know. We'd love to walk with you in that. OK, God bless you.

Thank you. Amen. Father, we come to you in Jesus name. Lord, I pray.

I pray that you be with those who just heard that gospel message. God, I pray that you that you draw people to you.

The whole point of everything we do is to see people be drawn to you, that they might know salvation.

God, I pray that you move in the hearts and minds of men that are on this podcast, men that partner with us in the network.

God, I pray that you continue to continue to build in us individually. You continue to move on us and bless us.

Lord, please bless your church. Let's make us more like you, Jesus. I want to be more like you,

Jesus. Let's keep my brothers until the next time we get to talk.

In Jesus name, I pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you brothers for your help tonight in this conversation.

And thank you guys for watching. We hope to see you real soon. Thank you for joining the

Laborer's Podcast. Remember, Jesus is King. Live in the victory of Christ.

Speak with the authority of Christ. And go share the gospel of Christ. Be sure to tune in next time for the