Details
Nothing to say, yet
Comment
Nothing to say, yet
Listen to Brutus Mornay #3: (Bible Analysis) by The Great Bible Reset MP3 song. Brutus Mornay #3: (Bible Analysis) song from The Great Bible Reset is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 13:24. This high-quality MP3 track has 2116.8 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 17 Sep 2023. Stream and download Brutus Mornay #3: (Bible Analysis) by The Great Bible Reset for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
The speaker welcomes everyone to GreatBibleReset.com, where they analyze classical authors in relation to the Bible. They believe that there have been deviations from the word of God, leading to problems in society. They criticize Stephen Wolfe's book for attacking God's definition of Christian nationalism and promoting natural law. They argue that natural law and biblical law are incompatible. They discuss the role of the king and the people in biblical covenants and highlight the importance of obedience to God's law for kings. They believe that Canon Press and Doug Wilson have chosen the anti-biblical path by promoting natural law. They emphasize the need for a correct understanding of the authority of the Bible in the civil realm. Welcome everybody, you are in the right place. This is GreatBibleReset.com where we are in the process of analyzing 100 of the classical authors in light of the Bible in search of those important pivot points in western civilization at which we got off track. Where did we lose our way? What we're discovering is that time and time again there's been a diversion from the doctrine of the word of God, from the law of God that has left us floundering on the barren shores of natural law. Now when you boil it all down, natural law represents an extremely subtle but nonetheless frontal attack on the authority and the doctrine of the word of God. We often think, you know, how could Eve have been so stupid when we ourselves succumb to the same natural law temptation over and over and over again. We have seen yesterday how quickly the reformers departed from John Knox's strict reliance on God's law in his political formulations. Knox's immediate successor, Pastor Andrew Melville, Beza, and writers like Brutus Morne. Like Beza, Morne is strongly dependent on radical Catholic conciliarist thought which argued for church councils to be on a par with the Pope, which is not necessarily wrong but the mode is in question. He relies heavily on Aquinas and the codifiers of the Justinian code. So we end up with secular constitutionalism instead of national covenant. Now the reason I keep hammering on this guy, Stephen Wolfe, in his book, In Defense of Christian Nationalism, is that he so blatantly attacks God's definition of Christian nationalism in Exodus 20-24 by omission. Stephen Wolfe, Douglas Wilson, Cannon Press are the modern equivalent of George Buchanan who taught the young King James I the first natural law rights of the people. James, however, took it in the opposite direction to claim natural law rights for the king, not the people. And this is the fatal consequence of the natural law heresy. Deuteronomy 4 applies the law of God to the Gentile nations. But how fast Andrew Melville, Brutus Morne, and others deserted Knox's sound teaching. While claiming to be Ventilian and theonomic, with the publication of In Defense of Christian Nationalism, Cannon Press has unwittingly rejected God's law in the civil realm and is leading their readers into the natural law wilderness that results inevitably in tyranny. Pastor Doug Wilson, with all his endearing little metaphors, might be compared to the Pied Piper, leading the homeschool movement off a natural law cliff. In an interview with Pastor Joel Webbin, titled, Will Cannon Press End Up With Egg On Our Face?, Wilson claimed that Wolfe's book is, quote, moving us a step in the right direction, end of quote, because some will come in through Thomism and some through a more Protestant approach. We can only pray he will shake off these blinders and at the very least publish something substantive that presents a more orthodox view of the authority of the Bible in the civil realm. Now the publisher, Cannon Press, has abandoned the foundational doctrine in the doctrinal statement of the Association of Classical and Christian Schools, which is all part of the same group. This is the educational association that has occupied a position at the pinnacle of the Christian school movement, and has now abandoned the foundational doctrine of the absolute authority of the word of God, and it is only a matter of time before other doctrines will follow. And this is a quote from their doctrinal statement, it says, These scriptures are made up of sixty-six books from Genesis to Revelation, the authority of which depend not upon the testimony of any man or church, and are all to be received as the word of God. Now that's a wonderful statement, it is, it's perfect. Wolff contradicts this, however, when he claims that his political theory, or natural law definition of Christian nationalism, precedes, or is foundational to the Bible's definition of political theology. So here, after over seventy-five years of essentially Noxian theonomy from men like Rush Dooney, Bonson, North, Doug Wilson is now playing the part of George Buchanan and Brutus Mornay to allegedly appeal to a wider population by removing it from its explicitly theological context to emphasize the concept of rights and not religious duties. And this is a fatal mistake. Wolff's natural law approach is essentially Kantian relativism. The Kantian scholar John Ladd noted that Kant's theory of justice, quote, is identical with what is generally known as natural law, end of quote. In his book Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argued that the noumenal realm of spirituality and God are unknowable, and we must humbly admit that they are unknowable. Likewise, Wolff humbly admits in his introduction that he has no training in Bible interpretation or exegesis, and he will therefore base his political theory on natural principles or natural law. It cannot serve two masters. Natural law and biblical law are incompatible, they are opposites, and it is clear that Canon Press and Doug Wilson have chosen the anti-biblical path of so-called natural law in the publication of this book. So what are we to make of Brutus' assertion that, quote, the whole body of the people are superior to the king, end of quote? Well, if by whole body of the people is meant the entire democratic population, the answer would be no. The people are not superior to the king. Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16 settled that question for all time. His challenge to Moses that, quote, all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them, end of quote. That declaration was met by the fire of God's judgment, and the earth opened up and swallowed Korah and his all 250 of those who were with him into Sheol. On the other hand, the representatives of the people may check the unwise decision of a king who was departed from the path of wisdom, the representatives of the people. This was the case when the people rescued Jonathan from the arbitrary death sentence passed on him by his father, King Saul, in 1 Samuel 14, 45. Now this does not prove that the legislature, the people's representatives, are superior to the king, nor vice versa, only that God has established a system of checks and balances to prevent any one man or group from assuming tyrannical power. So Brutus Morne insisted that the king is subject to law, not the law subject to the king, although his arguments did not rely primarily on scripture, but rather a secularized thesis about the natural rights and original sovereignty of the people. Without question, the Bible places all men, the king included, in subjection to his law, and this is brought home vividly in the Deuteronomy 17 passage in which the king is commanded to write out his own personal copy of the law of God every day. Moreover, he was to read in that book all the days of his life, in order that he may learn to fear God and obey the commandments himself. By so doing, he would develop an attitude of humility in relationship to God and to the people, which would prevent him from tyrannizing over them. The kings of Israel were constantly being pronounced blessed or cursed in response to their obedience to the law of God, and the nations around Israel were to emulate them. Now 2 Kings 11, 17 indicates a two-fold covenant, first between God and the king and people together, and second between the king and the people. Thus, Brutus' formulation of a two-fold covenant is correct, but he errs in his interpretation of the nature of that covenant. In the first place, Brutus casts the people in the role of kingmakers, when they are more accurately king-nominators. He draws a false conclusion from general passages such as 2 Kings 21, 24, which notes that the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead. But from this he leaps to the hasty conclusion that the king or leader is invested with ruling authority by the people. However, Deuteronomy 1, 13 provides the detail regarding the process by which a leader of Israel was made, where it says, Take you wise men and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. Now note carefully that the rulers were selected or nominated by the people, but they were made or invested with authority by Moses, God's representative. And this is a critical distinction. The authority to rule flows from the top, from God, down, not from the bottom, people up. And this latter belief is the linchpin of democratic theory and was denounced soundly by God during Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16. Moreover, Brutus inaccurately concludes, quote, It cannot be doubted that in this contract the people had the part of stipulator, the king that of promisor. In other words, says Brutus, it is the people who specify the terms of the covenant, and the king promises to obey. He cites Josiah's reform as an example of this. But when we examine the passage in question, which is 2 Kings 23.3, we find it is the king leading the people into covenant with God, who is the stipulator, not the people. God is stipulating to both king and people the terms of the agreement. The passage notes in passing that, quote, the people stood to the covenant, so the people agreed to the covenant. Now, there seems to be a sense in which the king is not only representing the people before God, but is also representing God before the people. This aspect is also missing in Brutus' formulation. Brutus' protocol leaves the people with very little obligation. The people seem to be in the driver's seat, the recipients of the blessings of liberty. And that's about it. Because of this emphasis that Brutus places on the rights of the people, it is almost as if God and king end up obligated to the people. The, quote, people are not in the driver's seat as Brutus alludes. Far from it. At the end of the book of Joshua, Joshua almost seems reluctant to permit the people to renew the covenant with God because of his skepticism about their sincerity and willingness to abide by the covenant. So it's definitely not the people up situation. There is a secondary covenant between the king and the people mentioned in 2 Kings 11.17. In terms of the initial covenant with God, king and people also assume mutual responsibilities to each other. The king is obligated to protect the people. The people are obliged to obey the king under God. This would be similar to the marriage ceremony in which husband and wife swear allegiance to each other under God, the husband to love and protect, the wife to obey. But in spite of all this, Brutus does uphold the biblical principle of interposition. This rebellion against a king would not be treasonous if it was led by duly installed electors, patricians, peers, and other nobles, in other words, lower magistrates. Brutus does in fact uphold the biblical principle of interposition and in this reflects the teaching of Calvin. Biblically, the people are required to submit to even a wicked ruler who plays the part of a tyrant. Only the lower magistrate is permitted, indeed obligated, to lead the people in rebellion against an evil king. The people may not rise up en masse against the Lord's anointed in an anarchical coup. And this is why David, of course, was so reluctant to kill Saul when he had him in his power twice. He had him in his power but he refused to take his life because he was the Lord's anointed. Even though David himself had been anointed by Samuel in secret, or in a non-public scenario, Brutus develops this theme in some detail and quite accurately. So please share, like, subscribe, and visit us at greatbiblereset.com to pick up a free copy of Keys to the Classics, A History of the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization where we examine these themes in a lot greater detail.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
