Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
The transcription discusses the teachings of Brutus Morney, known as the Huguenot Pope, and his role in transforming the Bible-based Reformation to a rights-based social contract theory. The speaker calls for a return to the foundational principles of the Reformation as outlined in Exodus 20-24. The importance of the Ten Commandments and the Ordinances is emphasized, and the authority of kings is questioned. Brutus relied on natural law sources and downplayed the Bible and Calvinist doctrine. The transcription also mentions the influence of John Locke and the American founders. The speaker criticizes Brutus for ignoring man's responsibilities before God and placing emphasis solely on man's rights. The dangers of natural law and the need for a return to God's law are discussed. The speaker concludes by promoting their analysis and urging listeners to check out their online stores. Hello everybody, today we are taking a closer look at the teaching of Brutus Morney. He is known in the Reformation as the Huguenot Pope, and the role he played in gradually transforming the Bible-based Reformation of John Knox to the rights-based natural law social contract theory which is exempt from the law of God. And that is why we are calling for a great Bible reset to those foundational principles of the Reformation as they are summarized in Exodus 20-24. Chapter 20 of Exodus has the Ten Commandments, and that is followed by three chapters of judicial case laws which illustrate the Ten Commandments. And then in chapter 24, God binds those two things together forever in what he calls the Book of the Covenant in chapter 24. And I am going to ask you now to pull out your Bible and put a bookmark in Exodus 24. And as soon as we get done here with the podcast, in 10 or 12 minutes, I want you to read chapter 24. And notice how God delineates those two things. First of all, the Ten Words of the Ten Commandments, and then second, what he calls the Ordinances. And he puts them in one book called the Book of the Covenant. And these people who want to separate the Ten Commandments from the Ordinances and say that the Ordinances no longer apply, they have no authority to do that according to chapter 24 of Exodus. So be sure to read that. Now, Brutus sought to justify Huguenot resistance in the eyes of moderate Catholics in France. And so he thus felt compelled to rely on natural law sources besides the Bible and Calvinist doctrine. Now, Douglas Kelly, for example, has noted that in his book, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World, he noted that the teaching on the derived sovereignty of the people above that of the king and their inherent right of resistance would pass indirectly and combined with ideas of very different heritage into late 17th century English political theories of human rights. End of quote. Now, these theories stress natural freedom in a supposed state of nature. The spiritual and political liberty flowing from the work of Christ and his law were downplayed. Now, there was a brief recovery of the Bible law emphasis in 1644 with Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, the Westminster Assembly, and phase one of the English Revolution under Cromwell. Rutherford urged the state to lead the way in destruction of what the Protestants perceived to be idolatry in various Catholic icons, the mass, images in worship, and so forth. So back in 1581, the social contract ideas of George Buchanan, Knox's successor, Andrew Melville, and others were in the ascendant, and these were recovered in the next century by John Locke and other of what were called British Commonwealth men in the mid 1600s and had a temporal influence on the American founders as well. So this emphasis was solidified in the second phase of the English Revolution with the bloodless revolution of 1688 when William and Mary ousted Mary's father, James II, and took over the throne of England at that point. Likewise, Calvin had explained from the Bible the proper time and manner to resist a civil ruler only under the leadership of the lower magistrate, which was expanded by John Locke in Scotland. Brutus bridged the gap from the biblical emphasis of Calvin and Knox to these secular views of human rights that emerged among the English Whigs in the middle of the 17th century and the following century. For example, Brutus incorrectly asserted that whatever authority and power they, the kings, possess has been received from the people. Problem is, that's a direct contradiction of Romans 13.1 which declares there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. And it also ignores God's response to Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16 where Korah and 250 of his followers challenged Moses' authority with the assertion that, quote, all the Lord's people are holy, every one of them. And what happened? Well, the earth swallowed them up. You know, so much for democracy. As the general rule in scripture, the kings are nominated by the people and they're installed by God. God grants to men the privilege and responsibility of nominating their leaders from their midst who are then brought to his representative leaders, the sitting elders or leaders, to be ordained with ruling authority as we see in Deuteronomy 1.13 where it says, choose wise, and this is Moses speaking, he said, choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes and I will appoint them as your heads. Now the passage in 2 Samuel is similar, it's illustrative of this cooperative process but it doesn't spell out the details. It says, this is during Absalom's rebellion, and it says, then who she said to Absalom, know for whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel have chosen, his will I be and with him I will remain. So it doesn't really spell it out. Ultimately, of course, it is the sovereign will of God that is determinative but he allows men to participate as secondary moral agents. Now Brutus specified two purposes for which kings or governments are established. According to Brutus, kings are established in the first place to, quote, protect individuals from each other by the administration of justice, end of quote, and in the second place to defend all from dangers from without the nation by repelling force with force, end of quote. So these statements are accurate in and of themselves but they are off balance by reason of what they omit. The only end of government, says Brutus, is the good of the people. By thus placing the emphasis on the perceived benefits of government to man, Brutus establishes a dangerous precedent. Nothing is said of the primary purpose of government as a means by which the great king exercises his rule over rebellious mankind and manifests his glory in the earth. Brutus places the emphasis exclusively on the rights of man to the exclusion of man's responsibilities before God under the government. So if this latter is ignored, the former will soon be forsaken and man will again be reduced to the status of slave, as we are seeing in America today. So we have said it before but it bears repeating, the American attitude of restoring God-given rights being usurped by evil globalists is 180 degrees out from the spirit of repentance that God is looking for in his people today. Brutus' assertion that men are born dead in their trespasses and sins, moreover, calls into question the very concept of God-given and inalienable rights. Moreover, Brutus defines law as the concentrated reason and wisdom of many sages, the coalescence of a multitude of minds, and mind is the parcel of the divine spirit, so that he who obeys the law seems to obey God and make him his judge. So this is another variation on a shopworn definition of natural law whose chief point of origin lies with the collective wisdom of the mind of man. Such a definition is humanistic to the core and represents an evil departure from the obligation laid upon mankind by the Bible. It is dangerous in that it assigns the spark of divinity to the mind of man and does so under the color of spirituality. However, Brutus is inadvertently accurate in stating that the man who obeys such a law seems to obey God and make him his judge. Law thus defined is an illusion and only seems to give honor to God and to submit to him. In reality, it is gross hypocrisy, disobedience, and rebellion against the true law of God, which is laid out definitively in the Bible. The mind of man is correctly exercised in discovering that law, not in defining or making law independent of the law of God. This is the great arrogance of all of our modern legislatures. They want to make law rather than discover the law of God and apply it into our current situation. Brutus goes on to appeal to the law of nature, or the law of nations, as a justification for self-defense. But again, this is an appeal to a natural law, not a legitimate appeal to the law of God. It is a specific example of Brutus' reliance on the flimsy crutch of natural law. This is a quote. As the law of nature, the law of nations, and civil law command us to take arms against tyrants, says Brutus, no other reason can properly dissuade us. End of quote. Well, what does this law of nature command us in this manner? The law of nature is undefined and undefinable. How much better it would have been to refer to examples of the law of God where Israel was permitted or commanded to defend her borders and things like that. But Brutus is apparently constrained by the moderate Catholics in his intended audience to downplay the Bible in favor of so-called natural law, or law of nature. He says there is no other reason, thus excluding God's word, as the higher law of ultimate defense. And this is exactly like John Locke and his social contract as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. So next week we're going to be looking more closely at that higher law. So please share with your friends if you like our analysis, this analysis has been hid so long from the American people, and take a moment to check out the bookstore at kingswayclassicalacademy.com and the longevity store at boomersalive.com where 15% of your purchases go to scholarships for low-income students.
