Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
The last day with Sir Edward Koch at greatbiblereset.com focuses on the National Great Bible Reset, going back to the case laws of Exodus 20-24 to escape Klaus Schwab's Great Economic Reset. Blackstone's commentaries equate Common Law with Bible Law, but give little authority to the Bible. The Common Law and Magna Carta refer to the law of the land, not Bible law. Christian nationalism without Bible law leads to tyranny. Canon Press and Stephen Wolfe's promotion of political philosophy over biblical theology is problematic. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and the Petition of Right appeal to human reason, not God or the Bible. Both documents protest against unjust acts by rulers. Parliament's sovereignty influenced William Blackstone, leading to the rebellion of American colonies. The execution of Charles I elevated Parliament's authority and reduced the English crown's power. Hey everybody, this is our last day with Sir Edward Koch, Champion of the Common Law at greatbiblereset.com. Now, in case you missed it, our focus here is on a National Great Bible Reset, back to the case laws of Exodus 20-24. That's our only hope to escape the tyranny of Klaus Schwab's Great Economic Reset. Christians like to point to Blackstone's commentaries as evidence of the Bible and the Common Law, but even though Blackstone equates Common Law with Bible Law in his introduction, his commentaries give virtually no authority of credence to the Bible. It's all lip service. By the time the Common Law was codified in Blackstone's commentaries, it was loosed from its biblical mooring. It was now adrift on a sea of natural law based on right reason. Natural law is arbitrary. Blackstone paid lip service to the supremacy of Bible law in his introduction, but he made only a few oblique references to the Bible in his entire four-volume commentary. A look at Magna Carta also reveals the same model. There is a formal tip of the hat to God, but no direct reference to Bible law. Instead, it refers only to the law of the land. A proper separation of power will not emerge until king and parliament alike comply with the law of Moses. During this entire period, ever since the papal revolution of 1075 to 1122, Christians are not reasoning from the Bible as their legal authority. They're reasoning from their own darkened human intellect, claiming to know good and evil like Eve. We've said it before and will say it again, this is the great offense of Canon Press and Stephen Wolfe in exalting the political philosophy of Wolfe's sin-darkened mind above the political theology of the Bible. In his book, In Defense of Christian Nationalism, the confusion this has created in the minds of Christians is enormous. To borrow a phrase from Edward Cook, as we learned yesterday, there is plenty of Christian nationalism to go around in the period following the papal revolution of 1075. Christian tyrants, Roger II of Sicily, Henry II of England, Philip II of France, Frederick II of Germany, were all devoted churchmen, allegedly Christian, but all ruled as tyrants on the basis of natural law and not biblical law, and that's what Christian nationalism without Bible law gives you, raw tyranny. The legalistic, litiguous society with its endless stream of laws, rules, decrees and executive orders are the end result. Pastor Douglas Wilson, Stephen Wolfe, and Canon Press are leading us down that same primrose path to destruction, plenty of wisecracks, chuckles, and cute little metaphors to ease the pain as we stumble along in darkness. God was gracious to give us 75 years of commentaries on biblical law from giants like R.J. Rushdie, Greg Vonson, Gary North, David Schill, H.B. Clark, James Jordan, and others, and what does Canon Press give us? An intellectual lightweight like Stephen Wolfe who can turn a fine phrase that he frankly admits. He admits it right in the introduction. He doesn't know how to interpret the Bible. He has no training in biblical exegesis. This is a scandal, but right back where we were in 1175, I'm sorry, 1075, when they rejected Alfred the Great, nice work Canon Press, you just set us back a thousand years. All Wilson can say in his own defense is that Wolfe's book is a little step in the right direction because it might bring in some Thomas. In the critical work of reforming the law of nations, we must go way back, further back than the common law of Edward Cook and even Magna Carta. The common law must be tied directly to the Bible, chapter and verse, just like Alfred the Great. If not, it only takes a few centuries or decades to decay into natural law and then to humanistic positive law and then tyranny. The American colonies claimed that their ancient rights as Englishmen were being violated. So what similarities do we see between the Declaration of Independence and the Petition of Right? Well, there is no appeal to God in the Petition of Right, nor is there an appeal to the Christian God in the Declaration of Independence. In personal correspondence, Jefferson revealed that he was a Unitarian and an Epicurean, the former denying the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the latter denying the immortality of the soul. According to Lucretius, the Epicurean God, if he exists, is transcendent and aloof, having left the world to run his course according to the dictates of natural law. Thus, the God that Jefferson appeals to in the Declaration cannot be the God of the Bible, because Jefferson is an Epicurean, self-professed. On the contrary, the authority of Jefferson's appeal lies in self-evident truth, that may be discerned by ornated human reason. But that's good enough for Pastor Doug Wilson, who revels in the pluralistic paradise that Jefferson and his sidekick James Madison have given us. Well, how about the First Commandment? Nah, that's for Sunday school, not the real world. A similar rationalism is implicit in the Petition of Right. Following in the footsteps of Magna Carta, the Petition of Right appeals to the King for a grant of rights, rather than to God or the Bible. The petition is addressed to the King's most excellent majesty, while the most excellent majesty of God is ignored. Thus the source of true liberty has been excised or excluded from both documents, which leaves the rights claimed resting on a foundation of sand. As noted above, the Declaration of Independence appealed to the principle of no taxation without representation, as did the Petition of Right. Likewise, both documents protested the quartering of troops in civilian homes without permission or compensation. Although the Petition of Right does not mention it, Charles I was guilty of the Declaration's complaint that he has dissolved representative houses repeatedly for opposing with manly firmness his invasions of the rights of the people. The Declaration criticized George III for depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury, similar to the Petition of Right appealing to Magna Carta for the unlawful judgment of his peers. Let's trace the historical consequences of Koch's view of Parliament's sovereignty in the work of William Blackstone and the American colonies. What were some ways in which Edward Koch influenced William Blackstone? Well, Parliament not only transferred sovereignty from Charles I to itself, it did so with a vengeance, and it did so on the advice and authority of Sir Edward Koch. Koch had written, The power and jurisdiction of Parliament is so transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined either for causes and persons within any bounds. This doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was picked up by William Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England in 1765. Blackstone wrote, It can, in short, do everything it is not naturally impossible, and therefore some have not scrupled to call its power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of Parliament. True it is that what the Parliament does no authority on earth can undo. So here we see the consequences of rejecting or ignoring the law of Christ the King. Apart from the restraining influence of God's law, man and his government careens from one extreme to the other in a vain attempt to control the effects of the fall. The result for England was the rebellion of her American colonies in 1776. They reacted violently against Parliament's arrogant claim to be God walking on earth, which was often in conflict with the political ambition of towards a third. Ironically, the American colonies turned around, committed the exact same folly in the space of a few short years. So we might ask, in what ways did the execution of Charles I change the course of English history forever? Well the execution of Charles I by Cromwell and Parliament in 1648 shattered the aura of invincibility surrounding the English throne and simultaneously elevated the authority of Parliament. To be sure, friction between the two branches of government continued for many years. For example, the Stuart monarchy was restored in 1660 and was succeeded by the German Hanoverian dynasty which ruled during the American Revolution. But Parliament had dared to preside over the trial of an English monarch for tyranny and had succeeded. Thus the stage was set for the eventual reduction of the English crown to the perceived status of figurehead in the twentieth century. Yet the reality might be far different than the perception. Thanks again for sticking with me to the bitter end here. Don't forget to like, comment, subscribe at greatbiblereset.com, pick up a copy of my handbook of biblical law for rulers of church and state at kingswayclassicalacademy.com bookstore. It's a commentary on the case law statutes that illustrate the Ten Commandments and unlike Stephen Wolfe give us a clear picture of what God has to say about Christian nationalism.
