Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
John Locke, known as the father of the enlightenment and social contract, believed that the mind at birth is a blank slate that is shaped by impressions from the environment. He emphasized the importance of majority rule in forming governments and excluded God and His law from the equation. Locke's ideas influenced the founding documents of America, replacing the covenant with God with a social contract among the people. However, this departure from biblical norms can lead to cultural chaos. Locke's view on the purpose of government, focused on protecting individual freedom and property, contrasts with the biblical perspective of securing obedience to God's law and glorifying Christ. The emphasis should be on the responsibility of man rather than his rights. Returning to God's law is crucial for America's criminal justice system. Welcome everybody to GreatBibleReset.com Yesterday we looked at the historical context in which John Locke wrote, and today we consider the content of what he wrote in more detail. As an empiricist, Locke said that the mind of man at birth was like a blank slate. John Locke is known as the father of the enlightenment and father of the social contract. Locke said that the mind at earth is a blank slate that is written upon by impressions from the environment. This is empiricism. Thus, man in a state of nature is innocent. Governments are formed when a majority decides to give up a few rights to protect the remainder, and this social contract is created with no reference to God. The mind is a blank slate that gets all input from the environment. Locke has primitive man living in liberty in a state of nature and innocence. As numbers grow, men give up a few rights to a government with power to defend all their rights. If the source of power for this pact was a democratic majority, or as Locke put it, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of free men capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world. Note the exclusion of God and His law in favor of majority rule. Locke is emphatic. Note the exclusion of God and His law in favor of majority rule. Locke is emphatic that the will of the majority is the only source of power. This is the heart of democracy, the rule of the people. Moreover, in the reasonableness of Christianity, Locke made the Bible subject to man's reason. Never mind that the heart is darkened and prejudiced against God. And thus Locke presented an attractive humanistic alternative to God's covenant model for civil government presented in the Mosaic Covenant of Exodus 20-24. This passage contains the Ten Commandments and their case law applications to the criminal justice code of any nation. Only by a return to the Mosaic Covenant do we have any hope of escaping the tyranny of Klaus Schwab's great economic reset. As Jeremiah declared at what instance shall I speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it? If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. That's according to Jeremiah 18.7-10. So it's never too late for America if we will truly turn to his law. John Locke publishes two treatises of government during the second stage of the English Revolution of 1688, both appearing in 1690. They contain a defense of the parliamentary side of the conflict over against the two Stuart kings, Charles II and James II. The latter was forced to abdicate the throne in a bloodless coup in which William and Mary of Holland were invited to assume rule. A central feature of Locke's teaching was the social contract theory in which men surrender their rights to a government capable of defending their larger body of liberties. The source of authority under such an arrangement is a majority of the free men, no mention of God whatsoever. Locke's social contract influenced not only his native England, but also the founding documents of America. The social contract among we the people replaced the covenant with God to rule according to his law, leading inevitably to cultural chaos. Now Locke declares that the law of nature, which he defines as reason, teaches no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. So we might well ask, does such a law of nature exist, and if so, how does one determine its specific content? Such a law of nature is undefined and undefinable, apart from the word of God. According to Romans, whatever man can discern of God in nature, he either suppresses, Romans 1.18, or distorts, Romans 1.25. This is because the conscience or internal moral beacon is warped and incapable of providing a consistent standard of right and wrong, according to Romans 2.14-15. Sometimes it excuses and sometimes it condemns a man's actions. What Locke liked to call the law of nature was in reality a mental overlay conditioned by the influence of scripture on western civilization. This influence, sometimes conscience and other times subconscious, was active on the mind of Locke and others of his generation. He assumed that it was innate to the mind of uncivilized man. However, the further that America and the West depart from the biblical norm, the more there returns to the uncivilized law of the jungle. The law of nature may appear benevolent in Locke's cultural context, but in the world of Darwin it is a dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest universe. As man squanders a cultural capital that has been built up over time, over centuries, by obedience, however imperfect, to the law of God, the closer he comes to the on-team barbarian. This is Jonathan Swift's profligate Hannibal, as opposed to Rousseau's noble savage. Locke identifies the founding authority for any civil government in the consent of a majority and concludes that this is that and that only which did or could give beginning to any law lawful government in the world. So, do we agree or disagree with this? Well, we strenuously disagree with Locke that the consent of the majority is the only foundation for lawful government in the world. This is the heart of Locke's social contract. It is democracy through and through, based on the ultimate authority of the people, as opposed to a biblical theocracy under God. Theocracy means rule of God. It was God who laid the foundation for civil government in the Novak Covenant, immediately after the Flood. It was there that God placed the sword of justice in the hand of the civil magistrate. This has nothing to do with democracy or social contract, and everything to do with the commandments and laws of God obligating man and his government to obedience. So, what's the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word theocracy? Anybody who instinctively recoils from the word theocracy is instinctively recoiling from the rule of God. Crossy equals rule. Theos equals God. And this person has never submitted to the Lordship of Christ. Locke believes that the great and cheap end of man, uniting into commonwealth, is the preservation of their property. We might ask, how does the Bible define the foremost purpose of government? In verses like Isaiah 2-4, Isaiah 6-1, Isaiah 9-6. Locke's description of the purpose of civil government is humanistic and man-centered. It is an Enlightenment definition. Government is set up with no other purpose than to protect the freedom of man and the property of man that existed in the state of nature. The great goal is the protection of man's life, liberty, and property. This is the heart of Enlightenment dogma, taught by the Father of the Enlightenment himself. Americans have bought it through and through. In the Bible, these desirable outcomes would be a byproduct rather than the primary goal of civil government. Rather, the great and cheap end of man's uniting into commonwealth is to secure the obedience of man to the law of God. It is to glorify Christ as the great and malevolent King of the universe. It is the Lord, high and lifted up, to whom the nations must bring their obeisance. The emphasis must be upon the responsibility rather than the rights of man. Only then will the rights of man be truly secure. Man can never lay hold of those rights for which he selfishly grasps. Someone has aptly observed that the United States needs a Statue of Liberty on her west coast to balance the Statue of Liberty on the east coast. Thank you again for your attendance today. Please link to our school and bookstore from greatbiblereset.com and support our work to call America back to the law of God in our criminal justice system.
