Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
The speaker welcomes everyone to GreatBibleReset.com, which is a national recommitment to the law of God in our legal system. They discuss how the Ten Commandments and the ordinances of Exodus 21-23 are united in the Book of the Covenant. They argue against the separation of judicial case laws from the Ten Commandments. They mention the impact of Alfred the Great's application of the law of Moses to English law, which was later replaced by the retributory law codes of Normandy. They discuss the theological justifications given to the divine right of kings, particularly by Richard Hooker. They mention the debate between Hooker and Walter Travers and the influence of Hooker's theological views on church and state in the 17th century. They also briefly mention the reigns of various English monarchs and the glorious revolution of 1688. The speaker encourages listeners to visit their website and mentions their sponsors. Welcome everybody once again to GreatBibleReset.com Welcome everybody to GreatBibleReset.com which we define as a national recommitment to the law of God in our legal system, summarized in Exodus 20-24, the Mosaic Covenant. Now it's important to note that the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 are linked together with the ordinances of Exodus 21-23 in one indissoluble union in a single book which God has entitled the Book of the Covenant in chapter 24, the Book of the Covenant. And Jesus honored this principle in Matthew 15-4 where he's arguing with the, rebuking the Pharisees and he quoted the Fifth Commandment together in a single sentence with its case law illustration. And he said, quote, For God said, Honor your father and mother, and he who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death. So the two are united in one sentence, one breath by the Lord Jesus Christ. So the Westminster Confession is emphatically incorrect when it separates the judicial case laws from the Ten Commandments and declares them to be expired. The statement that, to them also he gave sundry judicial laws which expire together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution, their general equity only being of moral issue. End of quote. And that statement is just illogical and on the face of it and unbiblical. So we need to return to the great Bible reset that was accomplished by Alfred the Great in applying the law of Moses to English law that was wiped out by the Battle of Hastings. And now in a generation prior to Hastings, Roger II had traveled down from Normandy, conquered Sicily and the heel and toe of Italy to become a so-called Christian tyrant. And this was the mercenary king that Pope Hildebrand had hired to fight his 50-year battle against the Holy Roman Empire of Germany. And then they sacked Rome on the way through. Now William the Conqueror was calling on his troops to take inspiration from their brethren in Italy. The Normans had no interest in the legal institutions of Alfred the Great. Just think of every Robin Hood movie you've ever seen where Robin Hood is protecting the oppressed Saxons from the tyrannical Normans. The restitutional legal system of Alfred was replaced by the retributory law codes of Normandy. Within 20 years, William the Conqueror commissioned the Doomsday Book to which, lacking a computer, was the most thorough enumeration of every chicken, pig, cow, horse in England, you name it, for the purpose of tax collection and tyranny. Now a man named Francis Nigel Lee has done some wonderful historical work to show the great progress which Alfred the Great had made in England. He claims, with scanty evidence, it was all transferred to the New England after the Norman conquest. But it was actually wiped out. On the theological side, St. Anselm was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury and he proceeded to introduce logic into his apologetics to prove the existence of God and the Incarnation. And that same system of Aristotelian logic was applied to the recovered Justinian Roman law code which was anything but biblical. So the common law is based on king-made positive law customs starting with Henry II and case law precedence from the judicial system. The restitutionary legal system of Alfred was replaced by the retributory legal system of Henry II and Magna Carta in 1215 was by no means a return to biblical law. It was an attempt to establish some elements of freedom apart from biblical law. We emerge from the 331 year reign of some 14 Plantagenet kings starting with Henry II and we're now embarked on the 118 year rule of the Tudor kings, five Tudor monarchs starting with Henry VII, Henry VIII Edward VI Mary Tudor and Queen Elizabeth. Now Richard Hooker wrote of the laws of ecclesiastical polity in response to attacks on Anglican church government. Hooker argued that the Bible is vague about the form of church government thus it is subject to natural law as interpreted by the king and this makes the king head of the church and accountable to no earthly authority. Thus Hooker gave theological justification to the divine right of kings in England especially in the following century. So who was Richard Hooker? Well he lived from 1553 to 1600 he wrote of the laws of ecclesiastical polity a classic of the Elizabethan age whose 47 year lifespan corresponded almost exactly with Elizabeth's reign. He was educated at Oxford became an Anglican rector in 1581 and his book had a profound effect on church and state during most of the 17th century, the 1600s the following century. It emerged from debate between Hooker and Puritan Walter Travers they both preached at Temple Church in London Anglican Hooker in the morning and his assistant Puritan Walter Travers in the afternoon. Now the two had family connections and maintained a spirit of civility but their differences were profound. In March of 1586 Reverend Travers began critiquing Hooker's morning sermons on salvation. He denied Hooker's claim that a papist might be saved based on good works. The debate heated up and Travers was banned from the pulpit until ordained by an English bishop which he refused to do. Now Hooker spoke of a three-fold accord of scripture tradition and reason which is right out of the Roman Catholic playbook or catechism with maybe slightly different words tradition and church interchanged perhaps but right off the bat we've got a big problem whenever you put these three things together or two things on an equal footing with scripture and call it a three-fold accord or bond scripture is automatically degraded and almost always gets nudged into the background rather than reasoning from scripture we reason and legislate apart from scripture Now Hooker was basically the theological lapdog for the Stuart monarchy's theory of divine right of kings according to this theory the ruler got his office directly from God and therefore answered to no one but God Hooker was tended toward Arianism a theology that reduced the earthly lordship of Christ as being of like substance with God rather than same substance thus lordship was granted instead to the king Arians taught that Jesus was created by and under God the father like any man so by thus reducing Christ Hooker also elevated man he even declared that God had deified our nature by virtue of our union with him Hooker answered the Presbyterians by saying that the Bible is vague about the form of church government it's therefore subject to natural law as interpreted by the civil ruler thus he went behind the authority of the Bible and the church making both subject to the king but is the Bible vague about church government? well for one thing Acts 6 lays it out pretty clearly where seven deacons are nominated by the people by the congregation and then ordained by the apostles for the physical ministry of the church the church did not inherit property but property was sold and the proceeds given to the deacons for ministry to the poor and so forth the king was very nearly deified with Hooker and this Hooker was a disciple of Thomas Erastus who believed in the total subjection of church to the state the reformers by contrast said that they were cooperative but separate James 1 took this to mean that he would rule for the common wheel not the common will it was of course a common wheel defined by the king alone it was enforced by the church courts known as the high commission the common law court of Edward Coke overturned many of these rulings of the church high commission so the theory of divine right was a recipe for tyranny in England during most of the 17th century the overbearing reigns of James 1 and Charles 1 filled the first half of the century Charles 2 and James 2 ruled in the last half Oliver Cromwell's protectorate fell in between offering a five year respite from 1653 to 1658 the breeze of toleration ended with his death and brief reign of his son Oliver Cromwell was a Christian general who led parliament against the tyrant Charles 1 he presided over the king's execution the tyranny of Charles 2 was restored in 1660 the glorious revolution of 1688 snapped the chains of tyranny when William and Mary of Holland seized the English throne and James 2 abdicated interestingly James 2 was the father of Mary but the resulting compact gave another form of unjust power to parliament the great legal analyst William Blackstone put parliament on the throne of God parliament quote can in short do everything it is not naturally impossible said Blackstone and therefore some have not scrupled to call its power by a figure rather too bold the omnipotence of parliament end of quote well thank you for being here today please like and subscribe at greatbiblereset.com and visit our sponsors to pick up a free copy of keys to the classics for more detail on this period of history or a free set of resistance bands to promote your health and longevity at boomers-alive.com so tomorrow we'll go deeper into a biblical analysis of Richard Hooker
