Thomas Hobbes #2 (His Teaching)

Oliver Woods discusses the importance of recommitting to the Law of God to avoid Klaus Schwab's Great Economic Reset. He explores the teachings of Thomas Hobbes, who argued for absolute government control to protect society from its own unruliness. Hobbes believed that man in a state of nature is violent and selfish, and a strong state is needed to keep it in check. However, Hobbes' ideas clashed with Charles II's divine right theory, leading to their rejection. Hobbes' ideas influenced modern utilitarianism, which prioritizes what works best for the majority. The state, once seen as a protector, can become an oppressive force, leading to the need for a stable balance between ruler and ruled. Hobbes' view of man in a state of nature differed from John Locke's, who saw man as innocent and carefree. Hobbes used the term "leviathan" to describe the mass of untamed humanity in a state of anarchy. Hobbes defined the Welcome everybody, this is Oliver Woods at GreatBibleReset.com and a call for a recommitment to the Law of God in Exodus 20-24, the Mosaic Covenant, as the only way to avert the looming tyranny of Klaus Schwab's Great Economic Reset. Today we are delving more deeply into the teaching of Thomas Hobbes in more detail. Hobbes argued from a secular point of view. He called for absolute government to control and protect the masses, the unruly leviathan from themselves. The condition of man, he wrote, is a condition of war of everyone against everyone. No intermediate power, especially the church, may interpose between ruler and ruled. The positive law dictates that the king are supreme and beyond question. Under positive law, the ruler has a free hand to mold the law in the supposed interest of the people. Standing opposed to this expansive legal theory, Bible law is more limited and negative. Its intent is to simply protect the people by forbidding violation of their person and property. A bit later in the century, John Locke believed that man in a state of nature was innocent and carefree. By contrast, Hobbes believed that man in the natural state is violent, unruly, and brutish. The social contract is therefore needed to bridle that selfish and self-destructive power. An iron hand in a velvet glove is needed to keep it under control. The problem for Charles II was that Hobbes did not argue in terms of divine right theory. Even so, his writing supported an unbridled monarchy. In this sense, his writing augmented that of Richard Hooker. Even though royal power was broken by the Glorious Revolution in 1688, Hobbes contributed much to later politics. Hobbes was quick to criticize the Bible and treat the church as nothing but a department of state, which is known as Erastianism. Modern utilitarianism dates from Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century. Consciously or unconsciously, utilitarianism has been absorbed into the mainstream of much modern thinking. Utilitarian ideas tend to be regarded as a more rational alternative to Christianity as a basis for political and social action. Utilitarianism holds that whatever works best defines correct political action for the majority. As man without God showed that he could not control himself, a powerful state emerged to maintain order. This unholy state justified its growing power on the grounds of protecting and providing for the people. When Hobbesian social theory has run its course, the roles are reversed. The state becomes the violent, out-of-control leviathan. Thomas Hobbes had tutored Prince Charles II, but Charles as king frowned on Hobbes' leviathan. Charles was missed because Hobbes didn't defend his authority on the basis of the divine right of kings. Instead, he gave the king unlimited power to protect the unruly leviathan, the people en masse, from self-destruction. Hobbes allowed no intermediate power, such as the church, to intercede between king and subject. Ironically, one of the most effective treatises in support of tyranny was thus written during the relative freedom of Cromwell's protectorate, nurtured by Cromwell's general tolerance or freedom of religion. Nonetheless, leviathan was rejected by Charles II at the Restoration because it advocated absolute sovereignty, not in terms of divine right, but in terms of protection for the untamed masses. Hobbes recommended the restraints of the social contract precisely because of the depravity of man in a state of nature. Only absolute sovereignty vested in the ruler could contain the turbulence of the great leviathan. Once Hobbesian social theory had run its course, the roles are reversed, and the state becomes the great leviathan. Only the oath of the biblical covenant is adequate to strike a stable balance between the one and the many, the ruler and the ruled. So how does Hobbes' conception of man in a state of nature differ from that of John Locke? Well, Locke believed that man existed in a state of nature as in a primitive paradise. Essentially innocent and carefree, man existed in a state of unbridled liberty, enjoyed equality with all his fellows. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that man in a state of nature lived in a state of continual anarchy. With no restraining law, man naturally quarreled and abused one another's persons and property. Instinctive selfishness produced incessant jealousy, petty bickering, and open warfare. This according to Hobbes was the state of nature and of man in his pre-political existence apart from any civil restraint. In the words of Hobbes, the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Well, we might ask, what does leviathan mean, and why do you suppose that Hobbes chose this term? Well, leviathan by definition is a sea monster or anything very large and powerful. In the political realm, leviathan has reference to the mass of untamed humanity as it exists in the state of nature. Unrestrained by political society, Hobbes believed that men subsisted in a state of anarchy and selfish conflict. According to Hobbes, only an absolute sovereign would possess sufficient power and authority to restrain this unruly and dangerous horde of brutish humanity. When men unite under a social contract, they, quote, authorize and give up any, quote, In the political realm, leviathan has reference to the mass of untamed humanity as it exists in the state of nature. Unrestrained by political society, Hobbes believed that men subsisted in a state of anarchy and selfish conflict. According to Hobbes, only an absolute sovereign would possess sufficient power and authority to restrain this unruly and dangerous horde of brutish humanity. When men unite under a social contract, they, quote, In the political realm, leviathan has reference to the mass of untamed humanity as it exists in the state of nature. When men unite under a social contract, they, quote, In the political realm, leviathan has reference to the mass of untamed humanity as it exists in the state of nature. When men unite under a social contract, they, quote, So how does Hobbes define the social contract? Well, according to Hobbes, men make a commonwealth by a covenant to deny themselves certain liberties and pass away some rights to a sovereign. The way by which a man either simply renounces or transfers his right is a declaration or signification, he said, by some voluntary and sufficient sign or signs that he doth so renounce or transfer. In addition, he stated, the mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract. Rather than an independent partner in the governance of the world, the church, under Hobbes, assumes a minority position. The church becomes merely a department of state in the Hobbesian scheme, existing for the state and subject to its control. And that was why Hobbes received such a cool reception from the ecclesiastical advisers of Charles II. So Hobbes was given a cool reception in the court of Charles II. And we could cite many examples of this. In the first place, Hobbes believed that the purpose of civil government or the end for which a commonwealth was established was, quote, to produce the peace and security of the people, end of quote. Although the means he chose would never do justice to his end, Hobbes declared emphasis on the well-being of the people ran contrary to Charles' notion of the royal prerogative or privilege. Quote, the only way to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, said Hobbes, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man or upon one assembly of men that may reduce all their wills into one will, end of quote. Thus, in spite of its authoritarian bent, the book was not much use to Charles as an apologetic for the divine right of kings. Well, thanks for your attendance today. And please patronize our sponsors at greatbiblereset.com. Get a free copy of Keys to the Classics, a history of decline and fall of Western civilization, and a free set of resistance bands to maintain your exercise routine while traveling. So please check back tomorrow for a biblical analysis of the teaching of Thomas Hobbes.