Defining Theonomy & Why Christians Oppose It | with Dr. Joe Boot



Dr. Joseph Boot defines General-Equity Theonomy and explains why so many Christians wrongly oppose it. @ezrainstituteforcontempora7889

Register for our Fall 2023 Conference, “The Household And The War For The Cosmos.” https://www.tickettailor.com/events/rightresponseministries/907281

Register for our Spring 2024 Conference, “Blueprints For Christendom 2.0: Seven Doctrines For Ruling The World.” https://www.tickettailor.com/events/rightresponseministries/898231

Also to purchase Joel’s book they can find it on Amazon or directly from our website at:
https://rightresponseministries.com/fight

Subscribe to our Theology Applied podcast below:
Apple podcast: https://bit.ly/theologyapplied
Spotify podcast: https://bit.ly/theologyappliedspotify
Google Play podcast: https://bit.ly/theologyappliedgooglepodcast

*If you live in the Austin area, Pastor Joel just started planting a brand new church called Covenant Bible Church in Hutto, Texas. He would love for you to come visit on a Sunday. Check out the church’s website for details: https://covenantbible.org/

#theonomy #postmil #christian

source

28 thoughts on “Defining Theonomy & Why Christians Oppose It | with Dr. Joe Boot”

  1. Criticize till you rule it. – James Lindsay on criticism and power dynamics.

    Now the church wants to criticize the state so pastors can fight over who then becomes the Protestant pope. Ha.

    Reply
  2. Maybe it's his British accent, but I'm about 40 minutes in and I officially agree with the term Theonomy, though I would not say I am a Theonomist. 😅

    I'm in no way antinomian, I have always agreed we should base our laws on biblical principles and law, the reason I cannot call myself a Theonomist is because I am a Christian who has the call to preach the gospel to men. That includes the men of government which in turn should bring about a change in laws towards the Bible, but I don't believe our goal should be changing government systems lest we lose focus on the soul's of men. But if those men in government are enacting laws that go against the scripture then we should call them out on it, I agree.

    Brother Joel I feel like my last point is the reason why I have not been able to accept the term Theonomy as taught by you, is that you seem to make it a gospel issue. As in, if we fail to convert the government system, that means we are not doing the great commission. I know you are not seeking the approval of men but I'm just sharing my thoughts. I'll continue listening and learning.

    Reply
  3. Just appreciate how Joe highlighted the law being found in the Gospel. 1 Timothy 1:8-11
    "But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully….according to the GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF THE BLESSED GOD which was committed to my trust."

    Reply
  4. If there are more vocal Muslims in Minnesota relentlessly criticizing the government, what stops Islam from influencing the laws to reflect the religion?

    Reply
  5. If I recall, a band of men called Puritans in the Massachusetts colony had similar ideas. Keep hope alive, I suppose. We will see how things unfold in the future? Only time will tell what God has decreed to come to pass. There will never be unity of belief on this subject or eschatology, which is crucial to the theonomist position. Never a dull moment in Christianity, that is for sure. Each to their own understanding and conscience.

    Reply
  6. Excellent message Joe Boot!

    Solid exposition,accurate historical acquisition; irrefutable doctrinal application; and the brilliant dynamic of Law and Gospel May his tribe increase!

    G3 who?

    PS: one qualifying word -I do not support post-mill eschatology, but Joe makes a compelling case for general equity theonomy

    Reply
  7. To complete the discussion of Thomas Aquinas, he states in ST. Q. 104.3 Respondeo: The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ: yet not in the same way as the ceremonial precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far as to be not only "dead," but also deadly to those who observe them since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts are dead indeed, because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were observed, or ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law: for it would be a deadly sin to intend to observe them thus.

    Reply
  8. Profound. May God grant His Church to delight in His law. One of the great tragedies of dispensationalism is that it teaches Christ’s sheep to have an expression of disgust when they say the word “law.” King Jesus does not preside over a lawless Kingdom. Unable to overthrow the Kingdom, the enemy revels in seeing its subjects despise its constitution.

    Reply

Leave a Comment