I love this poetic summary of the law by the Lutheran pastor, Matthias Loy, 1863-- 1. the law of God is good and wise and sets his will before our eyes, shows us the way of righteousness, and dooms to death when we transgress. 2. it's light of Holiness imparts the knowledge of our sinful hearts, that we may see our lost a state, and seek Deliverance ere to late. 3. To those who help in Christ have found and would in works of love abound, it shows what deeds are his delight, and should be done as good and right. 4. when men the offered help disdain and willfully in sin remain, it's terror in their ear resounds, and keeps their wickedness in bounds. 5. the law is good but since the fall, it's Holiness condemns us all, it dooms us for our sin to die, and has no power to justify. 6. to Jesus we for refuge flee, who from the curse has set us free, and humbly worship at his throne, saved by his grace through faith alone.
This message gave me the thought, now lawless rulers are demanding, "just wear a mask". I for one have never nor will never submit to this mask order for a whole host of reasons including religious.
Finally, agreement on the Pledge of Allegiance, I feel like the only American Christian who can even conceptualize both loving a country thoroughly and refusing to recite either a pledge to an inanimate object or to the conceptual framework it represents, much less be able to rationalize and live with it. I'm patriotic but not idolatrous, what is the difficulty there? Yea = yea, nea = nea.
You're not alone, government schools have been conditioning us to worship Caesar through this subtle deception of the pledge of allegiance. My epiphany to never cite the pledge of allegiance again occurred over 20 years ago and every time I hear people citing it, I have this thought in my head, "I pledge allegiance to Christ and in so far as any lesser authority is in submission to Christ, I will comply to that degree."
Christ doesn't want pledges, period. It's enough to simply abstain from them. A faithful Christian will be a good Roman, a good American, a good Jew, and a good Russian. He is fitted by grace to serve, and fitted by Christ to rule. There is no divorcing service and rulership in the Christian sphere, by Christ's clear command. they are always married. His Kingdom requires an entire society of priest-kings, with no respect to person, either poor or rich, and more than conquerors.
Also, the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist. And the original version did not have the "under God" line. That was added about 50 years later.
I love Doug Wilson. He is fantastic on a whole array of contemporary issues. I consider him a wonderful brother in Christ. I wish we had more courageous men like him in the Catholic fold. Being a Catholic convert, and having studied the history and philosophy of liberty in the West, however, I have to disagree with his notion that it was a good or Godly thing that we transitioned from kings to democracies and constitutions. I would also strongly disagree that the Protestant Reformation resulted in limited governance. The birth of Western liberty happened in the Middle Ages and for a number of reasons: 1) Jesus Christ teaches a consistent philosophy of liberty and this was the age of Christendom; 2) the extremely localized and polycentric structure of temporal authority, due to the collapse of the Roman Empire (and later Charlemagne's Empire), allowed for subjects of any particular prince to leave if he became too burdensome, and this fostered princes to compete with each other to provide better more benign authority; 3) the feudal institution of fealty was a contractual arrangement with duties on both sides, and typically the vassals of the king’s vassal were not subject to the king but to their feudal lord only; 4) the Catholic Church was a powerful and international social authority which could hold the excesses of princes and emperors in check with its powers of anointing kings, administering the sacraments, and excommunicating unrepentant offenders of God's laws; and 5) the Germanic conquerors of Western Europe had strong notions of individualism, held to the idea of an old and good law (even if they often abused it), and had a strong habit of violent resistance to despotic kings. The Reformation, which occurred at least partially as a result of the failures and corruptions of the Catholic Church, resulted in every church being subordinated by a king, and thus Caesaropapism was inevitable and kings were no longer under the law but gradually became law givers. They became little gods. The division of Christianity was also used as an excuse for temporal rulers, hungry for power and no longer shackled by an independent transcendent social authority, to wage wars of conquest to expand their domains. These wars (and particularly the Thirty Years War) resulted in centralization of authority under the king over vast areas, and as a result, the state system was born (or at least solidified) at the Peace of Westphalia. The state, as a monopoly provider of law and order over a definite territory, has not been around forever. It only came into being in the West with the waning of a unified Christendom. And this should give you some hint of its true nature. The state is a Satanic institution which routinely violates the Commandments and fosters their violation among the population like no other institution in history. And this problem did not get better when we transitioned from Monarchy (a degraded form of kingship) to Democracy; it got much worse. The state is a symbol of our turning away from God. The more powerful the state, the farther we are from Him. The ancient Hebrews were punished for wanting a king by being given one, and so we are being punished further by being given a state, because we asked for it as well. Feudalist provinces, independent cities, city-states, and city leagues like the Hansa were much more free than our modern states and the Church was much more powerful than any today.
Paul makes an assumption in Romans Ch 13. He assumes a separation of powers. He assumes that the (civil) authority wielding the sword does NOT have ecclesiastical authority to define or redefine "evil". If both were held by the same governing authority then "the sword" may be wielded against any political opponents by declaring that their habits, practices, or observances are evil.
1st Corinthians 2: 6-8 shows how St. Paul really feels about earthly princes and authorities and 2nd Corinthians 11: 31-33 shows how he feels about disobeying authorities in service of God. I'd like to see someone who takes Romans 13 at face value square it with these two passages which are also from St. Paul. Clearly there is an underlying continuity. Romans 13 describes our duty to obey Godly authority and gives an outline of what that looks like, while the other two messages to the Corinthians are not quite so cryptic.
This is good except in point he doesn't seem to understand American Exceptionalism as the values he is supposing are American Exceptionalism which is not an arrogant American idea but an observation from the more great at the time Europeans on our values so we are exceptional as so much as we have Godly values from the founding its not so much a declaration of manifest destiny or such
um, what on earth is this person talking about? The West took its "limited government" models from thousands of years of Greek history … democracy itself comes from the Greeks.
Greek political models did not produce the idea of limited government. Greeks were ruled by elites with body of free citizens participating. It’s a direct democracy but it did not have a constraining constitution. The concept of limited government cake from the Christians theology. Magna Carta is the first set of this political document to limit the power and authority of the king. Thus the Western idea of law is king comes from the Christians principals.
@@gsmiro Interesting that you use the word "thus" in a QED sense … you've not demonstrated much beyond the redoubling of a rather lazy and myopic view of history (perhaps protestant?). Aristotle developed the idea of a constitution in the Politics, i.e., a fixing of offices and the power granted thereunto. No one is quibbling with the Magna Carta … that's obvious. Would we have a Magna Carta if Darius had won at Marathon and the Persians entered Europe? I dunno …
@@3leon306 on the other hand Plato championed the idea of philosopher Kings and that’s the idea of elites ruling the common people for their own good. It’s pretty clear that the Greco-Roman philosophies of not enable the Greeks and Romans to develop into a constitutional republic with the idea that State is under a higher authority. Eventually the result of Greek and Roman culture is the Roman Empire where Caesar is not only king but god. And you can see through history only the Christian influenced west developed the idea of a constitution that limits the power of the government. Magna Carta and its afterward developments are not accidents.
@@gsmiro But our constitution hasn't been successful. 244 years is nothing. A blip. Our constitution has been almost completely marginalized in a relatively very short period of time. So your Christo limited govt theory doesn't hold. The Federal Govt is a leviathan and has been since the 1940's.
@@Lombokstrait1 it was not designed to be that way. The war between the States was a turning point. Indeed I agree that no human institution is perfect and all will become corrupt. Nevertheless the idea is that in this corrupt world the more truth one has or the closer one is to the truth the better the outcomes would be.
![เปิดใจ พี่ญา คนรุม หลังทัวร์ลง หนักสุดในชีวิต!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2-OJZRtclro/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for this. Way better than Joel Osteen
That's a low bar.
Haha!
🤣😂😂😂
Joel is heretic
Doug doesn’t even have one private jet, how can he be better?
I love this poetic summary of the law by the Lutheran pastor, Matthias Loy, 1863--
1. the law of God is good and wise and sets his will before our eyes, shows us the way of righteousness, and dooms to death when we transgress.
2. it's light of Holiness imparts the knowledge of our sinful hearts, that we may see our lost a state, and seek Deliverance ere to late.
3. To those who help in Christ have found and would in works of love abound, it shows what deeds are his delight, and should be done as good and right.
4. when men the offered help disdain and willfully in sin remain, it's terror in their ear resounds, and keeps their wickedness in bounds.
5. the law is good but since the fall, it's Holiness condemns us all, it dooms us for our sin to die, and has no power to justify.
6. to Jesus we for refuge flee, who from the curse has set us free, and humbly worship at his throne, saved by his grace through faith alone.
Very beautiful.
This message gave me the thought, now lawless rulers are demanding, "just wear a mask". I for one have never nor will never submit to this mask order for a whole host of reasons including religious.
Awesome message. Always interesting and thought provoking messages.
It was Theodosius I that established Christianity as the official religion of the empire in late 4th century..
Thanks for the talk.
This is excellent.
Thank you!
Magnificent
Finally, agreement on the Pledge of Allegiance, I feel like the only American Christian who can even conceptualize both loving a country thoroughly and refusing to recite either a pledge to an inanimate object or to the conceptual framework it represents, much less be able to rationalize and live with it. I'm patriotic but not idolatrous, what is the difficulty there? Yea = yea, nea = nea.
You're not alone, government schools have been conditioning us to worship Caesar through this subtle deception of the pledge of allegiance. My epiphany to never cite the pledge of allegiance again occurred over 20 years ago and every time I hear people citing it, I have this thought in my head, "I pledge allegiance to Christ and in so far as any lesser authority is in submission to Christ, I will comply to that degree."
Christ doesn't want pledges, period. It's enough to simply abstain from them. A faithful Christian will be a good Roman, a good American, a good Jew, and a good Russian. He is fitted by grace to serve, and fitted by Christ to rule. There is no divorcing service and rulership in the Christian sphere, by Christ's clear command. they are always married. His Kingdom requires an entire society of priest-kings, with no respect to person, either poor or rich, and more than conquerors.
Also, the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist. And the original version did not have the "under God" line. That was added about 50 years later.
I love Doug Wilson. He is fantastic on a whole array of contemporary issues. I consider him a wonderful brother in Christ. I wish we had more courageous men like him in the Catholic fold. Being a Catholic convert, and having studied the history and philosophy of liberty in the West, however, I have to disagree with his notion that it was a good or Godly thing that we transitioned from kings to democracies and constitutions. I would also strongly disagree that the Protestant Reformation resulted in limited governance.
The birth of Western liberty happened in the Middle Ages and for a number of reasons: 1) Jesus Christ teaches a consistent philosophy of liberty and this was the age of Christendom; 2) the extremely localized and polycentric structure of temporal authority, due to the collapse of the Roman Empire (and later Charlemagne's Empire), allowed for subjects of any particular prince to leave if he became too burdensome, and this fostered princes to compete with each other to provide better more benign authority; 3) the feudal institution of fealty was a contractual arrangement with duties on both sides, and typically the vassals of the king’s vassal were not subject to the king but to their feudal lord only; 4) the Catholic Church was a powerful and international social authority which could hold the excesses of princes and emperors in check with its powers of anointing kings, administering the sacraments, and excommunicating unrepentant offenders of God's laws; and 5) the Germanic conquerors of Western Europe had strong notions of individualism, held to the idea of an old and good law (even if they often abused it), and had a strong habit of violent resistance to despotic kings.
The Reformation, which occurred at least partially as a result of the failures and corruptions of the Catholic Church, resulted in every church being subordinated by a king, and thus Caesaropapism was inevitable and kings were no longer under the law but gradually became law givers. They became little gods. The division of Christianity was also used as an excuse for temporal rulers, hungry for power and no longer shackled by an independent transcendent social authority, to wage wars of conquest to expand their domains. These wars (and particularly the Thirty Years War) resulted in centralization of authority under the king over vast areas, and as a result, the state system was born (or at least solidified) at the Peace of Westphalia. The state, as a monopoly provider of law and order over a definite territory, has not been around forever. It only came into being in the West with the waning of a unified Christendom. And this should give you some hint of its true nature. The state is a Satanic institution which routinely violates the Commandments and fosters their violation among the population like no other institution in history. And this problem did not get better when we transitioned from Monarchy (a degraded form of kingship) to Democracy; it got much worse. The state is a symbol of our turning away from God. The more powerful the state, the farther we are from Him.
The ancient Hebrews were punished for wanting a king by being given one, and so we are being punished further by being given a state, because we asked for it as well. Feudalist provinces, independent cities, city-states, and city leagues like the Hansa were much more free than our modern states and the Church was much more powerful than any today.
14:00 🤣 thank you, I appreciate the English lesson.
Peter Jones is the man
Paul makes an assumption in Romans Ch 13. He assumes a separation of powers. He assumes that the (civil) authority wielding the sword does NOT have ecclesiastical authority to define or redefine "evil". If both were held by the same governing authority then "the sword" may be wielded against any political opponents by declaring that their habits, practices, or observances are evil.
1st Corinthians 2: 6-8 shows how St. Paul really feels about earthly princes and authorities and 2nd Corinthians 11: 31-33 shows how he feels about disobeying authorities in service of God. I'd like to see someone who takes Romans 13 at face value square it with these two passages which are also from St. Paul. Clearly there is an underlying continuity. Romans 13 describes our duty to obey Godly authority and gives an outline of what that looks like, while the other two messages to the Corinthians are not quite so cryptic.
This is good except in point he doesn't seem to understand American Exceptionalism as the values he is supposing are American Exceptionalism which is not an arrogant American idea but an observation from the more great at the time Europeans on our values so we are exceptional as so much as we have Godly values from the founding its not so much a declaration of manifest destiny or such
um, what on earth is this person talking about? The West took its "limited government" models from thousands of years of Greek history … democracy itself comes from the Greeks.
Greek political models did not produce the idea of limited government. Greeks were ruled by elites with body of free citizens participating. It’s a direct democracy but it did not have a constraining constitution. The concept of limited government cake from the Christians theology. Magna Carta is the first set of this political document to limit the power and authority of the king. Thus the Western idea of law is king comes from the Christians principals.
@@gsmiro Interesting that you use the word "thus" in a QED sense … you've not demonstrated much beyond the redoubling of a rather lazy and myopic view of history (perhaps protestant?). Aristotle developed the idea of a constitution in the Politics, i.e., a fixing of offices and the power granted thereunto. No one is quibbling with the Magna Carta … that's obvious. Would we have a Magna Carta if Darius had won at Marathon and the Persians entered Europe? I dunno …
@@3leon306 on the other hand Plato championed the idea of philosopher Kings and that’s the idea of elites ruling the common people for their own good. It’s pretty clear that the Greco-Roman philosophies of not enable the Greeks and Romans to develop into a constitutional republic with the idea that State is under a higher authority. Eventually the result of Greek and Roman culture is the Roman Empire where Caesar is not only king but god. And you can see through history only the Christian influenced west developed the idea of a constitution that limits the power of the government. Magna Carta and its afterward developments are not accidents.
@@gsmiro But our constitution hasn't been successful. 244 years is nothing. A blip. Our constitution has been almost completely marginalized in a relatively very short period of time. So your Christo limited govt theory doesn't hold. The Federal Govt is a leviathan and has been since the 1940's.
@@Lombokstrait1 it was not designed to be that way. The war between the States was a turning point. Indeed I agree that no human institution is perfect and all will become corrupt. Nevertheless the idea is that in this corrupt world the more truth one has or the closer one is to the truth the better the outcomes would be.