EP11 Tom Hicks: The Error of Theonomy, Considering the Judicial Law, and Rejoicing in the Gospel

In this episode Tom Hicks joins the guys to discuss Theonomy, the application of the Judicial Law and the relationship between the Law and the Gospel. Their discussion also touches on many themes relating to these topics such as government, lesser and greater magistrates, reconstruction-ism, creation mandates and their application to today, and much more...

Please like and subscribe!

To learn about the law and the Gospel:
https://brokenwharfe.com/product/the-law-and-the-gospel/
https://thelawandthegospel.com/

Website: brokenwharfe.com

Bookshop: brokenwharfe.com/bookshop

Transcript

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 0:00

Jesus Christ has just gloriously, eclipsed Adam's whole work and he's applied it to us, but he hasn't applied it to us, so that we go around, doing the work that Adam failed to do.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 0:11

Absolutely. I think you just nailed it. there are basically two perspectives and everything has to do with a garden

John-MArk: 0:32

Today, we're in the coffee house with pastor and professor Tom Hicks. I want to begin. This coffee house session with a question, Tom, tell us something about Louisiana and maybe some key facts. If I were going to go to the tour guide office in your city, what would the key facts be trying to sell me a holiday there?

Tom Hicks: 1:04

Well, uh, I can tell you a little bit about the state. It's, uh, the only state in the United States is so heavily influenced by the French. so we have actually some French speakers here, but, uh, And a lot of people who speak speak a mixture between American English and French that's called Cajun. And it's, it's really neither, it's neither French nor American English, but it's, it, it's its own thing. They also have delicious food and it's seafood. It's, uh, that, that delicious gumbo here, crawfish. And so the, the, the culture is, is really unique. It's a, it's, it's a place unlike any other. In the United States, um, it's very swampy here. Um, we've got alligators, you know, so you got to watch yourself in certain places, but, uh, they have those boats that, that, can, you know, skim across the tops of grass in the swamp, swampy areas, a lot of fishing going on here, but, uh, it's a, it's a very, um, Open. I don't know if opens the right word, but if, if, if, if the people here love you, you know, you're invited to big family get togethers and they have cooking all day long. And it's the best food you've ever had in your life and wonderful friendship and fellowship. And, and, uh, so then, and sometimes the Cajuns, those who are Cajun influenced, we'll just. Go outside their house with grills and different kinds of cooking instruments, and they'll just start cooking and people in the neighborhood will show up. And it's just a big public thing. Um, but that's,

Jonny Woodrow: 2:45

wow.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 2:47

that's,

Jonny Woodrow: 2:47

now I'm booking a, I'm booking a flight, isn't it? I'm just

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 2:50

that's the older culture. We're really known for, for New Orleans and, and all the things there that the music, the jazz, you know, that's, that's Louisiana culture.

Jonny Woodrow: 3:01

I, I really, my favorite CSI series, um, no NCIS was the New Orleans one. I don't know if you're into NCIS, but, uh, but cause they, they, they showed a little bit of that culture. Just looks, just looks fab. Did you grow up there or did you move there for

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 3:18

No, I didn't. I've lived here for about seven years now. Um, but I, I grew up, um, my, as an air force kid. So my dad was in the American air force and we traveled all over. So I lived in Mississippi. I lived in Germany. For about four years, uh, during the Reagan era. And I also lived in Alabama. Most of, most of my life after we got back to the States was in Alabama and then moved here after that. So kind of been all over. My wife is a homegrown Louisiana though. She's from here. So I love it. I hope the Lord lets me stay here and die here.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 4:02

What would be the reason for the French influence is that from early empire days when the French had a kind of a particular liking for the, I don't know, the, the alligators and, and such, or. What, what was the reason for the French influence?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 4:21

Yeah. I mean, you had the English. You guys, uh, colonize the Eastern coast, right. Of, of, uh, America, North America, but the French started their colonies down here at this big port and w which is now new Orleans. And, uh, yeah, that was all owned by, by the French and the Louisiana used to extend. All the way up through the entire current United States. It was huge. And the, the United States purchased it, it's called the Louisiana purchase from the French for way too little, way too little money. And, uh, you know, I'll bet the French regret it now, but that was all theirs, you know, or maybe they regretted it then. Yeah. So it's from French colonization, uh, in the early days.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 5:14

Well, we, being English, we don't really like the French much, so, uh, as much as I'm sure they're very disappointed, we, I'm not sure we are that disappointed at the French losing Louisiana. I dunno if I may, maybe I spoke for you, Johnny, and I

Jonny Woodrow: 5:35

Well, I know I said, I don't think the French like us, but I mean, in just in British comedy, you can still have a pop at the French, uh, you know, um, and that sort of thing. It's just, I think we've, you know, we've, we've been backwards and forwards over the Napoleon stuff and the rest of it, you know, actually I was watching cause I've got into my John Wayne movies. I'm trying to work through his movies in order, right? I don't know if you're a John Wayne fan, but the Fighting Kentuckian is, uh, one of his early movies in the 1940s, I think. Um, and, uh, uh, it might've been pre war, I forget. Um, but it, it does, it's quite, it's quite interesting about it is, um, there's a French colony, Who have all arrived over after Napoleon's defeat into the south and they're trying to find land and they're about to be given some land, but they're gonna be cheated out of the land anyway. So I, my most recent sort of, um, cultural reference point for, um, the French in the US is, uh, is a movie called the fighting Kentuckian with, um, uh, John Wayne and Stan Laurel. He was the round, the big one wasn't he from Laurel and Hardy. Anyway, fascinating history. I don't know if it was an accurate movie, but, um, but fascinating history. I wanted to ask you, what are the, because, because one of the reasons we wanted to get you on was, um, uh, uh, the IRBS connection, but also I had, I'd come across your stuff on theonomy. That you were doing. Uh, what I just, just to put, so we're going to talk a little bit about politics and theology and those kinds of things. What are some of the political hot potatoes in Louisiana right now?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 7:32

Locally, you mean?

Jonny Woodrow: 7:33

Yeah. Yeah.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 7:34

mean, Frankly, uh, the, the truth, the truth is local politics. I mean, it, it exists, I guess, at some level, but it's, it's largely dead. I mean, this is one of the travesties in America is it seems that everyone is mostly interested in national politics. And, uh, that's, that's a problem. Probably we should be more concerned with local politics than we are. So, um, I mean, it's, it's, it's, uh, all the things that you probably are familiar with, that people are most concerned with about our nation, mostly having to do with sexual ethics and gender confusion and that kind of thing.

Jonny Woodrow: 8:17

Yeah. Okay. But then you're, I, I, we, we had, uh, Timothy Decker on. Recently, and he was talking about, um, Bible translation and things like that, but he's written this book on Romans 13 and, and just in conversation with him, he talked about, I don't know if it was on the recording or afterwards, he talked about a distinction, which, uh, it was, he was finding very helpful between the lesser and the greater. And the greater magistrate and, um, and I was a distinction. I, I hadn't thought about actually, it was his books, very helpful. Um, and thinking about how you might use, uh, it would call to use the lesser magistrate to call into account the, the, the greater magistrate, but with the kind of, uh, This is the same in the UK, um, the, the, you know, we have this idea that you, you're going to vote for your local politician who's going to represent you, um, in parliament, but they're going to do some local stuff and they sometimes show some local stuff, but like, so our local MP has dropped loads of, oh no, local, um, he's a guy who wants to stand for the Labour Party and he's dropped in loads of, um, Loads of stuff. And I had a chat with him on the door, but he he's very much the, the spokesperson in the area for Keir Starmer, who would be the national leader. So, so the local is really hoovered up into, into, into the national, um, at while local councils, um, people don't tend to take the local council elections very seriously. Um, You don't really notice if there's a change, but, but local councils are where so much of your ordinary life is impacted without kind of folks, uh, noticing. Um, so, so you'll see, you'll see some, something similar, uh, in, in, in the U S the, the, uh, like how the, it is very, it's it, the sexual ethics stuff and the LGBTQ and the, um, the trans stuff. Because, you know, I don't know if you're in the UK, they've just recently banned puberty blockers, which is a great thing because it was, um, chemically castrating children and things like that. So it does, it does impact things. Um, but, but it, it is. If those are the issues that people discuss, then you don't get down to the practical, just sort of, it flooded recently here, just around the corner. Um, but it flooded, not because of heavier rain, but because the drains are blocked. And um, and those sorts of basic issues, just, just don't, don't look so ideologically vibrant, are they? Um, but uh, so you're seeing something similar.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 10:58

Very much similar. I mean, I guess there probably is at the local level, a concern more than there ever has been before about involvement on public school boards. So you have a lot of parents wanting to get into the, into the political system and people signing up to be on the, on the public school board system to keep, you know, bad, uh, You know, people pushing, um, sex education things, but then especially all the critical theory, woke stuff that they're, that they're doing. And so there's some pushback at the local level on those types of things. So, but I'm with you. I mean, politics ought to not be viewed as some big ideological thing, uh, in the end, and we should have broad moral principles that govern us. But. Most, most politics ought to be just thought of in a practical way. How can we live, um, you know, in this world and that human life flourishes, you know, that's,

Jonny Woodrow: 12:02

I, let, let me lead. I like to do a long lead into a question. So let me, let me do, I can't, I don't know how to do a short one. Let me connect up a couple of things and I want to get your reflections on it. So, um, I, um, in my academic studies before becoming a pastor, I was, it was in the, um, the. Late 90s, early noughties in, in the UK. I did. What'd you call them? The zit, the two thousands, the two thousands. I'll call them the two thousands. The word noughties though, seems it's just quite funny, isn't it? Um, in the early noughties, uh,

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 12:37

Jen, gen Z, isn't it?

Jonny Woodrow: 12:40

well, I'm not, I'm born in 1976. I don't know. I'm not gen Zed. Am I, what am I I don't know.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 12:44

I, I think, I think Gen Z is post

Jonny Woodrow: 12:47

Is it? I'm, I've never known what my, uh, generational postcode is. I don't know what the, uh, thing, anyway.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 12:54

Yeah. Or, Or, is it Len Millennial Millennium, because the millennium is 2000. We're in the

Jonny Woodrow: 13:00

isn't that somebody who was born at the millennium? Anyway, my point was this, that the academic environment I was in was very, um, was influenced by, Michel Foucault, um, folks you might call kind of neo Marxist, um, though, how much of he, much of a Marxist he thought himself as, I don't know. But, but, but one of the things was that politics, that all life is political. Because the basics of life is power dynamics. And when you buy into that idea, then everything becomes political. Politics is life. It's not a part of life. It's not about what we're going to do about local finances in the public square and, and, and how we're going to sort out the trains. It like everything becomes political, right? So, and that's where the identity. Politics and identity, uh, identitarian stuff sort of, sort of comes from. It's that with a political, um, uh, agenda. Now, I'm wondering if there is a connection, um, between that idea that there is the, the, all of life is essentially political, and then, then we go forward to try and manage life as, as a, as power dynamics in, in, in every context and here's, here's my, my idea. and theonomy, because what I've seen in the theonomist world is, and, and some books, even by some Reform Baptist or people who would say they're Calvinistic Baptist, is an attempt to say, let's ground, let's, first of all, set out what politics is and go, uh, I mean, there's one book that was doing the rounds a few years ago, Um, that actually tried to claim that first of all, we need to do God is politics in himself. And it, it, it appealed to a sort of a, a, basically a, a social Trinitarian approach that there's, there's, there's authority in the Godhead. So it's EFS. And so there's God is politics. And so then it bought into the idea that. therefore all is politics in, in some kind of way. And, um, and then what comes with that is the idea that you have to think God first, not just God as first cause, God as triune. And then you will be able to go out into the political world, which is now kind of everything and see clearly how to do state craft. And it strikes me that modern theonomy, and I don't know what his history is, but modern theonomy. make some parallel moves, uh, um, to to the, all his politics that comes from some radical left wingers. I dunno, any thoughts on any of that?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 15:52

Yeah, I mean, I can, I totally think you're onto something there, uh, because the theonomist mindset is we have the Bible and it is sufficient. They'll say it has to be sufficient for all of life, which is not what I'm saying. What we confess in our reformed confessions. We say that the word of God is sufficient for life and godliness, but it's actually not given to be sufficient for everything. We have natural revelation as well, general revelation and the light of nature. And which is of course, human reason. And so, so theonomists approach the scriptures and they think that if they Discern, uh, and, and deduce a total totalistic theology in their minds first that they can, uh, draw down from that the answers to everything else in this world. And, uh, and that's not what the Bible is given for. Um, and the parallel is, is exactly right to Marxism, which says, you know, that we have this idealistic system. And it's power and power dynamics. And, you know, it's, it's the distribution of, of wealth and, you know, social power, if you're the neo Marxist and that we can, we can deduce all political answers from that idea. So it is this, so theonomy, I do think shares with Marxism, kind of an idealism. That, uh, that, that is, you know, I think it puts a lot of stock in what the human mind can, can understand holistically. It's in the end, it strikes me as sort of proud because you're not really in a posture of learning there. You're, you're, you've already found the ultimate answers to everything. You just have to figure out how they all apply instead of what I think is a classical. Position, which is there are certain transcendent norms and realities that we need to hold to that the Bible and nature does reveal, but then we're in a posture of learning. We have to figure out how things work and things are changing. And it's okay to, to, to not know everything and to have and to explore and to grow in wisdom, which is more of an empirical. Approach, uh, that, that says, let's see what happens. Let's look at what did happen in the past. You know, let's, let's try to work this out and with the big principles still in place. And so, uh, you know, I think you're, I think you're exactly right. That there's something similar between those two, sadly.

Jonny Woodrow: 18:26

I, I wonder if I would sort of detect the symptoms of it. We're all familiar, um, with the kind of the woke. Agenda now, but part of the, the idea of woke is the idea of awakening to something, to an insight that then, that then I can see everything by some kind of moment of the idea, the, the, the, the pure idea of my situation clicking and it's almost Gnostic, right? I've got a special insight now into how the whole world works and I've got to help other people. Wake up and be woke to the power dynamics or something like that. And there's something in the presuppositional theonomist thing that is a parallel to that, that what we need people is, is they won't use the word woke, but there is a perspectivalism, a kind of, I must come to an idea. which will as if sort of magically illuminate in an insight moment my way into the world. And I need to, I need to help other people awaken to this, this, this, this organizing thought that, that everything will kind of, and it doesn't surprise me Or here's what I, my prediction would be that some folks who press on that view will end up starting to, without realizing it, um, say some things that are a little bit woke, in fact. Um, you, you might start to get some shifts in, because the primary sin would be not thinking Uh, so, so, um, uh, um, So the solution then becomes thinking differently. Um, just, you know, the, the, the primary sin in, um, in a neo Marxist woke kind of situation is, is, is, is not having the insight that you are an oppressor category, um, but then sin in a, in a radical presuppositionalist, theonomist kind of perspective really in the end comes down to not having the right beginning idea. In some kind of way. And I just wonder if we might see as, as things start to, um, you know, ideas have consequences and they start to, we might find people struggling in that model to actually properly engage with an answer, the woke ideology, because what you've got is two perspectives arguing rather than anyone appealing to what is a given in the world. And when you get two perspectives arguing, you get what, um, C. S. Lewis referred to as propaganda. You don't, you no longer train people to discover the real things, the given things, the natural law, and then to come to God's special revelation. You, you, you, um, you. You don't propagate in that sense, grow people in how the world is. You propagandize people in the persuasiveness of your perspective, because all you have is perspective. So you have a fight between two, what's the starting idea, Marxist wokery or Start with Jesus and, and they actually end up becoming mirror images of each other and the way in which the knowledge kind of organizes itself starts to, starts to unfold in the same kind of way. That's anyway, there's a, there's an idea for you. I don't know. There's not a question there. It's just a thought that I ran with.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 22:04

think you're right because in the end, the, if, if you apply, so, so the theonomy is presuppositional and the early presuppositional lists all talked about an antithesis, you know, you have Christians and non Christians, which is true, but they, they applied that to the realm of thought. You either think Christianly or, or you don't. And if you think Christianly, then you have the starting point for all the answers. In the world, but how do you get to that starting point? You can make arguments for it, uh, to, to become a Christian. And yet in the end, it's just based on the authority of scripture. And so I think you're right. You have, you know, you're going to have theonomists, uh, counterpointing to the Marxists and all that. The only way to, to get through the disagreement is just power. There's no way to reason with each other because, um, it's, it's just a matter of, of authority and starting points. And that's really scary that there's no way to talk to each other, but there is through nature. We have, there is common grade. There is natural law. We all have the light of common reason. That we can use as we discuss with each other. Um, no, I don't believe pagans are consistent. So I would agree with the, with the presuppositional lists in that regard, that total philosophical consistency, you know, is only in the mind of God, first of all, but would it, it requires the right starting point. And I think they're right. You know, unbelievers are inconsistent, inconsistent all the time. And we, we shouldn't just, um, argue with them on the basis of, of just pure authority, but we can reason with them. And, uh, we should, we shouldn't give that up, but I think there's an impulse to, to do exactly that. Now it's like, well, they're beyond reason the woke, you can't reason with them. They won't listen to reasons. So the only way to fight the woke is. With pure authority and power. But, um, you know, I, I do think you have to bring in authority at certain levels. I mean, you should stop murder with power. You should, you should, uh, and reason, but power, you should protect life, you know, with power, but the answer to everything isn't power. We have to keep reasoning with them. So, yeah,

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 24:30

It's interesting the different ways you see this manifested to this Bible as political textbook approach because you have other people who, although they wouldn't argue for this Christian nationalism, if you can call it that, as uh, as such, they would still view the different, uh, grand narratives or ways of viewing the world, or, um, you might call it kind of epistemological structures, um, perspectives of, of how it comes to certain conclusions. They would take those things and then they would say like, these are all, uh, getting to something in nature, uh, but the Bible just does it all better. So I, I haven't. Read the book, but I've read about it. And I know people who've engaged with it a little on that recent. a work, a biblical critical theory, which is quite popular. And it's got quite an attractive thesis, which is that, well, there's this idea of critical theory, uh, and it's used wrongly in the world, but we can really use the Bible to just critique everything in the world. And so we come with almost this biblical understanding of this thing, that thing, how they relate. And as much as I'm sure within that book, there are some helpful Uh, things said, and there are, you know, some, uh, good things about, um, the nature of government and, and such within. It is really a flawed project in that it is simply trying to do the world's thing, but baptize it instead of just saying, no, there is a clear distinction between special revelation and general revelation, and they have functions within spheres. So I wonder whether just off that is, is part of this discussion, really one of the, the telos. Of different things, um, would you say that special revelation, uh, has a different end to general revelation? And if they have almost different ends to an extent, where would they overlap? I don't know what you think about that, Tom.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 26:46

well, I mean, just in terms of. Theology, uh, in the broad sense, we can talk politically too. So, um, but they both have the end of pointing us to the one true God, but general revelation, uh, points us to God in it. The true God, but without, uh, the, the necessary revelation for redemption. So, so the general revelation points us toward the one true God who is unlike any other. He is God and yet special revelation alone gives us the knowledge of. Uh, his triunity, the knowledge of Christ and his redemptive work. And so in a way you can see the, uh, the, the political and the church. So the church state distinction there as well. And that, you know, the, the one true God is the ideal, the true good of all. He is the true, the true, the good, and the beautiful. And I think general revelation points us there and even pagan religions know it and they get it wrong and they have polytheism and all those things, but even those gods have something good in them that are representative of the true God. Although there also have corruptions in them, you know, but with that comes the value of human life and, um, not murdering and. Respecting your neighbor and so forth. All that can be derived from general revelation, who, who, which reveals the one true God, special revelation, though, points us toward redemption and reveals the Trinity and reveals Jesus Christ and his cross, his resurrection, uh, for salvation and to dwell with God for, for all eternity. So another way of putting this would be general revelation gives us the law. It does not give us the gospel special revelation gives us law and gospel, but what's unique to special revelation is the gospel. And so, um, yeah, what one is the book, I mean, the church, we, we, the church uses both books. We use the book of special revelation and that's what we preach, but a wise pastor also studies. The nature of the human soul in light of scripture. He studies what human beings are like. And so he's, he becomes one who, who knows the book of the human heart as well as the book of scripture. And those are the two different books of revelation. Uh, but his primary book that he's reading through the lens, everything through the lens of is scripture. Uh, but the civil magistrate, if we're, if we're thinking of that, I think he uses primarily. Natural, uh, or general revelation, natural law. Uh, but I think he is aided in understanding it if he's wise by the scriptures correctly handled. So that's my take on it.

Jonny Woodrow: 29:44

That, uh, that's very helpful. Uh, can we, can we, we use the word theonomy and theonomist. Can you give us, um, so I, like I said a little while ago, um, I, I came across your stuff because you're doing some videos on theonomy, uh, give, give us a bit of an overview of theonomy. Uh, is it, is it also kind of, is it. A recent thing, um, or is it always a tendency in, in, in thought to head there in some, some way. And then, and then secondly, I was wondering about one of the things I loved about your stuff was it really, um, illustrated to me or brought, um, fresh light on the idea that the Old Testament judicial system. Was very, very difficult to live under. So, so why would you want to plonk that on taking an un, a largely unbelieving society and making them into a people that God could live amongst was absolutely crushing. And we, we, it's, I just thought, I think we downplay that when we, um, Particularly under the influence of, um, without realizing it, a, a Presbyterian, uh, covenantal theology, which, or an Anglican covenantal theology that tends to go, well, they got saved out of Egypt. That's their gospel. And then they're given the 10 commandments. That's their law. So they got salvation. And so then they live, uh, according to God's word, um, and miss. That's not the covenant of grace, uh, going on there. But anyway, uh, so a couple of things, uh, give us a bit of an overview of theonomy, um, so we know what we're talking about and then I'd just love to hear a little bit more of, you know, just, just, just, Rehearse some of those ideas, uh, about the, um, about the intensity of lore and what would the theonomists actually call us to if they realized the intensity.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 31:43

Yeah. Um, well, theonomy goes back, you know, it, it was first called theonomy back in the seventies, I believe is when it really started to get going. Um, Rush Dooney began what became known as the movement of theonomy. Um, and then his son in law, Gary North also took it and wrote books about it. Greg Bonson is probably The best representative of theonomy. And he's got several books out there on it, if anyone is interested in that, but essentially theonomy and its first and its first iteration was wed almost always with post millennialism and reconstructionism. And these three ideas that. That just were inseparably interwoven with each other. I suppose, theoretically you could separate them and hold the one and not the other. They're really all intertwined. And the idea was that, um, God has given us his law and it's the old covenant judicial law, which is the blueprint for, uh, a godly nation. And he gave it to us and in the Old Testament for Israel. And if, and if we, uh, are faithful to preach the gospel and that people are converted, once there's a tipping point and the reason they believe that you could preach the gospel and the kingdom would advance. And so that 51 percent in America would eventually be Christians because they're post millennial. So they believe that the gospel was going to advance and you would reach this tipping point. And then there would be a matter of coercive re enchantment where you would Impose the judicial law on everyone. So 51 percent would say we want it. And the 49 percent would say, well, we don't, but too bad

Jonny Woodrow: 33:36

Sorry, I've just gotta, just pause. Coercive re enchantment. Is that, is that your summary of the, or is that actually a phrase coined by the theonomists?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 33:48

no, that, that was, I forgot who said that. That's not original to me though. But that is someone who is analyzing, uh, analyzing it. Um,

Jonny Woodrow: 33:56

Okay, I just, uh, that is just an amazing phrase.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 34:01

Yeah, but that's, that's really what they believe. As soon as we can get a popular vote to where we're going to have the judicial law of Israel imposed, we'll do it and, um, and implement it. Now they would say, we'll do it in stages. We won't just thrust the whole thing at once, but it's coming all of it. And that, that was the goal. And the belief was that once you, once you do that, you can have, uh, the golden age society of, of the millennium and Christ. Would then come afterwards and we could have something closer to a paradise than what we ever had before. And so that, that was the idea of theonomy. And one of the, you know, one of the critiques that I would have of it is it terribly confuses. I mean, if I, my, my fundamental critique of theonomy would be this, and I want to answer your question about how severe the laws were, but my greatest concern with it. Is that it blends the two kingdoms. So theonomist will say, this will say, uh, not all of them were this consistent. Some of them today don't aren't Orthodox on justification, but many are, and they'll say, okay, we're justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. But then they, but then they turn around and they say, but your good works of. Of implementing the law of God and society and, and bringing about temporal change to build the new Jerusalem, they, they are actually constructing the kingdom. So with, on the one hand, you have justification by grace alone through faith alone. On the other hand, you have, you have to work to achieve the kingdom of God on earth. But I would submit that what they, that what they're giving with one hand. They're taking away with the other. So this is a form of legalism because what is justification? It is that you have a right and title to life and God gives it to you for free. What Adam failed to do in the garden, Christ completely accomplished in the covenant of redemption. and and so what is given to us exactly in justification, what is the right and title to life? If it's not the kingdom. I mean, we're told Jesus says it is a father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. You see, and so they're misunderstanding what justification is, because justification is the free gift of the fullness of the kingdom of God, apart from works. Jesus builds the kingdom, not you. And this, this is my great concern with theonomic post millennial reconstructionism is that we're building the kingdom. You know, and they'll say, well, we believe in means we're Calvinists. We believe that we should use means and, and, you know, that, uh, we work and God works and we're working together and so forth, but they're misunderstanding that God uses only one means to build his kingdom. And that's, that is his word, the law and the gospel. Preached Christ preached, and then God does all the work. And so preaching isn't work. It's just proclamation. It's not, it's not in that sense. Good works. And our preaching don't doesn't construct the kingdom because it is totally ineffective apart from God's blessing upon it. Right. And so, That's what Luther said. He said, we drank beer while God toppled the whole papacy. You know, all I did was write books and, and, and preach and, you know, and, and the Lord did all the rest, right? That's how the kingdom grows is through the preaching of the word. When the spirit adds his blessing, not through our works to construct the kingdom of God. So my great concern is it loses a gospel and it missed it. So fundamentally misunderstands, uh, the gospel of grace and Jesus Christ. It's a big problem at that level.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 37:46

And, and it's interesting. I've, I've not heard that critique before, but it's really. It really is a problem. What, one that I have heard before, which really touches on, on what you're saying there is that just as much as it really means that we end up doing the work that Christ will do, and that will be all of grace. We also, within their view, end up doing the work that Adam failed to do. And so Christ has completely fulfilled and accomplished, um, this idea that If we really are doing kingdom building and we're, we're, then we're ultimately doing Adam's work and they love to talk, for example, you know, a lot of these people about creation mandates, about this is really our, our marching orders. Uh, and yet within our understanding of Adam and Christ, Jesus Christ has just gloriously, um, eclipsed Adam's whole work and he's applied it to us, but he hasn't applied it to us, uh, so that we go around, you know, almost doing the work that Adam failed to do. So it's interesting seeing almost the, the two sides of the same coin there, or almost like Joseph in

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 39:10

Absolutely. I think you just nailed it. You know, there, there are basically two perspectives and everything has to do with a garden, uh, on this. And so the, the, the theonomist will say, uh, that Adam was supposed to build the kingdom of God. And we would agree with that and Adam failed and we would agree with that. But then the theonomist says that in Christ by grace, because of the cross that you Can cooperate with Jesus under grace by grace to build his kingdom. That's the theonomic perspective, but the classical reform perspective and the biblical one that's in Romans five and all through the scriptures, Corinthians and so forth is that Adam was supposed to work to achieve, achieve life and the kingdom of God on earth. He failed. But Jesus came and he completely accomplished what Adam failed to do. And he gives it to us by free grace, which we received by faith. That's the reform perspective. So it's, it's, uh, it's, it's, uh, it's again, it's a blending of law and gospel. It's a misunderstanding of the relationship between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. And it, and it, uh, it really lays a heavy burden. On practically just pastorally on God's people to say, it's, it's your job to construct the kingdom. Adam failed to with Jesus. And you have, you have all you need, you know, you have the spirit, you have grace, so go get to kingdom building. What's wrong with you? You know?

Jonny Woodrow: 40:49

that, that, that idea that, that if you burden a church with, I know churches have sort of set themselves up with the phrase, um, with the mission statement, blessing the city, working for the good of the city. Um, and what they, what they hope to do is sort of revitalize businesses and, um, and take the gospel there. But it is, it does have that restoring culture kind of, uh, kind of idea. That makes your average pastor have to also be some kind of business entrepreneur and the, um, and the skillset required and some, some sort of social engineer of, of, of some sort. I know this because of, you know, I was, was. of that persuasion for some years until I realized that it sort of, uh, ran your congregation into the ground and wasn't biblical. Um, so I speak from some experience on it, but, um, but the idea that, that you find it, that the experience of it, when you keep going, but it's for Jesus, for Jesus, uh, is actually quite oppressive. Then the connection to the, the idea that if you actually lived under the Theon system and jumped back under the, um, I think I once heard somebody say that. I know they don't all buy into this, but, uh, the good news is that the Gentiles get to live under the Jewish law, which of course isn't. You know, I, I think I, I watched some early, the kind of panel and somebody say that, what that was some time ago. Um, tell us a little bit about. The, the, the, the oppressive nature of of holiness, pressing in on unbelievers. Um, and that forging them into a people who carried the promise. But, but that we underestimate that, don't we?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 42:45

absolutely. Before I say that I was going to mention, I did, I did find who said, um, who said, talked about coercive re enchantment. That was Crawford Gribben and he wrote a book survival and resistance in evangelical America, which is all about Doug Wilson's Moscow, Idaho, and that whole Uh, Pacific Northwest of the United States where they're trying to establish a beachhead. Uh, and there's huge migration going on in America. I say huge, it's picking up, uh, toward that area of conservative Christians. And really it's kind of a theonomic reconstructionist. Paradise that they're trying to build as a beachhead to take back America. And the end, they believe that if they build that right up there, that when everything collapses and they believe kind of part of this is this, it's a catastrophic view of the immediate future, that they will be the ones that can basically survive and build it back, uh, with, uh, with God's law. So I guess

Jonny Woodrow: 43:46

Oh, I don't know. How many times have we heard of people forming communities off in the woods to be the final people who will, who everyone will turn to? I actually, I, I had thought about, um, um, I, I did hear an interview with Doug Wilson, um, on, on a podcast where he was saying that history will show that we are the early church. Which suggests, so in other words, we suggested to me. He's not optimistic for the immediate future. I found that statement really depressing because I'm like, calm Lord Jesus. But because so on the tie, if you take the view that the golden age is coming and you look and you're at the center of it and look around, the signs aren't great, are they? So you're, you're hoping the timetable is going to run a bit longer and you're sort of early doors, which

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 44:34

right.

Jonny Woodrow: 44:35

I thought it was an

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 44:35

I'm with you.

Jonny Woodrow: 44:37

I'm like, Yeah, not hold off because I've got, I've got a plan for four more schools and um, and

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 44:43

You don't have time to build a kingdom before

Jonny Woodrow: 44:45

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but, uh,

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 44:49

But back to your question, which is about the, the severity of the old covenant law. You know, the, the book of Acts says it was a, it was a yoke that was grievous to be born. It was a heavy burden, uh, to, to the people of Israel. So the way to understand this is the old covenant law was never ever given for the purpose of simply governing a nation. It was. given, uh, to a holy nation. It was given for a unique purpose. Part of it was to just regulate this, that particular ancient near Eastern culture in light of some of their foibles and sins, really. Uh, I mean, one thing I point out before pointing out the severity of the law, which it was very severe. Um, it didn't restrict things like polygamy, even though they were a sin. In fact, it just regulated polygamy, you know? And so I don't know, I still haven't gotten a clear answer from a theonomist. What, what he would say to that, should we legalize polygamy and just regulate it in our country, because that was that then the, the thing to show there is that. The judicial law, the old covenant was not attempting to bring about national holiness. It was attempting to regulate a people in light of who they actually were and where they lived and for the, and to the purpose for which he had, he had chosen them. You see? Um, so that's one point is there's a sense in which it was, uh, more relaxed than our law, which still doesn't. Permanent polygamy on, on the other hand, it was very harsh so that, I mean, there's, there's a passage in Deuteronomy, which says that if someone is, is preaching heresy is teaching a false God or leading people away in a city after idols, then an inquiry is to be made. And after two or three witnesses confirm that this, this heretic has been doing his work, you're to kill everyone in the city, burn the whole thing to the ground. As a, as a whole burnt offering to God, I mean, that was a, that was a judicial law for hair. It was for simply spreading, uh, idolatrous heretical types of teaching. I mean, what would we, what would that do in our

Jonny Woodrow: 47:04

Well, you wouldn't want to

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 47:05

know, every city would

Jonny Woodrow: 47:06

Idaho if you got the gospel wrong, would you?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 47:11

true.

Jonny Woodrow: 47:11

that chapter!

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 47:14

But the, yeah, the severe penalties of the old covenant were totally just because what we all deserve is hell and God can impose any penalty upon us that he wants. And this is God's law. But what he was doing was he was giving us a type of hell. And you can see this somewhat in, in Hebrews 10 where, uh, the writer of the Hebrews, I think Paul, but that's another. Question. He points back and he says, look, if, if, if, uh, under the law of Moses, you died on the witness of two or three, after the testimony of two or three witnesses, how much more severe punishment do you think you'll deserve for denying Christ, which is ultimately hell. And so the new Testament seems to link all the. the. lavish use of the death penalty in the Old Testament to a type of hell, just like the New Testament again in Hebrews chapter 12 links Mount Zion to the gospel, Mount Sinai to the law, and so the Old Testament is preaching through its laws. It is a type of greater realities. That's why it's a holy nation is pointing to something beyond itself. Uh, uh, that is more real than the nation that is more real than the laws of those nation. God is revealing himself and his purposes through that nation. Another thing that he's doing is he is. Preserving the line of, of the promised seed. So when God made a promise to Abraham of a seed that would come that, that nation had to be preserved and not destroy itself or be absorbed into the other nations in order for God to keep his promise. And so he gave very strict laws to chase in that people until the coming of Christ. And we know that's what he was doing because, because. Really, all he ended up finally preserving of the nation in the end was just the tribe of Judah. All the other tribes were pretty much lost. And he kept that one because he was preserving, uh, Christ, who was, who was the lion of the tribe of Judah. And that was the ultimate purpose of the nation of Israel was to be a protective cap capsule, uh, for the seed of Israel. It was a, it was in a sense, uh, the old covenant and the people of Israel were the womb through which Christ came, that was the purpose of it. And so if we don't read it in those terms, it is revelatory of law and gospel at the typological level and that it is. preservative of the promised one, then we're misreading the purpose of the old covenant. It was never given in the first place to be some blueprint for all societies. It was given for particular reasons that God has revealed to us.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 50:09

Do, do theonomists, or I know they take, lots take different perspectives, but, uh, would theonomists of different perspectives have, for example, a justification for their view, which draws on biblical theology, or would you say that would actually be a weakness? Because it sounds to me like, really, if you understand the scriptures as, The progressive kind of unfolding of God's great purposes and plans and revelation, then it's really clear that Israel is, uh, really has the seed, which will come and crush the head of the serpent. They're almost pregnant with the Messiah to an extent. And then that's greatly fulfilled. All of, uh, the judicial laws are all understood in, in that context of biblical theology of unfolding. Do, do theonomists almost draw on biblical theology to justify their views or would you say it's actually a weakness, uh, in some way that they do better to draw on it, uh, and it would really better their position?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 51:20

No, I think you're, what you're getting at here is the fundamental issue. And that is how you read the Bible. It's a question of hermeneutics. And so theonomists, you know, without question, they would affirm the same hermeneutic we do formally. And I just like they'd affirm justification by faith alone formally, and then take it away with their other hand here. They affirm the reformed hermeneutic of new Testament priority. They would say that. But practically speaking, they are reading. When they read the Bible, they're reading the, the old Testament into the new, and they're really blending them more than allowing the new, allowing the new Testament to make the distinctions that it makes. Uh, they, uh, they kind of foist the old upon the new and, uh, they, they, That's their, that is their error is that they are simultaneously christianizing the old covenant or, um, making it into the new covenant and they're making the new covenant more like the old and, uh, but, but with a dash of new testament priorities. So I'm not, if you read their stuff, you'll still see them saying, we need to read this in light of the new, um, to be clear. And yet, you know, they are practically blending the covenants together, which is consistent with what. Presbyterians do, you know, anyway, is pedo Baptists will tend to see that there's only one covenant variously administered. And then they debate among themselves about continuity and discontinuity. And, and I have heard something similar to the kinds of arguments that I hear for pedo baptism coming out of the onomists, you know, the pedo pedo Baptist will say, well, um, God included the Children in the Old Covenant. Every male among you shall be circumcised. He never said it's done away with in the new, and therefore it should continue, which I would dispute that he didn't say it was done away with. That's that's the way they argue. And theonomists are very similar says, you know, Jesus says not a jot or tittle will pass from the law. Well, what law? That's the whole law. That's the, that's the judicial law. And where did Christ ever abrogate the quote judicial law? He didn't, it was only the ceremonial law in Hebrews that's abrogated. So that's how the theonomist would argue is, is much like, much like pato baptists argue for pato baptism because the new testament, it continues unless it's, unless it is expressly done away with by the new testament.

Jonny Woodrow: 53:51

Who, who have you, uh, have you got any recommendations for reading or particularly on some of that, um, uh, noting the, the, um, uh, the, the punishment and the severity of the law under the, under the old covenant as a, as a type of, uh, punish hell punishment to come those sorts of themes. Is anyone written well on those kinds of things?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 54:19

Yes. Um, I, I really like Verne Poythress on this. He has the law of Moses. I think it's called

Jonny Woodrow: 54:26

Oh yeah. Yeah.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 54:29

That's, that's a good book. Now he's kind of friendly to theonomy. He really is, but he critiques it. And if, if theonomist had gone his direction, it would be in a much better shape today, but he points that out. Um, or in Poythress, I don't agree with Poythress on a lot of stuff. Okay. But on the question you're asking, he actually deals with it. Another, just a reformed Baptist brother who I know, you know, Brandon Adams has some good stuff on this and he'll point you to other resources as well. You can find. You can find this stuff through him. Um, yeah, so that,

Jonny Woodrow: 55:08

what got you, um, what put Theonomy on your, on your plate to deal with? It was a couple of years ago you did, uh, a few podcasts on it. Was there something, well, what provoked it?

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 55:24

well, I never dreamed that I would be somebody talking about theonomy on podcasts. You know, it was never anything I or two or, you know, It's just in God's providence has worked out that way. It's not, it's not any kind of hobby horse, frankly, that I have. It's not something I really just love to think about or do necessarily. I think it's interesting, but, but, uh, uh, my, my area of, of, uh, the thing that I love is just thinking about. Law and gospel and Jesus and the sanctification of God's people and, um, in the church. And so how to exhort Christians to grow in, in faith in Christ and so forth, that that's where my heart is as a pastor. But what I noticed was in the public square of social media, a lot of Baptists were concerned about the social situation. That we see today and theonomy was kind of giving them a simplistic ready made answer and handed it to them on a silver platter and Baptists were reformed. Calvinistic Baptists were biting into it thinking that this was reformed and, uh, and that, that kind of disturbed me where I saw, you know, you had theonomic reconstructionists on the one hand, and then you had, you know, Baptists on the other and you have Presbyterians in the mixed and they're all clumping together and, and, uh, trying to fight the culture war together. And my concern, the reason I wanted to address it at all was I really believed that the gospel itself. Was being lost that the gospel was turned into, you know, we're given God's law to build his kingdom. Jesus died for our sins so we can have God's law and build his kingdom. And, and, uh, it really bothered me. And so I wanted to, I wanted especially to address our Baptist brothers, uh, and encourage them that we don't need to go that direction. That's why I got involved. I

Jonny Woodrow: 57:35

that, how's that going? What I mean is, um, uh, uh, you like, yeah. And, and then it's not an issue now. Solve that one couple of years ago. Why are you Brits asking me about it? Or, uh, uh, because I, I see the, you know, we're, I say this on a number of these podcasts. We are under the American empire and these ideas are particularly as people start to feel, um, Uh, politically homeless and, uh, concerned about big ideas and shifts in culture and things like that. Um, and some of the guys from a theonomic background or influenced by that have done some thinking about they're like lawyers looking through the Old Testament texts. And sometimes can join up some things and do some interesting analysis of, of some things. So it's becoming, uh, it, it, it, it. It's coming over a little bit. I think, uh, I think we're starting to bump into it in various ways. That's one of the reasons I kind of quite interested in, in, um, in, in addressing it, but, um, uh, but it's, it's still a live topic, um, where you are.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 58:48

think it is, uh, it's shifted the, the, the terminology, I think the theonomists have generally abandoned that word to you in public discourse privately. They probably still say they're a theonomist, but It's turned more toward Christian nationalism That's become the discussed today, but you know, the, the big talking heads, the, the ones that are influencing my country and then secondarily yours, as best I can tell are figures like Doug Wilson. And Jeff Durbin, uh, those are probably James White to some degree, because he has kind of thrown his hat in with some version of theonomy and, and, and so forth. And, and so those, those. Those are all together and that's the influence right there. So how's it going? Um, I think there's more clarity than there was for which I'm thankful. And I'm, I'm seeing that, but I also think there's, I mean, it's all the way in England now, right? And it's, it's in Australia. And as I talked to others, it's spread. And so there, there has been a real influence. Uh, I heard from some brothers who were involved in nine marks. I don't know if you're familiar with the nine marks ministries with Mark Dever. That's a Southern Baptist ministry out of Washington, D. C. Capitol Hill Baptist Church is where Mark Dever is. But a lot of pastors in the, and, and nine marks friendly churches, which are, you know, broadly Calvinistic, uh, very churchly, uh, have been influenced by. this theology. And so somehow it is seeping in everywhere and pastors are, are, being affected by it in traditions where they certainly shouldn't be. So, um,

Jonny Woodrow: 1:00:39

Yeah.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 1:00:40

I think the spread at the same time, there's become greater clarity. Both things are

Jonny Woodrow: 1:00:44

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. As, as usually happens and, and ideas don't stand still, do they? Because they run into, uh, realities and have to, and, and in the course of debate, get, get refined and shaped and, and things like that. Um, and okay. That's fascinating. Wow.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 1:01:05

I picked up this book off the shelf because we just have got this. Can you see that? Ernie Reisinger, The Law and the Gospel. Um, and we've just added this to our bookshop. Um, and yeah, there are a couple of good books on the law and the gospel. There's this one. There's that one that RHB, uh, pushing at the moment, but. Yeah, I don't know if you read this, Tom, whether you'd recommend it or

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 1:01:33

I would it's excellent. I love that book. Um, Ernie Reisinger did a great job there. Um, the other 1 that I would recommend as a companion would be, um. The one that RHB is pushing and is actually in the States is it's available for free right now. You can get up to like 10 copies for free. So I don't know if you can get it that way and the UK or not, but, but uh, it's called, uh,

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 1:02:00

it's, it's a big postage bill.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 1:02:03

Okay, so it's free, but you got to pay the postage. Um, but it's called a treatise on the law and the gospel by John Cahoon. And his last name is spelled like Cole Quahoon, but it's, it's pronounced Cahoon. And, uh, that's excellent. So, um, Ernie's book does a good basic treatment of it and and uses the text of scripture to show you that it's in there, though There is a law gospel distinction in the scriptures But uh, the other one John Cahoon's book helps to frame it in terms of the Reformed Covenantal theology which is to me just Invaluable. It's so important to see law and gospel in relation to the covenants of the Bible and classical reform theology. So, and, and avoiding errors like legalism and antinomianism by getting this correct. So

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 1:02:58

that's it because it seems like from, from everything you've said, uh, in this discussion, ultimately the practical damage that is done. In terms of applying this, uh, view of theonomy to church life, to the ministry, to the individual, uh, Christians and how they're to relate to people in their marriages and, uh, relate to their children in the workplace. It seems like it all boils down to basically just removing the gospel and inserting the law. Uh, and it's no surprise that saying that actually, it comes to mind that, that. Type of justification that Doug Wilson has ascribed to and pushed in the past. It is similar to Richard Baxter's neonomianism. And it, it seems like it's just sure different ideas and different names, but the same old problem of not applying. Um, what was, I think it was Daniel Rowland. It was a Welsh Calvinistic Methodist preacher called it the, the balm of Gilead was basically just the gospel. Like there's, there's no need to, to apply the law so much that people are just actually wounded. And then not giving them the gospel that they need that balm, which actually heals them.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 1:04:21

Amen. Amen. Yeah. And I, and I would, I would put an exclamation point on that and just add and say that when we start calling the law the gospel, or, or we, uh, we say that, that, your end in life above all is to keep the law, to, to fulfill, to build the kingdom of God on earth. The way that the Theonomist do, it really has the effect of, of turning you back to yourself. Doesn't it? It's a distraction from Jesus. And so you become the answer for the world. You know, it puts me in the position of, of a Christ. Actually, I am going to save the world, me and my brethren, you know, and, and, uh, and it takes my eyes off of. Off of my savior. And it, and it, and it disrupts faithful worship. And so that's my concern is it directs our faith back to us in the end, instead of setting our faith upon, uh, upon the Lord Jesus himself. And, uh, there's, there's this other little element we haven't talked about yet, but that's in, it's in these circles, the old family integrated movement. Is very associated, the old one with these kinds of things. And essentially the Christian man becomes the answer to everything. So, you know, you're converted as a man, as a, as a husband, as a father, and your, your job in their terminology is to subdue the earth. That's what sanctification is. It is end oriented, doing good works to implement the law, to subdue the earth. And if I do what I'm supposed to do, you know, My world can be subdued. And so Christian men need to subdue their wives, subdue their children, subdue their churches and subdue their nation. And it's very individualistic. That's a very American way to think, you know, in a way, cause it's wild west. You know, the, the he's, he's a. You know, he's a man and you know, he's his own man and he, he can do it, you know, um, and it's, it's the worst of what American America represents really is it's a, it's a very, I think it's a very proud self centered. I can achieve this instead of a God centered, Christ centered, gospel centered. Um, biblical theology, which would say, yes, we keep the commandments of God, but the effect of our obedience is still in the hands of God. No matter what, no matter what happens, we, we trust the Lord. We submit to him. We believe that we're righteous by grace through faith. And then we keep his commandments. Under grace, but we don't control the actual outcomes. We can pray for them, but we leave them in his hands and he does what he pleases. It might bring suffering. It might bring greater hardship as it often did in the new Testament. It might not have the effect of improving your home. You know, if you're a faithful Christian man in your home, it might have the opposite effect. You know, that's in God's hands, but we pray and we, and we don't think that we're the ones in control. And so at the end of the day, that's, that's a, that's a concern for me as a kind of Says that we can control our world and, and it's, and it's by our works and implementing God's law that we can achieve the kind of world that we would like to live in. You know, probably I can, I wanna be careful and say, I don't think anyone would say yes. I totally agree with what Pastor Tom just said there. You know, I, so there's a sense of which you could say maybe I'm cur. Curricaturing this, but I see elements of these things. They wouldn't put it quite that way, but that's a trajectory that I see that really, really bothers me in the, in these movements.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 1:08:04

It's interesting. You just connected a few things in my head that I'd never seen. I'd never seen them linked before. Do you think this is the reason for the fascination with. Homesteading almost as a Christian discipline.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 1:08:22

Yeah, I think, I think so. Another again, there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with homesteading, but, but there is this kind of an idealistic view of of all kinds of things connected, you know, it's it, it is homeschooling. We homeschool, it's homesteading, you know, it's, it's, you know. It's home. It's, it's the classical, you know, ideal of, you know, 1950s America, uh, reborn and that that's the answer to everything. And that you bring up another point and that things like this, that, that are really matters of Christian Liberty and choice under, you know, wisdom under God's law, become the law. You know, and, and so you have a lot of theonomists, you know, we talked earlier about idealism and coming out of bigger biblical principles, but, but the answer they'll, they'll say is God's law on the one hand for society. On the other hand, there's a lot of practical wisdom kinds of things that get imposed as you have to live this way, uh, if you're going to be a faithful Christian. And so they're, they're not really even insisting strictly upon God's law. They're going well beyond it. And. It's more of a cultural re appropriation than it is, uh, than it is the word of God. So

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 1:09:37

It's interesting.

Jonny Woodrow: 1:09:38

That, that has connected a whole bunch of stuff up. Uh, yeah. Gosh, there's lots. Lots there that I, I, I, I'd like to like to go after, um, I mean, cause it, there is a parallel in, in, in the non Christian world, there's, there's a power and it's coming from America as well. Whatever one thinks of Jordan Peterson, one of the things he's doing is a version of. Common man, men be men. And, um, uh, as, as a, you know, the, and there's always some homespun helpful, you know, before you go out protesting, make sure your bedroom's tidy. These sorts of things, like, you know, before you go out and tell people how to live your life, live their lives, then you ought to just, just take care of yourself in some kind of way. Um, but these things come around generationally, don't they? The, the, uh, you keep your corner of the world tidy, and somehow, and on these principles, and it's usually some recovery of manhood. Um, Uh, from the usual suspects of feminism, um, or a kind of, um, you know, the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which, and, and, and that, that book that was produced, but then actually on, it's not lasted well because you look at it, the theology, it, it, it's. It's theology proper. It's doctrine of God is all skew with and the thing contradicts itself as you go through. But that was like, what, 20, 30 years ago a recovery of manhood or something like that. Or then there's the Mark Driscoll kind of, um, uh, you go to Driscoll's church, and he would teach you to be A man again, and there are these, there's something about how it's countercultural and now they're scratching at something, so don't want to dismiss what they're scratching at, because there are ways in which our culture undermines those things, but it's Trojan horse, I mean, it's, it's Mel Weaning, well, Mel Weaning, well meaning, it's been a long day, it's well meaning, Mel Weaning, um, But, uh, but it is, it is Trojan horse, uh, particularly on the law and gospel thing, and we'll lead a church, especially when you end up with very pragmatic, the growth of pragmatic churchmanship to heavy shepherding, to pastors getting in your face about how are you, how are you homesteading or are you not, uh, and this isn't, this isn't going to go well. And actually with those, if folks are taking that view, if they did end up as the local mayor. All the local magistrate, look out. Frankly, it looks quite

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 1:12:36

Amen. It very much does.

Jonny Woodrow: 1:12:43

Well, I, I don't know, I don't know if you've got any more questions, uh, uh, John Mark, but I, I was feeling like that, that, that's quite a good place to finish, unless you've got something else to go after, because there's,

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 1:12:53

No, I'm, I'm ready to round up. I think there's definitely more to discuss in the future. So maybe we can, uh, invite Tom back into the coffee house at some point, or even better, uh, we can book him in to come to the UK teaching, uh, for IRBS, maybe you can come and teach soteriology in 2025. Five. Maybe in, in the UK and then we can do it in a real coffee house, uh, with real coffee. Uh, now that, that would

Jonny Woodrow: 1:13:26

Yeah, and, and, I, we, we want to get you on your, on, on, on your favourite topic. Soteriology, uh, the work of Christ and, um, yeah, yeah, yeah. That'd be great.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 1:13:42

yeah. Well,

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 1:13:44

You brothers so much blessing to be here with you. I really enjoyed the fellowship.

Jonny Woodrow: 1:13:48

Oh, it's been great to meet you, Tom. Um, I haven't met you before, but, uh, I've watched your stuff online and, um, uh, it's been great to have a conversation. Um, technology is wonderful, isn't it? I know we had all sorts of technical hitches at the beginning, but, uh, I really enjoyed this time. Um, uh, and just, just, yeah, yeah. It's been, I've got all sorts of thoughts coming out of it. My brain is fizzing. It's been wonderful. Thank you.

tom-hicks_2_03-14-2024_111109: 1:14:13

Thank you brothers.

john-mark_3_03-14-2024_161110: 1:14:15

yeah, it's been a time of blessing. So yeah, I hope that for all of you who've tuned in, you've learned something today. Uh, and, uh, if you have any questions from it, please send them in. Uh, next time that we speak to Tom, we can. Ask them to him and we can bat the ideas around. Uh, I just hope that, uh, this will have been a blessing this episode. Uh, and please go to brokenwharf. com to find out more. You can go to our bookshop and you can get a copy of, uh, this early writing a book, the law and the gospel. We sell it for about 12 and in the UK, about 12 pounds, uh, and go to, we'll put the link in the show notes also, uh, that RHB. Book on the law and the gospel, dig into these things and just see how, how wonderfully liberating the gospel is, uh, in so many ways, not liberating us to sin, but actually, uh, away from it, freeing us from, uh, his clutches and finding liberty in Christ. Thanks again and bye for now.

Jonny Woodrow: 1:15:20

Bye bye.