Why John Locke’s Conception Of “Natural Law” Is Horribly Unbiblical

John Locke is the father of Liberalism. AKA: John Locke is the father of Lawlessness. And America has been paying the price ever since he first coined his lawless ideas. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more content like this!

*Join us for our RIGHT RESPONSE CONFERENCE: “Theonomy & Postmillennialism”
May 5-7, 2023 | Georgetown, TX
SPEAKERS: Dr. James White, Gary DeMar, Dr. Joe Boot, and Pastor Joel Webbon


#naturallaw #johnlocke #liberalism
____________________________________
Keywords: theology, reformed theology, preaching, sermon clip, sermon, preach, the gospel, Christianity, Christian, reformed, preaching clip

[TheMaineSurveyor]

I recently read Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Before reading, I thought it would be based in secular, humanistic ideas. I was wrong. Locke used one source to support all of his arguments: the Bible. His arguments, his understanding of the Scriptures, and his logic are all very well presented. His work is a repudiation of absolute human authority, not God's authority; God's sovereign authority is affirmed by Locke.

[decalogueten]

I thought I was unique in thinking that Christians should teach that all countries should legislate Biblical law.
thank you Joel for showing me that I am not. May the Lord Jesus bless your work and ministry

[catherinehazur]

Also, sin always goes public. It NEVER stays in its own lane, it will seek to devour those who reject God's moral law, principles and precepts. No neutral ground for the compromisers. God wants to keep His creation safe, but many prefer to travel on the path that seems to enable them to avoid God, but the end thereof is Death.
Joel's explanation pretty much makes sense.

[danielnoel]

I don't believe that John Locke, were he alive today, would disagree with anything you have said. In fact, I would argue that Locke's philosophy clearly aligns with the idea that moral law is inseparable from the law of God.

[rms-vphf]

The same people that paint our founding as a sort of neo-reformation, are the same people who skip church history to form their own views. Thank you for speaking on this. Far to many of us cherry pick quotes to support our autonomous world view free from the light of scripture.

[JonathanSaxon]

Wait a minute, no Locke no revolution are you coming out against 1776?

[mrhumble]

Worst presentation of Locke I have ever seen

[theverylovelychannel]

At the end of video - he nominates that we should be able to separate the difference from moral, civil and ceremonial - which also the WCF affirms. Question: has anyone ever seen a thorough division of the categories? For example - which bits in the book of Deuteronomy are moral, civil, ceremonial? I keep looking - yet where is the list of commands - particularly for the first 5 books of the Bible?

[josephbrandenburg]

Pluralism should be avoided, not because of the blatantly false and utterly ridiculous reasons you give here (seemingly without having thought much about it), but because it doesn't work (that is, purely for pragmatic reasons).

[josephbrandenburg]

John 15:22 "
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. But they no longer have any excuse for their sin."

I don't think you're right about this. Especially since your picture of God is all distorted. He seeks and saves the lost. He doesn't want any to perish, but all to come to repentence. He leaves the 99 for the sake of the one lost sheep. But you have him staying with the 99 in spite of the lost sheep. Read your Bible! The picture of God you're creating is a monster.