Theocratic Blasphemy Laws: A Florilegium of Prudential Observations | Doug Wilson

preview_player
Показать описание
Over the last week or so a discussion broke out over my contention in Mere Christendom that while blasphemy laws are inescapable, and that while Christians should be laboring to see that our society upholds the first table of the law as well as the second, we should make sure that we restrain the biggest blasphemer first. That perennial blasphemer, as I argued in my book, is the state. We should topple Nebuchadnezzar’s statue first, and after we are confident that the central offender is suitably chastened, we may then move on to the pressing question of what to do about the rantings of the village atheist.

Until we know how to restrain the institution most given over to blasphemy, we are not to be entrust that institution with the power of coercion over private citizens. Prior to Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance, he ought not to have plenipotentiary power to whack blasphemers—because the smart money is that he will whack the ones who didn’t bow down to his statue.

Make no mistake—righteous blasphemy laws would have to apply to private citizens at some point. This would mean they would have to be applied with a judicious prudence, as Stephen Wolfe would argue, and not with any kind of blinkered torquemadian zeal. But make no mistake on the follow up point also. The one enforcing the law needs to be in a position to cast the first non-hypocritical stone (John 8:3-11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). This is not me waffling on the rigors of theocracy. It is one of the requirements of theocracy. The standards must be applied to the enforcers of standards first. Christians must never forget that our faith is founded on the historical fact of a misbegotten blasphemy conviction.

Doug Wilson's Blog & Mablog video is presented by Canon Press.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I’d like to see Doug discuss the conservative bandwagon that supports Vivek Ramaswamy for his “family values” despite his pagan Hinduism. Any thoughts Doug?

mosesking
Автор

Pastor Doug! You used a Dickensian adjective! Wonderful 😊

lindamock
Автор

Moscow Idaho knows a little something about being arrested for wrong think.

shannonbalmes
Автор

I did not expect to hear a rejection of the Botez Gambit in this.

Sarutaru
Автор

florilegium
/ˌflôrəˈlējēəm/
noun
a collection of literary extracts; an anthology.

colton
Автор

Well, a revival making this possible is preferential to the other possible alternative I see in scripture. It may be that God brings down the curses with such severity that the godly alone escape to inherit the earth. I wonder as I watch the fruit of humanism killing it’s partakers and leaving them without seed to propagate, which way will God fill the earth with the knowledge of the LORD.

matthewsheffer
Автор

I don’t understand the distinction between liberty of conscience and religious liberty, after all, what will inform a person’s conscience other than their religion. I think a lot of mischief has been done in the name of liberty of conscience and this too is something we will need to discard if we are to move forward.

There are certain things people are obligated to believe, and when they start questioning or challenging them in the name of liberty of conscience a lot of damage can be done.

puritanbob
Автор

FYI in case you haven’t seen it, James Lindsey just did a full speech against Wolfe and Christian nationalism.

Don’t know if it’s worth a reaction or a public or private meeting on the issue.

Globeguy
Автор

Appreciate your commentary.

It is an interesting situation where we find ourselves. Power is a massively addictive drug, and the trick is to try to find those who are capable of handling the drug. That isn't easy because of what you can do with power.

But what I genuinely find funny and yet odd at the same time is that the ones who shout loudly against the idea of a, shall I call it, "Christian totalitarianism, " are almost always the same people who have no problem with an "atheistic totalitarianism." We hear many people condemn those like you who want more biblical principles enforced in government, but where is their criticism of men like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao?

All totalitarianism is bad, but some is worse than others, I guess.

This seems to go back to something you said in a previous commentary- all governments are theocratic, it's just an issue of who/what the "theos" is. If it is MY "theos, " then no problem. We Christians have fallen for the same attitude when it comes to some, if not much, but not all, of our support for the Orange Man. If the "progressives" can have their authoritarian, why can't we?

And your overarching point is spot-on- we cannot entrust blasphemy laws to blasphemers. Nebuchadnezzar must repent or be removed first, or we will find ourselves on the receiving end of those laws. But how do we get Nebuchadnezzar to repent or resign, and how do we stop other Nebuchadnezzar wanna-bes from taking his place?

I really don't know.

Sorry I was so long. I hope I made sense, even if you disagree with me or think I'm a total idiot.

DaDitka
Автор

Wolfe and Doug Wilson should riddle us this: how did all work out during the Salem Witch Trials by the puritans?

diefenbakersown
Автор

I think the proper way to approach blasphemy is shame: no law against it, but a culture that shuns and shames people who do so. We cannot expect the unsaved to behave any other way than unsaved.

christophertaylor
Автор

Servetus was willing to die because he believed in monotheism. He was a martyr, not a bad actor.

faturechi
Автор

To say Christ preached Calvinism it's blasphemy. I know you meant to be witty but it's insulting to the Majesty honor and glory of the king of kings.
Repentance begins at home.

Mrreal
Автор

Doug's 5 steps of incremental sins in order to apply the Law of God. This is not how it works. There's some reason why Doug keeps saying, "not yet, not yet."

JR-rsqs
Автор

Yep, Doug is a pietist now. Give me back 2016 DW.

JR-rsqs
Автор

Measured and prudent it's not what I've seen from the Calvinist movement. Rather "stage cage Calvinism", "stealth Calvinism", and sadly, in general, the people I witness to treating me better than the Calvinists I talk theology with. So, I don't have confidence in you all pulling this off. At this point, I just hope you don't sabotage the Right the way Calvinists did when you "saved" the SBC from liberalism by taking down conservatives and shifting it to the Left. Maybe a start for your Theonomy would be Calvinists being an exemplar of the fruit of the spirit and not the works of the flesh (Proverbs 16:32)? 

I mean, it's common for Calvinists to call any Christian who disagrees with them heretics and idolaters… So what are we to think would happen when you have the power to do something about all these "heretics and idolaters" in a theocracy?

paulchamberlain
Автор

The title of the video showed me you are trying to reach a certain type of Christian, Doug.

chrismachin