Chris Matthews questions if postmillennialism is necessary for theonomy, but the response clarifies that eschatology ranks lower than practical obedience to God's law. The speaker defines theonomy as applying eternal moral laws, like the Ten Commandments, to all society under divine authority rather than human autonomy. While specific civil laws given to Israel are abrogated, their general equity remains relevant today. Ultimately, prioritizing Christ's law over speculative end-times views proves one can be theonomic without being postmillennial, challenging the idea that Christian magistrates must legislate God's law only if they believe in a postmillennial future. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Sharpening Theology Through Heresy00:04:45
Hey guys, real quick before we get started, I have a small request.
If you've been blessed by our content and you like this show, would you take just a brief moment and leave us a five star review?
This is quite possibly the most effective thing that you can do to ensure that this content gets out to as many people as possible.
Thanks.
Chris Matthews writes this Could you speak to the relationship between post millennialism and theonomy?
I see the appropriateness of desiring to So, great question.
Basically, can you be theonomic without being post millennial?
And so I appreciate the question.
Thank you, Chris Matthews, for writing in.
This is what I would say.
First, I want to simply say I'm encouraged that it sounds like the Emphasis that you're giving in your question is to theonomy.
And I think that this is right.
I think that it is biblically right.
What we have for centuries and centuries within church history is not a lot of, at least in the major historic creeds and confessions, no major consensus or specificity in regards to eschatology.
And that was intentional.
What we have to realize is that throughout the last 2,000 years of church history, since the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, we have a progressive sharpening of doctrine throughout church history.
For the first couple centuries, two, three, even four centuries, the church is still just trying to figure out who Jesus is.
They're trying to figure out the hypostatic union.
They're trying to figure out, you know, was Jesus God and what appeared to be flesh was not actually flesh but rather just a hologram or an apparition, right?
Is it Arianism?
Is it Docetism?
You know, there's all these heresies that creep up.
The Eutychian heresy.
The Nestorian heresy, all these have to do with Jesus and particularly regarding the two natures of Christ.
And we believe that what the Bible teaches is that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
He's not God but appearing to be man.
He's not man but appearing to be God.
He's not half God, half man, half man, half God.
That's not what we have going on.
Jesus is fully God and fully man.
So Philippians 2 that talks about him emptying himself, this is where heresies like the Kenosis heresy come into play.
Did he really?
Remove his divine nature?
And we would say no.
He did not count equality with God as something to be grasped.
And what that really translates to is something to be clinged to.
So he was equal with God, is equal with God, always will be equal with God the Father.
But he did not view this equality as something to be clinged to, but rather was willing to humble himself and to take on flesh, to humble and empty himself.
And that emptying is what we would call subtraction by addition.
That he did not actually remove the divine nature, but rather he took upon himself a second nature, namely the human nature.
So it's divinity that is veiled or concealed.
So the divinity doesn't go anywhere, but it is veiled and concealed by his human nature.
So he doesn't substitute the divine nature for the human nature, but rather he adds to the divine nature the human nature that veils and conceals it.
And so it appears to be an emptying, it appears to be a subtraction, but it is subtraction by addition.
Therefore, Jesus is fully God and fully man.
Right?
So I can articulate that.
But we take it for granted, right?
You guys are probably saying, oh, of course, everybody knows that.
Well, yeah, everybody knows that now.
And there are plenty of heretics that still don't know that or they're lying about it.
But for a long time, the church really had to wrestle with this.
And God used heresy, God used providentially, He uses false doctrines as an opportunity in His providence for the church to sharpen, further sharpen its theology and doctrine on these matters.
So my point is progressively, the church has grown in its doctrinal understanding.
And for the first few centuries of the church, They were primarily combating heresies about the Son of God, about his being one person within the Godhead.
So we have one God, three persons, and the second person in the Trinity, namely the Son of God, has two natures, right?
It's a little bit confusing.
Primary vs Secondary Issues00:07:12
It's not exactly simple.
Anybody who says that the Trinity is simple, I would question what they're saying.
The Trinity is not simple.
So one God, three persons within the second person of the Godhead, two natures.
One God, three persons, two natures.
Speaking of Christ.
So it took centuries to iron this out.
And so we don't see a lot of eschatological statements being made by the church throughout church history.
And even as we get further along with the reformers and, you know, in the 1500s, 1600s, the Puritans, certainly they had an eschatology.
Many of the Puritans were post millennial.
They believed that, you know, what they were doing, especially those Puritans that came to America, the covenanters, they viewed the church as a city on a hill.
And some of them viewed America as a city on a hill, that it was going to be a light to the world and show the beauty of God's law when it's actually applied to all of life, and that it would actually be successful.
They weren't just theonomic, but they were post millennial.
So these things start to come out, but still to this day, 2,000 years later, the church is very much divided over eschatology.
And we would say that this is not a primary theological issue.
So that's another thing that we have to take into account theological triage, right?
There are things that Christians must believe, primary issues.
There are things that Christians should believe secondary issues, and there are things that Christians may believe tertiary theological issues.
And so, these things doing theological triage properly is very important.
And if we're trying to place eschatology, whether it be pre mill, and we really have two subcategories there historic premillennialism, and then also dispensational premillennialism, you can find some individuals like Justin Martyr within just the first and second century of the church that held to a historic premillennialism.
So, it would be unfair to say there's no premillennialism in the early church, there was.
But dispensational premillennialism is a modern phenomenon, and I believe that it is absolutely wrong.
A lot of this came out of the Schofield Bible and also just Americans coming back from the First and Second World War and feeling defeated and hopeless, seeing just incredible evil with the Third Reich and all these kinds of things, and feeling like, man, I don't know if things actually are getting better.
So, dispensational premillennialism is a modern phenomenon, but we do have the historic premillennial viewpoint early on in the church.
All millennialism comes a little bit later, but you see that also early on, and you see post millennialism early on, and you see post millennialism have an uptick with the reform tradition, especially the Puritans.
And then, like I said, with really, again, modern history, you see post millennialism kind of go down on the charts as dispensational premillennialism rises, and a lot of that being newspaper exegesis rather than actually biblical exegesis, meaning people were looking at.
Current events and the world wars, and all these kinds of things, and then they were interpreting the Bible in light of those current events, cultural and political events, rather than just looking at the Bible plainly and what it actually says.
So, a little bit of eisegesis there instead of exegesis.
But the point remains whether you're pre mill, all mill, or post mill, all this in terms of theological triage, I would say falls into the secondary category, meaning that all of these positions are still underneath the banner of Christian orthodoxy.
It is not a matter of hell and heaven, it is not a matter of salvation.
Whereas theonomy, while not being a matter of salvation on its face, Right, so salvation, you know, we believe the five solas we're saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and Christ alone, according to the scripture alone, to the glory of God alone.
However, you know, when we look at the book of James, faith without works is dead, faith without works is dead, and that doesn't mean just for the record the difference between Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism, which I would believe is outside of that banner of Christian orthodoxy because there's clear denials of the gospel.
The difference in a nutshell is this the Protestant, well, let's start with the Catholic, the Roman Catholic would say.
Faith plus works equals salvation.
Faith plus works equals salvation.
The Protestant would say that faith equals salvation plus works.
So faith alone is sufficient to save.
We're saved by grace through faith in Christ alone.
But if we're actually saved, the faith that saves, saving faith, is never alone.
So faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone.
It is always accompanied and rather proven, evidenced by a life of good works, right?
So all that being said, Theonomy in that sense, I think, is a bigger, it ranks higher on theological triage than eschatology.
That still doesn't mean theonomy is primary, but you have to understand within theological triage, it's not just like there are three shelves, okay?
Imagine that there's primary, secondary, tertiary, but within each of these major categories, primary, secondary, tertiary, I would say there are multiple shelves.
So, especially within the secondary category, there are things higher on a higher shelf, still secondary, but But also more important than something else that is secondary, right?
So that you could have two theological issues that are both secondary in nature.
So, baptism, right?
Modes of baptism in terms of pedo baptism versus credo baptism, the argument between, you know, Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians.
This is secondary.
It's not tertiary, right?
It's secondary.
It's not primary.
It's not a matter of heaven and hell.
It is secondary.
But I would say that Calvinism, Calvinism and Arminianism, Which is also secondary, ranks higher within the secondary category than baptism.
I think it is theologically and biblically more important that someone be a Calvinist, you know, Calvinist rather than Arminian, than a Credo Baptist rather than Paedo Baptist, if that makes sense.
So both secondary, but still within the secondary category, one higher than the other.
So I would say theonomy and eschatology, likewise, are both within the secondary category.
Neither one is a matter of.
Orthodoxy.
Okay.
But also, neither one I would say is tertiary.
I would say both are secondary.
And I believe that it is theologically and biblically faithful to place theonomy above actually eschatology.
And so, to answer the question in brevity, the answer would be this no, you don't have to be post millennial to be theonomic.
And really, we're going to have to flesh out what it means to be theonomic.
What is theonomy?
And that's one of the other questions I want to get to.
So, we'll wait for just a moment and I'll flesh that out more.
But the way that it was Summed up in Chris Matthews' question.
I thought you did a great job just saying all of Christ for all of life.
Romans, Natural Law, and God00:10:19
That with theonomy, ultimately what we're saying is theonomy, God's law, right?
So theonomy, it's two words being put together theos and nomos, right?
So it's God's law.
And really, the only alternative, the primary alternative, would be autonomy, right?
And so ultimately, it's either the creature and his own individual law, man's law, or it's God's law.
And what we have to recognize is that with most things in life, the question is not whether, but which.
And it's not whether, but which.
Everybody is going to live in line with some law, some set of morality, some standard for morality.
It's either going to be God's standard or it's going to be somebody else's standard, typically man's standard, either the collective society and culture as a whole or you as an individual, your own personal standard.
But it's not a matter of whether, it is a matter of which.
And so, theonomy, we're simply saying God's law.
Is the way that the world should function.
And just for the record, the law of God was not merely given, it's not specific to the church.
It is not specific to Christians.
The basis for God's rights in issuing his law is not the basis of God as Savior, but rather the basis of God as Creator.
Let me say that again.
What is the basis, the foundation that ensures God's rights to deliver his law?
It is the basis of him being Creator, not Savior, because God is Savior of some.
But he is universal creator, creator of all, all creatures, including all image bearing creatures, all humanity.
So the law is given by the creator to all of his creatures.
So God is a savior, not of all.
We don't believe in universal salvation, but we do believe in the universal creatorhood of God.
And is that on that basis, not as God functioning as savior, but rather God functioning as creator, that God bears king rights, creator rights, to be able to issue to his creatures his law?
Now, what.
What portions of his law would be kind of the next question?
Well, what we have to start with is his moral law.
And when we say moral law, theologically, this is what is used the phrase coined to describe the Decalogue, that is, the Ten Commandments that we find throughout the scripture, but most notably in Exodus chapter 20.
So, this is God's moral law.
And people have made a case for natural law.
And I would just say that I would align with many of the reformers who agreed that there was actually no distinction between natural law and moral law.
That natural law and moral law were actually synonymous.
So, if we're speaking of natural law, what is it that God reveals through natural revelation?
What is the law of God written on the hearts of men, not just Christian men, not just those who are regenerate, but all people, simply by virtue of them being created in God's image?
There is a law of God written on their hearts.
Romans 1 talks about this, Romans 2 most notably talks about this.
And God reveals something about himself and his moral standards through natural revelation.
So, Romans 1 really gets to natural revelation.
Romans 2 really deals with natural law, right?
So, Romans 1 talks about how God's attributes can be clearly seen by what he has made through the cosmos, the created order.
God is speaking through creation something about himself.
We can see his eternal power, his divine nature.
These things have not just been clearly displayed by God, but the message has, in fact, been received by all people.
Even the unbeliever.
The message has been received.
These things, the text says in Romans 1, have been clearly perceived, not just presented by God, but received, perceived by the creature, by mankind.
That's Romans 1, that's natural revelation.
Romans chapter 2 talks about the Gentiles, and what the Apostle Paul is getting at is he's talking about Gentile nations and cultures that have never received even an ounce of special revelation.
Special revelation being the written word of God, the prophets and the apostles inscripturated in.
The Bible.
So there are Gentile nations that have never received an evangelist or a preacher or an apostle or the Torah or scrolls or any page of the Bible, no special revelation.
And yet, Paul says these Gentiles function as a law unto themselves by virtue of the fact that they themselves, written on their hearts, have a set standard of morality.
They themselves recognize internally.
Instinctually, we might say that certain things are wrong, such as murder or theft.
And so, because their own consciences, he says in Romans chapter 2, bear witness against them when they sin, that is proof, proof positive, that even without special revelation, simply by virtue of people being made in the image of God, there is natural law written on the hearts of men.
Now, the question is again, what is natural law?
And I would say it's all 10 of the commandments, all 10.
And some would argue here and divide the law up into two tables.
And I would agree with that division.
In terms of the moral law of God, which I'm saying is synonymous with natural law, I believe they're one and the same.
And I believe that moral and natural law is the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments.
But some would say moral law or divine law is all ten of the commandments.
And natural law is more so referring to simply half of the Ten Commandments, the second table within the Ten Commandments.
Now, the two tables of the law within the Ten Commandments, the first table deals with the greatest commandment that Jesus gives us, right?
That you should love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul.
And all your mind.
And we find this fleshed out in the first table of the Decalogue, the first four of the Ten Commandments, right?
Have no other gods before me.
Do not make for yourselves any graven images.
Do not take the Lord's name in vain.
And remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
Jesus says the second greatest commandment is like it, that you should love your neighbor as yourself.
And this would be fleshed out by the second table of the law, of the Decalogue, namely commandments number five through ten, right?
Number five, honor your father and mother.
Number six, do not murder.
Number seven, do not commit adultery.
Number eight, do not steal.
Number nine, Do not bear false witness.
And number 10, do not covet.
And so some would say natural law is simply a reference to commandments number five through 10, how we should love our neighbor.
And divine law, moral law, is the full decalogue, including commandments number one through four, how we should love the Lord our God.
But I would argue that by virtue of natural revelation and natural law, natural revelation, God speaking, displaying who he is by what he has made, and natural law, the conscience, because we're made in the image of God, that by virtue of both those things, Natural law and natural revelation, we see not just the second table of the law, how we should love our neighbor, but also the first table of the law.
So, the Sabbath, for instance, the fourth commandment that deals with one of the ways in which we should love the Lord our God by remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy.
I believe that this is within natural law and natural revelation.
All right, let me explain real quick natural revelation, where we get the fourth commandment.
There are pagans and unbelievers who recognize that in agriculture, you would be wise to.
To plant and harvest for six years, but on the seventh year to allow the land to rest.
Because you can actually, over time, wear out the land if you are planting and harvesting, using the land year after year after year without a break, without any rest.
And it seems as though the best pattern of how long should we rest and how often should we rest is work the land for six years and rest for one.
Now, we find this within civil law given to Israel.
But we also find this even among Gentiles and pagans and unbelievers recognizing that this pattern, this system, it naturally works because God has built it into the fabric of his natural world, the world that he has created.
And so, even in that, through natural revelation in terms of agriculture and breaking the land, resting the land in a one in seven year pattern, we see what?
Well, we see a sense of divine law, the fourth commandment within the Decalogue being.
Being shown, being demonstrated to not just Christians through special revelation, but to all people through natural revelation.
We also see this Sabbath principle in natural revelation simply by the way that God has set up the world to work with patterns of work and rest in terms of seasons, in terms of day and night, in terms of years, in terms of the way that the world rotates and orbits around the sun.
God has built in patterns of Time and God has built in patterns of produce and work and also rest.
And the one in seven pattern, the one day in seven of rest, seems to be something that is built in not just to special revelation, the Bible, but into natural revelation.
It is something that can be gleaned.
And we know from natural revelation in Romans chapter 1, Paul says the existence of God is plain to people, and not just his mere existence, but But some of his attributes, namely his eternal power, his divine nature, these things are clearly displayed by what he has made.
So there's the first commandment have no other gods before me.
There is a God in heaven who has created the world.
He's worthy of worship, and he should not have to compete for our worship.
We should worship him alone.
And he is the invisible God.
Nobody has seen this God.
And so we should not make graven images.
We should not seek to do something that God has not willed to do himself, namely.
Make the invisible God visible through images.
Practical Obedience Trumps Eschatology00:11:08
There's the second commandment.
And if he is the creator of the universe, the God who exists and who is eternal in his power and divine in his nature, it only makes sense to worship him alone.
And it makes sense in our worship to worship with sincerity and to not be trite or trivial or take his name in vain.
There's the third commandment, right?
So my point is this the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, Exodus chapter 20, is moral law.
And I would argue that it is also.
Natural law.
And this functions, the Ten Commandments functions also as summary law, is what theonomists would say summary law, meaning that the ceremonial law of Christ has been fulfilled by him and abrogated, done away with, because he is our forever high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
He's also not only the high priest, but he is the sacrifice, the final sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
And he washes us not just by water in baptism, but he washes us by his blood.
He has purified and sanctified the church.
Those who trust in him by his blood.
So, hand washing and washing rituals and customs and the priestly sacrificial system in Israel, all these things have not only been fulfilled by Christ, but abrogated, that is done away with.
So, the three divisions of the law the moral law of God, the ceremonial law, and the civil law the ceremonial has been not only fulfilled but abrogated.
So, all we're left with is moral and civil.
And the civil law of God, if we track this down, what we can see is the civil law of God is simply the practical application in Israel as a society and a culture and a nation.
It's the practical obedience, the practical application of the decalogue, of the moral law, right?
You're taking the moral law of God and then simply applying it as case law.
To individual circumstances and situations, right?
So, one civil law example that's used often is building borders along the roof of people's houses.
Well, within their culture, without having air conditioning, people often spending time on the roof to get the cool breeze.
And especially in the summer months, people would even sleep on top of the roof instead of in the heat inside of their house.
And so, because people were spending time on the roof and there were flat roofs with tiles that could be moved and those kinds of things, right?
You think of the gospel narrative where The four friends of somebody who was lame, they move the tiles on the roof and lower him down for Jesus to heal him because the house was crowded.
They couldn't get in.
So you have flat roofs that are accessed and used frequently within that culture and their particular technology.
And so, because people are spending time on the roofs, there is a civil law, civil command given to make a border around the roof.
Now, this is a practical obedience, a practical application, cultural.
Political application, national application to Israel, but it stems from the summary law of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments.
Which one?
The sixth commandment, Thou shalt not murder.
The heartbeat of Thou shalt not murder, stated in the positive sense, is Thou shalt protect and esteem human life because they've been made in the image of God.
They have unparalleled dignity as image bearers of the living God.
So not only is it wrong to murder and do harm, but really the commandment in its Essence is to esteem and protect the sanctity of human life because human beings are created in the image of God.
And so, boom, how do we apply that to this particular situation in Israel with people who spend time on their roofs and might fall off?
Well, here's a civil code, a civil law build a border along the roof.
Now, that's not a one to one ratio for nations today, nations today within the New Testament after the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
So, it's not a one to one ratio from civil law in Israel.
Under the old covenant to civil law in America.
Not a one to one ratio, but it's a two step.
Instead of a one step, it's a two step process.
You take the civil law given to Israel, and step one is you track it back to its general equity, its general equity in the moral law.
So you take the borders on the roof, that civil law, track it back to the sixth commandment, and then that's step one.
Then step two is and how do we apply that given our technology, our culture, our time, our place here in America, and perhaps its speed limits on a highway?
So, the point is, that's how we apply the law of God.
That is, I would argue, now there is a breadth of differences about theonomy and how to define theonomy.
But that is what I would argue for.
That is what has known guys like Doug Wilson have coined the phrase general equity theonomy.
And that is fully supported both by the 1689 Confession and the Westminster Confession.
It talks about how the ceremonial law has been abrogated, the moral law is eternal, and it's binding not just on the church, but all people in all times and all places.
The moral law being the Ten Commandments.
And then it goes further and talks about the civil law.
And it says that the civil law, in terms of a one to one ratio to Israel, it has been abrogated.
Yet the general equity of the civil law continues for all people in all times and all places, because the general equity of every civil law given to Israel is ultimately rooted in the summary law or moral law or natural law, the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments.
And so all we're doing in theonomy is we're saying that nations should not abide by autonomy, man's law.
Which is constantly fluctuating, constantly evolving, constantly changing, and often immoral, but rather it's not whether but which we should function by theonomy, God's law.
And when we ask which one of his laws, the Ten Commandments, because this has been revealed to all people by virtue of special revelation, but also natural revelation and natural law written on the hearts, the consciences of image bearing creatures, mankind, this has been given to all people, all ten of the commandments, moral law synonymous with natural law.
And therefore, this should be enforced in every place, every nation, every time, every culture for all people, whether they identify as Christian or not.
God gives this to all people on the basis not of Him being Savior of some, but Creator of all.
And civil law is simply the practical application, the practical application of the general equity of summary law, namely the Ten Commandments.
And so, that in a nutshell is theonomy, at least the theonomy that has become kind of getting a.
A bit of a resurgence these days, general equity theonomy, that is simply all we're advocating for.
That is a historic position.
That is the Westminster position.
That is the 1689 position.
And I would say that that is dealing with God's law for all people and the absolute mandate for us to obey.
And in that sense, obedience, practical, what we're talking about ultimately with theonomy and post mill theology is we're talking about theonomy, practical obedience to Christ.
Versus a particular position of eschatology.
Which one's more important?
Theonomy.
Practical obedience to Christ.
So, Chris Matthews, you're correct in the question.
Practical obedience to Christ trumps a particular eschatology.
And all you're asking with your question, with the correlation, does there have to be a correlation between theonomy and postmillennialism, is basically will theonomy be successful?
That's really what you're asking.
So, you're agreeing theonomy should be done.
We should be obedient to apply the law of God.
To every area of life.
And so you're right on the money there.
And post mill is simply just asking not what we should do, but what will work.
Not what we should do, but what will work.
So theonomy really doesn't address whether or not it'll work.
Theonomy primarily just addresses the question of what should we do?
And the answer is we should obey God.
We should obey God.
And we should seek to not just obey God theoretically or in our hearts or privately with this pietism, but we should obey God practically.
With our hands and feet, and not just in some areas of society and some areas of human life, but in all of life.
The whole counsel of God for the whole of human life and human society.
That's theonomy.
What should we do?
And so every Christian should be a theonomist.
Every Christian should esteem the law of God and seek to apply it and seek to obey it and seek to encourage others to do the same.
That's theonomy.
And yes, that trumps post millennialism.
So really, you can be a theonomist without being post mill.
You can be, essentially, what I'm saying is you can be a theonomist and believe that this is what we should do, but it won't actually work.
It won't be successful in Christianizing the nations.
And ultimately, Christians' attempts to be obedient, encourage others to be obedient, will ultimately lend them towards persecution.
But Christ will come back in the bottom of the ninth and save a weak and wobbly church that's on the ropes.
But he will save the church from the world that is in power and that is persecuting the church.
And the church will therefore gain victory by proxy because Christ will come back and win the day.
Right.
So you could be a theonomist and have that kind of pessimistic eschatology, whether it be all mill or whether it be pre mill.
Not all millennials are pessimistic, but some are.
So you could be pre mill, you could be all mill, but still be theonomic.
And here's the final thing I'll say on this question I would rather you be theonomic and pre mill or all mill than be post mill and not be theonomic.
And so the question, particularly, was can I be theonomic and not post mill?
Yes.
But that kind of brings up another question, which is can you be post mill and not theonomic?
And for that one, I think I would say no.
And there are some that are, right?
There are some post mill Presbyterians, especially like in Escondido, Westminster, that are two kingdom.
They are not theonomic.
They hold to a radical two kingdom theology.
I don't have time to go into that, but suffice it to say, they are not theonomic, and yet they would hold to the post mill position.
And I would say that that's a contradiction.
They would say it's not a contradiction that simply by preaching the gospel, We can Christianize the nations.
I would just say logically, okay, but what flows out of that?
You preach the gospel, people get saved.
And if you're post mill and you think lots of people are progressively going to get saved, some of those people, it would stand to reason, will be in positions of the civil magistrate.
And so, what does a Christian in the civil magistrate, a Christian mayor, Christian governor, Christian Supreme Court justice, what do they do?
What does being a Christian look like in that vocation, in that station of life?
Christian Leadership in Civil Magistrate00:00:19
I think it looks like legislating.
God's law.
Thanks so much for listening.
But, real quick, before you go, do us a small favor take a moment and leave us a five star review if you enjoyed the show.
This is undoubtedly the best way that you can help us get this biblically faithful content to as many people as possible.