A Message to Theonomists; Acts 2:39 and Consistent Hermeneutics; Evangelical Arminian

John 10 .35, Jesus affirms that Scripture cannot be broken. How then could he be viewed as changing or abrogating the law?

If the whole of the law is released, then it would certainly seem that Scripture has been broken. The continuing validity, authority, and truth of Scripture as a whole is set forth in this declaration by Christ and the law is included in that which cannot be broken.

Everything written from God always binds man, 2 Timothy 3 .16 following. The Christian's obligation to every jot and tittle of God's law thus cannot be broken.

Our responsibility clearly extends beyond the Decalogue. So implicit was our Lord's endorsement of even the older testamental case law, holding it to be as binding, and those are emphasized words, that's why

I'm emphasizing them, as the Decalogue itself, that when he quoted from the

Decalogue, he could casually and without explanation, insert a particular case law along with and on par with the

Ten Laws. See Mark 10 .19 where do not fraud from Deuteronomy 24 .16 in the

Septuagint, verse 14 in English versions is appropriately adduced in dealing with a rich young ruler and placed on a par do not kill.

In Matthew 15 .3 -9 and Mark 7 .6 -13, Christ strongly rebukes the Pharisees for failing to follow the law of God.

He authoritatively quotes from two sections of the law, one from the Decalogue and one outside the Decalogue.

It was not simply the fifth commandment that Christ cites as binding, but even the penal section specifying capital punishment for incorrigible children is held forth by our

Lord as an obligation. Christ made no artificial distinction between moral laws and their civil punishments.

Whereas the Pharisees nullified God's law by their traditions, Christ upholds its integrity and validity in exhaustive detail.

Now, what am I reading from? I am reading from a mark. In fact, here is the little page thing.

I'm assuming that was probably placed there when some of my young theonomist critics were in diapers, maybe before.

I'm reading from Theonomy and Christian Ethics by Greg Bonson. I knew Greg Bonson.

In fact, have any of you benefited from Dr.

Bonson's debates, the two debates he did with on homosexuality, anyone? You know why he got to do that?

He was double booked. He was scheduled to debate

Roman Catholic apostate, and that can be taken in two ways now, but Gerrymatotics in Omaha, Nebraska in November of 1992,

I believe was the date. I could look it up. I haven't bothered to, but I can give you the exact date. And all of a sudden the opportunity to do those debates, which we've all benefited from, came up, but it conflicted with his already made commitment to debate

Gerrymatotics in Nebraska. Ironic that it was Nebraska, given other things that happened later.

Anyway, you know why he got to do that? Because he contacted me to take his place, which

I did, and debate Gerrymatotics on, as I recall, Justification by Faith and Sola Scriptura, possibly.

I know one of them was Justification by Faith. The other one might have been, nah, I think it was, I think those are the two topics. There are all sorts of yellow markings and notes in the margins, texts looked at and reviewed.

And I'm guessing there's no way this could be any older than 93. I think it was before then.

I think it was before then. There are some very, very interesting things in here that we could look at.

On the last dividing line, I asked some serious questions in a period of, it was only about 11 minutes when

I did not comment on theonomy. The systemic panic and unbelievable misinterpretation, acontextual listening that has been demonstrated by a wide swath of followers of the theonomic position truly concerns me.

What they heard and what I said were two different things. So either I was incredibly unclear or there is a filter functioning in the hearts and minds of way too many people.

What I pointed out, one of the first things, well, good example.

When I announced this, the fact that I was going to say something on Facebook, a fellow by name of Jason Sides commented,

I thought you didn't have time to investigate theonomy. And he later on says that basically, you know, why should

I, why should I listen to what someone's going to say? He said to someone named

Joshua, to Joshua Wipps actually, RK, Joshua, yes, I understand that. And yet if he won't study the issue, why take the message seriously?

Folks, where did I ever say I have not studied this issue? Where did I ever say that?

I've never said that. What I said was in regards to reviewing a particular debate in light of what

I have coming up in ministry, I am not going to put everything else aside and go read the number of books necessary to properly interact with everything that has been said about this particular debate.

That's what I said. Any fair person would see that. But all

I hear from the theonomist are, you don't, you won't even study it. You don't know it. You've admitted.

And I'm just like, what, where's the balance? Where's the balance?

I'm not seeing balance here anywhere. I see perfect balance in God's law, but I don't see perfect balance in most theonomists online.

Most, I guess I have to emphasize that 47 times. Over the next, between now and the beginning of June, I will travel somewhere around 18 to 20 ,000 miles by air.

Right now, I am scheduled to do five debates, one on Romans nine in Dallas.

Y 'all might find that interesting. One on infant baptism, two dialogues with an imam and a live debate on television across Europe with an

Oxford Jesuit priest on justification by faith. That is not including innumerable lectures, sermons, and finishing up a book.

So I simply have to ask my theonomist friends, where is your balance? Do you really think that debating your pet issue is more important than taking on a

Jesuit on live television across Europe, dialoguing with an imam on the

Bible and the Quran? Let me ask my theonomist friends, how often are you talking about theonomy these days?

Are you involved in a local church? Are you teaching the whole council of God or has the whole council of God become theonomy?

Is that what defines you? When was the last time you went through a day without arguing with somebody about theonomy?

How about teaching on the Trinity? What about Sola Fide? How much relative amount of energy and thought do you put into the solas of the

Reformation? Sola Scriptura, the proper application of it and the practice of it, the defense of it.

I don't see balance by the large portion of people that I'm encountering in this movement.

Not all. I've got the exceptions in mind and I'm thankful for them, but I've just got to say, in my experience, they're in the minority.

They're in the minority. This particular subject has its place and it needs to be addressed.

But my friends, I obviously have a much higher view of God's law than your average evangelical does.

The amazing thing to me is I have, over the past number of months, been doing a sermon series that very few people would even attempt to do.

I can only do it because of the church that I'm at and the people there are the people who are there.

And I have been preaching through the law code, the holiness code specifically, giving the background, entire sermons on the gods of the

Canaanites that provide a lot of the background to these things and Canaanite religious practice and just did two sermons on how to map

God's law, discussed openly the fact that while we have these categories, there are times when the civil law has a moral foundation that comes from the moral law and that's why it's just impossible to draw black and white lines.

But at the same time, you must recognize that there are laws given to the theocratic nation of Israel that do not have application to a non -theocratic context.

You've got to allow all of it to be there. You can't set up a standard and say,

I'm going to force this on everything or you'll never get anywhere. The results will be, well, what we've seen.

I'm the one preaching sermons on this. So I would be one of the most friendly people you could have who isn't necessarily in your camp.

And yet what I'm seeing makes me want to run for the hills from you.

You've got a public relations problem. And I'm not just talking about the wild eyed nutcase firebrands and we all know who

I'm talking about. We're not talking about the people who have egos the size of Mount Everest.

That's bad enough. At least some people have disassociated from those kinds of folks. I think everybody needs to, clearly.

But where is the internal self -correction mechanism here?

Because I sense a strong persecution complex amongst many of you.

I mean, in this thread on Facebook. Okay, I won't mention his name, but anybody can look it up.

I made a joke. I made a joke. When I announced the time.

When I announced the time, I said, the dividing line begins at 1 p .m. Eastern Standard Time today. And it will begin with a message for Theonomous.

Sorry for those of you at Shepard's Conference. Then again, I doubt security would let any Theonomous in there. Anyways, smiley face.

Now we all know what it is, right? I mean, Shepard's Conference, not known as the haven for Theonomous.

You know, it's John MacArthur and Al Mohler. And these are not people who are self -identifying

Theonomous. So it was pretty obvious what I was saying. And I get a Theonomous in the comment box going,

Are you calling me a heretic? It's a smiley face. I didn't edit it.

It's right there. And so the same thing happened.

When on my comments last time, I go, I am not just going to drop everything I'm doing.

And read a bunch of books on Theonomy so that I could review it to my standards.

Oh, you won't even study. You won't even learn about it. Who cares what you have to say?

And then the worst part was this. And here's the important part. I tried to raise an important issue on Wednesday.

I think I did so fairly. I did so with clarity.

And I am deeply concerned that one

Theonomist, one singular, even bothered to listen to what

I said. Every single other one that has responded missed it completely.

Completely. Folks, that should not ought to be. What did

I say? Well, I used the term Sharia.

You're saying we're like Muslims. I even got an email from a leading

Theonomist. All it said was Sharia? Really? That's all it said.

You go back and listen. I spent a fair amount of time explaining one of the key issues that I have been explaining to audiences globally for years.

And I asked the question. I said, it seems to me that some

Theonomists, I used the term some, doesn't seem to matter to most. If you say one,

I mean, talk about wagon circling. Persecution complex again. Oh, we're just, can't disagree at all.

You're going after, come on, think. I said, it would seem that some

Theonomists, given their perspective, would have to disagree with the fundamental assertion that I'm making.

And that is that one of the primary differences between the approach of Christianity in the proclamation of the

Gospel to all the world and Islam because of the centrality of Sharia, they'd have to say,

I'm wrong. I'm saying because of Acts chapter 15, we do not bring cultural artifacts with the

Gospel or we shouldn't. And if you fail to recognize that there are certain aspects to the

Mosaic Code that only had application to the theocratic state of Israel, then you are bringing cultural artifacts along with it and forcing that upon any culture that you encounter.

That's what you're doing. So, what would be the proper response to that statement? From thinking people, from truly reformed

Christians, what would be the proper response? Knee -jerk reaction? How dare you?

Is that the proper response? No, it isn't. What would the proper response be?

Here's the proper response. A. You might want to learn something about Sharia and maybe not depend on Fox News for it.

I haven't seen one person that has criticized what I said about that that has this much knowledge of what

Sharia actually is in any fair fashion at all. In any fair fashion at all.

I forgot to bring it with me. But, I had conversation with an

Islamic scholar. I was actually offending him because he was being misrepresented. I knew he was being misrepresented.

And, as we were going back and forth he said, well, I really wouldn't put it that way. And I said, well, explain to me how you would understand this.

And so he recommends to me an entire book on fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence.

I had it within a week and read it. My critics don't do that. Not a one of them that I've seen would have any earthy idea of what

I just said. They just don't. They might pretend to, but they don't.

What you might want to do is, first of all, learn something about Sharia and its centrality to Islamic thought.

The relationship that exists in Islamic thought between Sharia and the very essence of Islam and what it means to be in submission to a law.

In fact, if you don't understand this, you're really not going to understand ISIS or any of these things, and you're not going to understand the people who are opposing

ISIS. I've tried to teach on these things. I've tried to get people to understand this as best as I can.

But a meaningful response would start, and if you were offended by my statement, then it would have been, well, what do you mean by Sharia, and what do you see as the problem with your statements about Acts chapter 15?

What do you mean by cultural artifacts? That would have been the proper response, would have been, well, you know, we need to look at how

God's law represents God's being, and then that means we're going to have to make proper distinctions between, well, the moral law represents

His perfect will, and it cannot be separated from that. And one of the key differences with Islam is the fact that God's law can be separated from His being because He can forgive sins without the reparation of His law, without atonement, without punishment of sin.

And you know one of the places you could go to learn about these things? My opening statement in the mosque in Erasmus, South Africa, because that's what

I was talking about. It actually might have started some meaningful discussion getting to the key issue, and that is being able to map what was given to the theocratic nation that would only be relevant to them, and could only be practiced by them without fundamentally warping and twisting the intention of the law in the first place.

That would have been good. Didn't happen. Didn't happen. Didn't happen.

So I was, I am to this point deeply concerned that only a small minority of theonomists can listen to a meaningful critique, not even a critique, just a question, just something that goes to the real heart of the issue.

And instead of hearing it and responding to it meaningfully, it's a knee -jerk reaction, you're saying we're like the

Muslims, and it's just Katy, bar the door, open the doors, fire the missiles, circle the wagons, warfare, swords, and you wonder why you have a bit of a public relations problem.

Well, there you go. Now those of you who actually heard what I said and thought about it, you might want to try to rein in your buddies.

If you can, good luck, I don't think that's going to work too well. But you can try. You can try.

So anyway, a tweet from Joel McDermott.

But Dr. Oakley, 1689, theonomy is nothing but taking sola scriptura seriously, no lack of balance here.

Did you all hear what I asked you? What I asked you was, in comparison to the amount of time you spent arguing about theonomy, how much time have you spent thinking about defending, promulgating sola scriptura, and all the issues relevant to it?

Joel, I see imbalance. Theonomy does not determine everything else.

I see young men who would have a hard time engaging a meaningful Roman Catholic on sola scriptura or sola fide, but they've got

Rush Dooney down pat. That's wrong. If you don't have the basics down first, you've got no reason to be reading that stuff.

None. Okay? I don't know why this particular one, it will not scroll.

I've got to manually scroll it. Nobody said it determines everything else. Well, they're living that way.

They're acting that way. And if you can't see that, fine. If you will not see that from someone outside, fine.

It's like I said to the nuclear hothead yesterday. I hope someone can speak to you because you're on the road to self -destruction.

Your attitude's horrific. He can't hear that. If you all can't hear what I've got to say, fine.

I just ask you to leave me alone. Just leave me alone.

I'm not interested in the nuclear war. Really not. I think what I've got coming up is a little more important than arguing with you all.

If that's all you can do, if you can't hear it, fine. We'll go our separate ways.

You do your thing over there and I'll deal with Islam and Roman Catholicism and stuff like that and you can just write me off as the, what was the terminology yesterday?

Here it is. Largely uneducated and ignorant trickster.

That was the term. Just write me off and that's fine.

And I will give up trying to have any conversation with any of you on exactly how this all works out.

Oh, sweeping generalization fallacy. I give up. I'm going to minimize Twitter because it's just like, can't hear it?

Fine. Alright, I'm moving on. I've said what needed to be said.

Take it for what it's worth. If you just want to talk about logical fallacies go. I don't think you're going to, anything else

I've got to say, it's not going to be worth it to you anyways because I'm not going to be talking about that subject. Alright. I told where did

I pretty much on Facebook Colin Pearson that I was going to be responding to him and I need to get to it because I've already used up half the program.

But we might have to go longer. I'm not going to rush this. I've got stuff to do. It is somewhat relevant.

I don't remember how long ago was it? A couple weeks ago. One of the problems in Facebook instant communication, wide audience, need to be able to get information out.

I do get both on Twitter and Facebook. I get some good leads for stuff and I appreciate it.

It's great for doing research for the dividing line and I don't have time to be looking through stuff that people have and will send me stuff.

I appreciate all that. One of the things I don't like about it of course the comment boxes can be very funny.

Memes are now the way of responding to everything and I don't know who in the world. I guess there's meme generators out there someplace.

I don't know. I've never run into them but I'm sure they're out there somewhere. That's how you respond to stuff is meme generators.

What bothers me is if you start going back and forth with someone and then you have to engage in life.

Eat. Shower. Go to church. Do something. You have to engage in life.

If you're gone for a while even 12 hours or something I don't know how to find what's gone on since then or I can't keep up with it.

I've got the little world thingy. Right now my little world thingy has 14 on it. I click on it and I've learned what the little badges are and this person liked this and this person commented and I pretty much try to look.

After a few hours it's gone. Conversations tend to be fairly short.

I guess this is for some folks like this. Some folks like this.

That means everybody else gets the last word. I ain't going to get the last word because I don't even see what's said.

A couple weeks ago Colin Pearson and I had a

Twitter thing I actually have to look at. That's funny.

My son just said, I just tuned in. Can you repeat everything you just said about theonomy? Colin Pearson and I started talking about my assertion.

Now I get to offend my Presbyterian friends but that's alright. I said this in the last debate with Greg Strawbridge.

I'll be saying it in the next debate with Greg Strawbridge. There is a fundamental hermeneutical difference in our approaches and I believe that the inconsistency is on obviously the other side, not mine.

I believe that I use the same hermeneutical system to defend the deity of Christ, the

Trinity, the Resurrection, the Atonement, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc.

etc. that I do in defining and teaching on the nature and subjects, proper subjects of Christian baptism.

And I sense, I see an inconsistency when it comes to the hermeneutic methodology of my

Presbyterian friends. Colin Pearson is a six -month convert to paedo -baptism. And so we have been having some of these conversations and yesterday it came up again and once again

Mr. Pearson used what I call the truncated citation. The truncated, isolated citation of Acts chapter 2.

The promises to you and your children. Stop. Promises to you and your children. Stop. Promises to you and your children. Stop. Over, over, over, over again.

It's just constant. And there's a reason why it's truncated. It has to be truncated.

Well, interestingly enough, Mr. Pearson argued, I guess, in our previous conversation, after I was no longer tracking it, he proved to me,

I didn't see it, that I was wrong about my understanding of Acts chapter 2. And that what's in Acts chapter 2 has nothing to do with Gentiles.

Nothing to do with Gentiles at all. I'd like to look at Acts chapter 2 and I would like to walk through basic exegesis of the text, do what standard exegesis does, and see how terms and phrases are used elsewhere to present an argument.

And then ask, upon what basis, upon what hermeneutical basis, can

Mr. Pearson overthrow what I'm saying? And the reason would be, why would he try to?

And of course, what I'm saying is, the tradition, the belief, is determined in the exegesis, not the other way around.

That's the inconsistency. Acts chapter 2, beginning at verse 22, men of Israel, listen to these words,

Jesus of Nazarene, a man attested to you by God, with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.

This man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men, and put him to death.

Now notice, it says you nailed to a cross. Very straightforward assertion.

I guess I'll have to mute this thing. There we go. Oh, oh actually, oh.

Okay. And, um, there you go. I don't know where that came from.

Is that, um, well, it's a private message, and it's, um, quoting

Mr. McDermott. Um, the onomists have a knee -jerk reaction here, because the cultural artifacts argument you're harping about has already been answered in the books you said you refuse to read.

You mean that one? Thank you, but I'm, I'm, I'm moving on.

I have to. I have to. Just, before I say things, I, I shouldn't, I shouldn't say.

I was gonna, I was, okay, I'm gonna do it now. Um, before I go back to Acts 2, sorry, sorry.

Um, I did listen to the debate on a run yesterday. I'm not, I, I think

I, I think I mentioned this in some of the context. I, I did listen to the debate. Um, I'm going to uh, score the debate.

I'm gonna score the debate on a 30 -point system so it's like a fight, because that's what people understand, so might as well use it.

Um, the basis of my analysis of the debate, and I guess

JD's listening, I know Joel is, so both, both the debaters are listening. Okay. Um, I am not talking about the subject.

I am talking about the debate proper, which includes preparation, presentation, organization, um, prowess in, um, cross -examination, proper rebuttal, focus, and again, um, you can ignore what

I have to say, but I've done a few. And so I, I, I have some idea of what's a, what's good in a debate, what is good debate style and format, and what is not.

And so leaving the issue of the subject, and hence going into all of the permutations that are so toxic and radioactive at the moment, simply on a debate level,

I would score it 30 -26 haul. The reason was quite simple.

JD was more focused. He seemed to be more prepared. His cross -examination was much crisper.

Um, Joel Hamstrong himself, as everyone commented, with the excessively long, um, name -dropping session, um, could have done three or four major names, stopped there, point made, move on, didn't, that hurts.

He did not even take up all of his cross -ex time in the second round.

When you don't have anything to ask, you probably haven't really been listening. The rebuttal to the boogeyman quotes, to simply say that's ridiculous without providing significant numbers of examples of that doesn't fly, and it also doesn't fly to say, well, you know, look this up on the web.

Not proper debate format. It's not proper debate format. So, on the simple level of preparedness, proper form, um,

I would say 3026 Hall. Okay? So, take that for what it's worth.

I offer it. There you go. Now, um, going back to, um, what we were talking about.

I need to, it'll be interesting reading all this when I get done here.

Maybe. Um, then maybe not. Anyway, oh,

I didn't want to do that. Not in the world, oh, love those advertisements. If you miss and you end up on some solar calculator page, and someone's going to show up at your house the next day wanting to install solar panels just because you're on Facebook.

All right, back to Acts chapter 2. As I was saying, please note the reality that Peter makes this preaching, this proclamation very, very focused uh, on his audience.

You nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death.

So this is directed to the Jewish people. And you put him to death.

You cannot blame the Romans. They're, of course, culpable as well for what they did.

But the point is, you did this. But god raised him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for him to be held in its power.

For David says of him, I saw the Lord always in my presence, and he is at my right hand, so I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exalted.

Moreover, my flesh also will live in hope, because you did not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow your Holy One to undergo decay.

You have made known to me the ways of life. You will make me full of gladness with your presence.

Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.

And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the

Messiah, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.

Therefore, having been exalted at the right hand of God, and have received of the Father, here's the first key word, the promise of the

Holy Spirit. The promise of the Holy Spirit. He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

For it was not David who ascended to heaven, but he himself says, The Lord said, My Lord, sit in my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

Psalm 110, 1, the most quoted text from the Old Testament, quoted in the

New Testament. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both

Lord and Messiah, this Jesus, whom you crucified.

Now, when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart. That's pretty straightforward preaching,

I can understand that. And said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? Peter said to them,

Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit, for the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the

Lord our God will call to himself. And with many other words, he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying,

Be saved from this perverse generation. So then, those who had received his word were baptized.

And that day, there were added about three thousand souls.

Now, what I had argued with Mr.

Pearson was that there is a constant and consistent misuse of Acts 239 in Presbyterian hermeneutics regarding baptism.

It is truncated because it says the promise is for you and your children. It stops there and says the promise is fulfilled in the covenant administration, and that involves baptism.

And there it is, you just got to see it. And my assertion is, that is forcing the

Old Testament categories to determine the New Testament fulfillments, and that is backwards.

The New Testament fulfillment must determine what fulfillment is.

Okay? So, when we look at Acts 239, it could be grammatically.

Let's look at it. Let's bring it up. Nobody needs to be seeing my ugly mug. Here is the delimiting phrase.

And grammatically, what the text is saying, for the promise is to whoever, as many as shall be called by the

Lord our God. Then everything else, to you and to your children, your children, and, that's not a disjunctive chi, that is not breaking it off into something else, and to all twice ice macron.

Those who are afar off. Alright? Those who are afar off.

Now, Mr. Pearson says, well, this is all Genesis 17 language.

Really? Really? And those who are far off, those are servants who are purchased.

They're slaves that are purchased. Really? I don't understand the hermeneutical methodology that goes there because if I want to look for Old Testament, I look for specific terms.

And one of the specific terms you can come up with here is macron. Far off.

Who are those who are far off? Well, does that occur in the Old Testament? Well, lo and behold, it does, but not in Genesis 17 in this context.

This context is found Isaiah 57, 19. It's right here in the

Septuagint, right there. That's odd. Oh, there we go.

Now it's moving. There we go, right there. Creating praise of the lips, peace to him who is far and to him who is near, says

Yahweh, and I will heal him. And so here you've got twice macron, him who is far and him who is near.

It's about the Yahweh pronouncing salvation.

He is the one who will heal. He is the one who gives, and what's the term here? Here is the double shalom. Shalom, shalom.

And here is to the one who is far off. Now, why wouldn't that be the first place we look?

Well, may I suggest, because it doesn't have anything to do with infant baptism. That would be the first place we should look.

I mean, peace, justification, peace, we have peace with God. You know?

This is natural, standard hermeneutical practice, right? But that's not the only thing.

When we look at macron in the New Testament, we discover that it's found in some other places, such as Ephesians chapter 2.

But now in Christ Jesus, you who formerly were what? You who once were macron have been brought angus.

Where do we see that? Isaiah 57. Very same terminology found in the subject.

In any other area, in any other hermeneutical pursuit, this would be the natural way we would go.

But it's not the way Mr. Pearson does. But now in Christ Jesus, you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Who is that? That is the Gentiles. Because, for he himself is our peace who made both groups,

Jew and Gentile, into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall by abolishing in his flesh the enmity we need the text on the screen, by abolishing in the flesh the enmity which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in himself he might make the two into one new man thus establishing peace and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross by it having put to death the enmity and he came and preached peace to those who were far away and peace to those who were near there is the exact fulfillment and through him we both have our access in one spirit to the father promises of the spirit this is about salvation

Peter is talking about forgiveness of sins receipt of the Holy Spirit it is the exact same thing in fact where do you think

Paul got this? don't you think the apostles as a whole shared together those recollections of Jesus' ministry to them after the resurrection where he opened their minds to understand how all the law and the prophets referred to him and when you find consistency like this between Peter and Paul you chuck all that and go to Genesis 17 and talk about slaves that's troubling that's really troubling that is not how you defend the deity of Christ that's not how you defend the resurrection

Mr. Pearson and I would do that the exact same way but at this one place he goes someplace else, why? that's the flag of tradition that's what says tradition tradition breaking in right here did y 'all see that?

that's going to be part of my argument I'm just letting you know I don't have anything new to say in the baptism debate

I've said it all before I need to get around to the format because I wish there was some way in debates that you could have a whole section where you just simply sit there with the

Greek text open and say follow me here it doesn't work that way they'd be really really long debates

I think it might be better actually but anyway seems clear to me that in light of that if we were just simply to go with the delimiting factors and allow

Acts 2 39 to speak this has nothing to do with infant baptism it clearly doesn't because verse 41 says so then those who had received his word were baptized

I mean that's just obvious the point is every time

I hear my Presbyterian brothers going promises for you and your children stop move on ignoring the delimiting phrase as many as the lord of God will call himself

I go you know if it was any other verse you would just automatically focus in on the element of election that's right there it wasn't for every single every single

Jewish person is not called has not been called by the lord of God to himself this is the effectual call isn't it it doesn't make any sense that that's a general call does it so there you go seems clear to me seems really really clear to me but I wanted to bring that up now

I didn't even had so much other stuff going on I forgot to bring this up I apologize let me interesting stuff in the channel right now but I've been ignoring that pretty much too and I'm sorry to those of you who are

PMing me and everything else I cannot do exegesis and read all the

PM stuff well you should hear your computer in the corner of the room it's just one of those pinball machines

I'll read all the messages and get to all that stuff and I appreciate your seeking to help me out

I just can't I can only do so much multitasking at one time there you go there was an article by Brian Abbaciano James White's faulty treatment of the

Greek and context of Acts 13 48 posted on the

Society of Evangelical Arminians website or something March 4th says two days ago classic example of how to make it look like you're dealing with an argument and you never do on how to try to poke holes at an argument but never fulfill your own positive requirement to provide a positive case it's the best the

Arminians have got you gotta feel sorry for them but it's the best they've got and I want to look at it let me begin by look if Mark Dever did you hear what

Mark Dever did at Shepard's conference he read now this is you know

I suppose this could be if you didn't have time for sermon preparation but I'm sure it's not what it was he read as his text all of Psalm 119 in fact

I'm seeing Twitter hashtags I was there when

Mark Dever read you couldn't put all that into one hashtag but I've seen hashtags

I was there Psalm 119 or something like that you know I suppose it's good

I mean I have often said to Christians why don't you just go read Psalm 119 the next time your liberal professor you know says something to you and anyway back to what

I was saying here I was going to read to you the comments because what

Brian Abbaciano is looking at is my comments in the

Potter's Freedom now I've addressed the text twice at least twice actually more than that three times in published books

God Sovereign Grace Potter's Freedom and debating

Calvinism this is specifically in reference to the first edition of the

Potter's Freedom there's no change or editing in anything that I said about it in the second so it doesn't really matter here's what

I wrote well for those of you who don't have it in front of you Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said it was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first since you oh

I'm sorry okay okay I didn't mean to do that don't get all upset okay it was necessary the word of God be spoken to you first since you repudiated and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life behold we return to the

Gentiles for so the Lord has commanded us I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles that you may bring salvation to the end of the earth when the

Gentiles heard this they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed then

I said this passage is not cited in CBF chosen but free

I used a contraction to refer to the book as I was responding to it this passage is not cited in CBF as one that is used by quote extreme

Calvinists end quote and hence requires a response instead is listed as a passage that allegedly shows quote salvation colon both ordained to it and persuaded into it end quote this idea is based upon citing

Acts 13 48 and then noting that just a few verses later Acts 14 1 the disciples spoke quote in such a manner end quote that large people believed

I'm hoping that that's not the printed version I'm looking at the kindle version because only large people believed all the skinny people said forget it no wow oh no oh no oh no um mm if you lose weight over time is that apostasy oh no it's in the printed edition too this is what happens when you're live on the air and find whoops please make note to edit in future printings lest anyone start a cult group that only large people uh uh okay sorry that a large number of people believed we would hope that it is not being suggested that the quality of the apostle's speech is being credited with the faith of the multitude men are not converted by words of wisdom or the persuasive abilities of any man men are converted when

God changes their hearts and draws them unto Christ but Dr.

Geisler then adds the following paragraph here's Geisler's paragraph some moderate

Calvinists like J .O. Buswell deny this is a reference to predestination he wrote actually the words of Acts 13 48 -49 do not necessarily have any reference whatever to the doctrine of God's eternal decree of election the passive participle tetagmenoi may simply mean ready and we might well read as many as were prepared for eternal life believed he adds commenting on this word

Alfred says the meaning of this word must be determined by the context the Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life verse 46 the

Gentiles as many as were disposed to eternal life believed to find in this text preordination to life asserted is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not contain end of quotation of Geisler I then said we commend

Dr. Geisler for his very conditional presentation of this argument it is clear that he is well aware that this viewpoint has a mountain of argumentation going against it first and foremost is the fact the passage is not translated as made ready or were disposed to in any of the major modern bible translations and then

I give King James Version ASV, NKJV, NIV NRSV NASB, NLT and NET all of which have appointed to eternal life then

I comment some have gone so far as to suggest that the participle tetagmenoi be translated in the middle voice considered themselves worthy and the above assertions seem to parallel that thought at least in the results but what motivates such interpretation surely there is nothing in the text to do so Luke uses now here's my argumentation at least as I presented it here

I am seeking to substantiate the normative translation and understanding of this text that God sovereignly appointed a certain people to eternal life and as a result they believe so God's ordination precedes belief does not follow belief that's what the issue is in understanding this particular text so how do you go about doing that well here's what

I did Luke uses this verb in the passive to clearly mean a point elsewhere so the first thing to do is to ask what does the author himself do with this term and this is especially important in looking at any

Lukan text because as most people are aware Luke acts and Hebrews are very classical

Greek they're the least coin a of any of the New Testament writers and so syntactically grammatically semantically

Luke acts and Hebrews are off by themselves when it comes to a comparison to Paul or the synoptic

Gospels or your hunting corpus or things like that so you need to look at Luke first especially in light of the fact of the form of the term as I'll point out here

Luke uses this verb in the passive to clearly mean a point elsewhere for example and I said what shall

I do Lord and the Lord said to me get up and go on into Damascus and there you'll be told of all that has been appointed for you to do no one would suggest that we should understand this to mean you will be told of all that you have appointed yourself to do or all that you have judged yourself worthy of doing the same is true in Acts 28 23 where they set a day for Paul's hearing again using the passive form the same verb

Paul was not disposed toward a date he was appointed a date but there is a grammatical reason why the normal translation understanding this passage should be accepted along with the resultant meaning the term appointed here is found in what is called a periphrastic construction a periphrastic construction involves the use of a participle with a form of the

Greek verb of being that is the term I mean by combining different tenses of both elements a particular result is achieved in this case

Luke uses the imperfect form of I mean together with the perfect passive participle the result is the phrase must be translated as a pluperfect then

I gave a footnote and the footnote refers you to the discussion in both mounts and Wallace and you will find there a chart that gives you well if I mean is in this form and the participles in this form the result the resultant phrase meaning or tense meaning of the phrase is this okay so that's what

I'm referring people to and what is found in acts 1348 in those charts says the resultant tense meaning of the phrase is pluperfect a pluperfect sense now

I'm just giving a basic meaning here a pluperfect sense speaks of a completed

I keep hitting the wrong thing a completed action to pass but unlike the perfect tense the pluperfect does not contain the idea of a continuation of the past action into the present time in other words the pluperfect leaves that open it can be done in the past it's just not making the assertion which is what is found in that's how it differs from the perfect tense therefore the meaning of appointed refers to a past action how can this be if in fact we are to understand this as an attitude in the gentiles who have just heard that the gospel is coming to them so whatever you do with this the tense meaning it has to explain how it is when the gentiles heard this they rejoiced but the meaning of appointed is a completed action in the past without the emphasis on abiding results of the present it can be there or not it's just not being discussed by the paraphrased construction obviously to take it in the sense suggested by Buswell or Alford is to understand this action as something takes place at the very point where the apostles quote from Isaiah and proclaim that the gentiles can receive the blessings of the gospel

Luke writes when the gentiles heard this they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the

Lord how can we think that prior to this they had somehow judged themselves worthy of eternal life instead the most natural way to take the text is to see this as Luke's explanation of why some who heard believed while others did not the difference was not that some were better or more disposed toward the gospel than others the very idea of someone being disposed toward the gospel is utterly contrary to Paul's teaching in Romans 8 7 -8 the difference is that some were appointed to eternal life as part of the eternal decree of God and others were not the same is true today the person who proclaims the gospel with purity and power can trust that God will save his elect likewise we know that others will laugh and mock no matter how clearly or forcefully we present the truth in reality the only reason people suggest the term be taken in such an unusual manner is because they do not wish to accept the teaching of the passage for it makes it very clear that it is not our presentation not our skills not our preaching that brings men to repentance all can be used by God but all can likewise come to naught as many as were appointed by the

Lord believed for faith is as we will prove later in this work the divine gift of God given to his elect people so there is my presentation on Acts 13 48 it's funny

I'm getting clear indications that stuff is still going on elsewhere um and evidently um what

I'm talking about now doesn't seem to be as important as that yeah I'm sitting here talking about you know defending election and stuff like that to our minions but but but but but he said something against the enemies so we're just gonna not worry about that.

I'm sitting over here trying to follow along with you as I'm hearing out of my left ear bleep bleep bleep bleep one after another you know yeah yeah oh

I'm going to be really interested in following up on some of these uh it's going to be going to be interesting anyway now let's look at the evangelical

Armenians Brian Abba I'm assuming it's

Italian it's Italian and if it's Italian it's got to be Abba Shiano because it's it's a non -no thing you know that's how they do it in Italy um but it could be any you know could be something else and that's probably the only thing

I'll get responded to is here are some comments I made in the

Society of Evangelical Armenians private discussion group on James White's treatment they're talking about me in private I bet you some other people are today too of Acts 13 -48 in his book

The Potters' Freedom to Defense the Reformation Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen to Free. It was suggested they be posted on SCA's public website let's go ahead and go public with this so here is a mildly revised version of my comments that makes me wonder what else was in there

I refer to the first edition of White's book published 2000 where White's treatment appears on pages 186 -190 I believe there has been at least one revision but I've not consulted any revisions well nothing was changed there so at the beginning of his treatment

White states that there is a mountain of argumentation against the view of the Greek word ptaso as meaning disposed or the like this is gross overstatement.

If one looks at his treatment there is hardly any evidence against it he only gives two arguments one having little to do with his specific text and the other invalid on grammatical grounds.

That's taking your conclusion reading it back in the front every single translation done by a team of scholars renders it differently.

If that ain't a mountain brother I don't know what a mountain is so let's let's try to you know what

I there it is there it is let me do something here we're going long anyways it's probably going to be jumbo whatever oh good grief you know

I used to be able to read this on the street corner eh but if you want to start making fun of me you're going to have to run a marathon with me next month

I don't run it fast but I did let me read you one translation that agrees with the

Armenians here and agrees with Mr. Guy there when those of the nations heard this they began to rejoice and glorify the word of Jehovah and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers there you go there's one

New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses yeah you got the

JW translation there you go there you go oh that's going to become a meme screen capture he begins with the fact you know what there oh wait a minute do do do do do nope that won't change either okay

I'll just keep reading the small print he begins with the fact the vast majority of translations translate as a point or something similar that is a point in his favor but hardly carries much weight this is this is a study and when you don't have a positive argument this is how you try to make it sound like the real position doesn't have much of an argument either this is how you do it

I mean this is classic classic it can easily be chalked up to tradition or failure to attend to exegetical details well what would that require that a strong positive argument for disposed be presented which is the exact saying he never does um translations are not authoritative and translators can rarely exegete the text in detail given the focus of their task this point of his is effectively countered by the fact that the most of the

New Testament studies BDAG translates the word differently than all those translations what do you mean it translates it differently well let's see exactly what's being discussed here here is tetagmenoi and we go look up and we go to dictionary and we change dictionary dictionary it's being used to BDAG and here's tasso now obviously tasso is a is the root word but it's not in the form that we find here so you have to find the specific form to find relevance here and I don't want to move that because it'll mess things up um and so what

I'm looking here uh you've got setaday right here ax2823 we got ax15 -2 everything you've been ordered to do um here's ax13 -48 and what does it say here uh assign so tassign tinnais assign someone to a certain classification used also with an abstract noun passive belong to be classed among those possessing so hassoy asan tetagmenoi aiszowain ionion so to be classified among those possessing eternal life so those it doesn't even give a translation as to how that is supposed to relate to the verb

I don't know I don't know but I guess that's what he's referring to is it's not disposed but it's in the passive which means that certain people have been classified or put into the class of those possessing eternal life by faith or by god doesn't say okay okay so there's that um white also states there's nothing in the text to motivate the disposed translation yet the scholars he cites buzzwells and alford as advocated give good contextual reasons that white ignores such as I mean again the question is are we going to derive our theology from the text or are we going to enforce it on the text what in the text provides any argumentation against the agreed upon translation of all major translations what in the text

I didn't see anything in either of them other than well my theology isn't strong enough to substantiate that a fair point white makes here concerns luke's usage of the word that he uses the passes of it elsewhere to mean a point but again listen carefully but that is not luke's only usage of it and his usage is relatively minimal he only uses the word itself five times and then only three times in the passive exclamation point that's irrelevant the luke in corpus is only so large and it is basic exegetical perspective to start with the author before going outside the author especially with luke in two of those b dag lists the usage under the arranging positioning meaning rather than under appointing white carries out a misleading argument in which he points out how ridiculous it would be to think the word means dispose in the places and acts where it clearly means appoint but this comes off as naive have you read dave hunt recently have you read the new world translation

I have encountered many people who have used the argument well if it can be disposed over here then we can just move it over here no you can't the whole point sir and you know this that's what bothers me about this a little bit is instead of giving a positive compelling argument for why acts 1348 is actually focused upon the gentiles disposing themselves to eternal life what you get is this abuse of scholarly information to hide the fact that you don't really have an argument that's what bothers me and then of course accuse the guy who's doing it the right way of being the one misleading people scholars know that a word's meaning is determined by context which was my argument word usage elsewhere by the same author is to be considered but it is not necessarily determinative see the weasel words when you don't have an argument well that's not necessarily determinative this is a case in which it clearly is not clearly why and that point is buttressed by Luke's limited usage what it needed to be used more often for this to be relevant so White's point here has little to do with the specific context of acts 1348 so Paul the fact that I establish

Luke and usage that is parallel is has little to do with the specific context of acts 1348 it is not much by way of positive evidence for his view or against the disposed view against which

White tries to argue wow that is pure double talk pure double talk

I mean this is how to fill a page with words when you don't have much else to say that takes us to White's grammatical argument which is simply invalid well now if you're going to say it's invalid you better knuckle down first he states the paraphrastic instruction must be translated as a pluperfect that is false pluperfects are frequently translated with a simple past tense

I was going to show it to you it's on a different computer than this is being pointed to I can't well maybe

I can hold on a second here no it wouldn't come up um

I referenced the charts are you saying that mounts is wrong are you saying that mounts does not identify this pluperfect construction that the tense meaning of the phrase is a pluperfect is that what you're saying pluperfects are frequently translated with a simple past tense but that is a relatively minor error no that was not an error are you simply arguing well it could we could just simply translate it as a simple past if that was relevant in the context the point is the phrase meaning is listed as the pluperfect in the reference source

I gave in the book um White then goes on seemingly to make a vital grammatical mistake in discussing the pluperfect he says that it speaks of a completed action in the past and does not contain the idea of continuation of the past action in the present in of itself the statement is true but then he seems italics to critically assume treat this as if it means something very different that is that the pluperfect actually indicates the past action does not continue in the present that is wrong

I said the pluperfect does not make a statement of whether it does or it doesn't he says he seems assumes man this is desperation is it really this airtight that you have to engage in this kind of argumentation it's amazing but note

Daniel Wallace Greek grammar beyond the basics now here's the problem he then quotes

Daniel Wallace on the pluperfect we're talking about the tense meaning of a periphrastic construction not a pluperfect finite verb so why don't you go to the section on periphrastic constructions but anyways but there's another way the fourth pluperfect tense is that it describes an event that completed in the past has results that exist in the past as well in relation to time speaking the pluperfect makes no comment about the results existing of the time speaking such results may exist in the time of speaking or they may not the pluperfect contributes nothing either way often however it can be asserted ascertained from the context whether or not the results do indeed exist up to the time of speaking that's

Dan Wallace I agree a thousand percent and it is perfectly consistent with what

I said now notice that I said seems to above because White could claim that he doesn't really state that it indicates the action does not continue in the present but then one wonders why he stresses the point about not indicating continuation into the present his inference is that Tasso refers to past action but that is unobjectionable you wonder why the

Armenians generally don't go out to debate but even if White's comments here were granted now have you noticed we didn't find what the error was here remember what

I said I said you're trying to say that this is in reference to the

Gentiles who at that point hear the quote from Isaiah and rejoice that's supposed to fulfill the pluperfect you see he can't substantiate that positively so what you do to make it look like you have a case is make accusations about what someone seemingly was saying without actually substantiating your point see how it works really good really bad but really good but even if White's comments here were granted or if he did not intend to indicate that the pluperfect means the action does not continue in the present then he makes a thoroughly flawed argument concerning the context in relation to the grammar he argues that on the disposed view

Tasso would have to refer to something that takes place at the very point where the Apostles quote from Isaiah and proclaim that the

Gentiles and proclaim that the Gentiles what's wrong with that can receive the blessings of the Gospel this is incredibly off track why would it have to do so first the

Gospel had already been preached to them the week before by Paul so we know they're the same people and evidently when the

Gospel was proclaimed to them the week before they disposed themselves to eternal life that's what we're supposed to take from this talk about Isaac Jesus so they certainly could have been disposed to eternal life through that indeed

I think they were but they could have already been disposed to eternal life before hearing from Paul too such as through being

God fears the synagogue the Old Testament see why taking the whole Bible and it's teaching about man

I mean this is here you're really seeing Arminianism here folks this is real

Arminianism this is Pelagian type Arminianism oh no no we've got prevenient grace get out of here with your prevenient grace second and relatedly the pluperfect construction is not connected directly to their rejoicing but to their believing it places the disposing prior to their belief not necessarily prior to their hearing the

Isaiah quote or even their rejoicing and honoring the word of the Lord. If the disposing view is taken then it makes perfect sense that the disposing is what led them to believe they were disposed to eternal life and believing in Christ was the means of gaining eternal life so they believed.

You got this folks? You understanding what these folks want you to believe? It's not grace it's you it's not grace it's not

God's choice it's you you were disposed the answer to why some believe and some do not you you you you not

God, not God's choice not God's grace maybe he believes in a peanut butter grace they're all getting the same amount

I don't know but it's got to be you you you you man man man man that's the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism So White's so really

White's argument is very weak. Sometimes it seems some are convinced by arguments like these because an author gives concrete reasons and mentions

Greek but they but that they do not necessarily think through the arguments well enough.

In the midst of White talking about the mysterious sounding Greek pluperfect he says it would have had to apply to such and such a point in the narrative that without any foundation for doing so and his following naturally believe it but the argument is not sound that is political salesmanship he didn't give us any meaningful argumentation.

All he did was nitpick nit nit nit nit nit I say this I say that and my position must be true wow that's amazing he's the one misusing

Greek here not me. I'm letting the text speak for itself. He has a position that he's got to establish there is nothing in there that establishes the idea that these folks they were all that other stuff we have in the apostles preaching about debt and sin.

Oh we can forget all of that. There you go so fascinating so if that's what the

Arminians are chatting amongst themselves about it's no wonder we can't get them out to argue very often it's no wonder

I have to wonder if Layton Flowers is a part of that group really do I'll bet he is.

I don't know that but I bet he is alright so there you go there's we pretty much went straight jumbo on that didn't we.

Yeah that's pretty good that's pretty good and it's probably best that I have not actually tried to keep up with the stuff on especially something that I'm what you adjust the microphone so that normally means you have some.

I was just thinking that the at a certain point the noise from the other room did die down so whoever was doing that is probably in the corner somewhere rocking and holding themselves

I don't know paying attention anymore. I mean

I just looking at some of the stuff right now it's going to be an interesting afternoon but I have other things to get to anyways to my balanced in the minority theonomist friends

I still love you I am probably more

I have been pushed away by the widespread oddness that I see taking place but to my balanced theonomist friends and you know who you are still love you to everybody else just simply won't listen

I can't help you if you want to just unfriend me and never watch or listen again it's your business

God bless you in your ministry to everybody else