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

Theonomy, Scripture’s Authority, and Bonson’s Arguments

John 10 35 gs 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.

2nd. 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 old 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 10 laws C mark 10 19 where do not fraud from deuteronomy 24 16 in the septuagint Verse 14 english versions is appropriately adduced in dealing with a rich young ruler and placed on a par do not kill.

In matthew 15 3 through 9 and mark 7 6 through 13 christ strongly rebukes the pharisees for failing to follow the law of god. He authoritatively quotes from two sections 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 theonomous critics were in diapers maybe before.

I'm reading from theonomy and christian ethics by greg bonson. I knew greg bonson. Uh, in fact have any of you um 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.

Um.

He was scheduled to debate roman catholic apostate and that can be taken in two ways now, but jerry matitox 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.

Um.

Came up, but it conflicted with his already made commitment to debate jerry matitox 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 debated jerry matitox on as I recall Justification by faith and the soul of scripture. 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.

Um.

There are all sorts of yellow markings and uh. And notes in the margins texts looked at and reviewed. Um, and i'm 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 Uh 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. An unbelievable misinterpretation a contextual 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. Uh the fact 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, uh says, um that basically. You know, why should I why should I listen to what someone's gonna say?

Uh.

He said to someone named joshua. To joshua whips actually, okay, 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's 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 what you've admitted. And i'm just like.

What?

Where's the balance? Where's the balance? I 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 9 In dallas y 'all might find that interesting.

Um 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 about how much relative amount of energy and thought do you put into the solas of the reformation. Sola scriptura the 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 the holiness code specifically. Giving the background entire sermons on.

The.

The gods of the canaanites that provide a lot of the background to these things and and canaanite religious practice. And Just did two sermons on how to map god's law discussed openly the fact that that while we have these categories There are times when the civil law Has a moral foundation that comes from the moral law.

And you and and that's why it's just 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 the size of mount everest.

Um.

That's bad enough. At least some people have disassociated from those kinds of folks. I think everybody needs to clearly. But where's the um. Where's 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 the time.

Um.

When I announced the time I said, uh, the dividing line begins at 1 p .m Eastern standard time today and it will begin with a message for the anonymous. Sorry for those of you at shepherd's conference.

Then again, I doubt security would let any theonomist in there anyways. Smiley face. Now we all know what it is, right? I mean shepherd's conference not known as the haven for theonomists. You know, it's it's John, mccarthur and And al moeller and these are not people who are self-identifying Theonomists, so it was pretty obvious what I was saying and I get a theonomist 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 of theonomy so that I could review it to my standards. Oh, you won't even study. You won't even you won't even learn about your good who cares what you have to say.

Just.

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 leading theonomist. All it said was sharia. Really? It's all 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 we're all. I mean talk about wagon circling Persecution complex again.

Oh, we're just Can't say can't 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 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've got to bring it with me.

Um, but I was 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 that way and I said well.

You 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 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 between in islamic thought between.

Sharia.

And the very essence of islam and what it means. To be in submission to allah. In fact, you don't understand this. You really like understand isis or any of these things and you're not gonna 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 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?

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 have to make proper distinctions between well the 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 god's law can be separated from his being because He can forgive sins without the reparation of his law without atonement without 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 erasmia 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 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, uh. Open open 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.

Um.

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

None.

Okay, I just I don't know why this particular One it will not it will not scroll. I 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 if you won't if you will not see that from someone outside. Fine fine. You know, it's 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 your attitude's horrific. He can't hear that. If you all can't hear what i've got to say fine I just I just ask you to Leave me alone. Just Just leave me alone.

I I don't 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. You all just if that's all you can do if you can't hear it.

Fine.

Just we'll 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. And you can just write me off as the. What was the terminology?

Um yesterday.

Uh.

Where did that. Here it is. Um. Largely uneducated and ignorant trickster. That was the term. Yeah. Just 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. I I. Not interested. Oh sweeping generalization fallacy. Okay, I give up. I'm gonna minimize twitter because it's like. Can't hear it fine. All right, i'm moving on.

Um. I've i've i've said what needed to be said. Take it for what it's worth. If you if you just want to talk about logical fallacies go go go. Uh, I don't think you're good. Anything else i've got to say you're not it's not gonna be worth it to you.

Anyways, because i'm not gonna be talking about that subject. So.

All right.

I told um. Where did I I pretty much on facebook Colin pearson that I was going to be responding to him and I need to get to it because it's 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 i've got stuff to do. It is somewhat relevant.

Um.

I I don't remember how long ago is it a couple couple weeks ago? One of the problems in talk, you know facebook. Instant communication. Wide audience need to be able to get information out. I do get both on twitter and facebook.

I get some I get some good leads for stuff and I appreciate it. It's great for doing research for the dividing line and.

Um.

You know I don't have time to be looking through stuff that people have and will send me stuff and I appreciate all that. One of the things I don't like about it, of course, the comment boxes can be very funny.

Uh 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.

And that's how you respond to stuff is meme generators but um. 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.

Um.

You have to engage in life.

Um.

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 mean i've got the little world thingy right now. My little world thingy has 14 on it.

Okay.

Um.

But I click on it and i've learned what the little badges are and this person liked this and this person comments. And I pretty much try. But after a few hours It's gone.

And.

So conversations tend to be fairly short and I don't I guess this is for some. Some folks like this. Um some folks like this. That means You everybody else gets the last word? Because I I ain't gonna get the last word because I I don't even see what's said.

Well a couple weeks ago Colin Pearson and I Had um Oh, I just got a twitter thing I actually have to look at. Oh, that's funny, uh, my son just said just tuned in. Can you repeat everything you just said about theonomy on this first 80?

Okay um.

Colin Pearson and I started talking about my assertion. Now I get to offend my Presbyterian friends, but that's all right.

Um.

That what I that and and this is you know, 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 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 did I see an inconsistency When it comes to the hermeneutic methodology Of my presbyterian friends. I call them pearson's a six-month convert to pato 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. Promise to your children stop over over over over again.

It's just 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.

Uh, he proved to me. I didn't see it. Um that I was wrong about my understanding of x chapter 2. And that what's in x chapter 2 has nothing to do with gentiles. None to a gentile at all. I'd like to look at x 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.

Of.

Acts chapter 2 beginning at verse 22 men of israel. Listen to these words jesus and nazarene a man attests 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.

Um, I guess i'll have to mute this thing. There we go. I'm oh, oh actually. Oh, uh, okay. And um, there you go.

I don't know where that came from.

Uh, is that? I'm, well, it's private message. And it's um quoting. Um, mr. McDermott.

Um.

The animus 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 have to have to just Before I say things I I shouldn't Shouldn't say I was gonna I was. Okay, i'm gonna do it now, um. Before I go back. Acts two. Sorry.

Sorry. Um, I did listen to the debate on a run yesterday. I'm not I I think 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 going to 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. Now, I guess jd is listening. I know joel is so both both the debaters are listening. Okay. Um, i'm 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 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 3026. Hall. The reason was Quite simple. Jd was more focused. He seemed to be more prepared. His cross-examination Was much crisper.

Um.

Joel hamstrung himself as everyone commented with the excessively long Um name dropping session.

Um.

Could have done three or four major names stopped their 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 I would say 3026 hall. Okay, so take that for what it's worth I offer it. There you go. Now, um going back, uh 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. How did the world oh? Love those love those advertisements if you if you miss and you end up on some solar calculator page place. And someone's gonna show up at your house the next day wanting to install solar panels, uh, just because you're on facebook.

All right back to acts. Chapter two. 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 in my right hand so I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exalted from over. 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 Brother. And I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch david. That he both died and was buried in 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 a band to hades nor did his flesh suffer decay.

This jesus god raised up again to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted the right hand of god and have received 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 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 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? And peter said to them repent and each of you be baptized in the name of jesus christ with 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 3 000 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 let's let's bring it up. Nobody needs to be seeing my ugly mode. 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 kai that that is that is not breaking it off into something else and to all.