Dr Greg Bahnsen - Theonomy and it's Critics: Hermeneutical Critiscisms (Part 2)

I have explained that in our six evenings together, I want to go over different ways of approaching criticism of my book Theonomy and Christian Ethics. Last Sabbath evening, we were looking particularly at the approach of Dr. Klein and his intrusion ethic, and if somebody comes from that perspective or slant how criticism is made of the theonomic perspective in ethics, and then how one might answer it. And tonight I'm going to be taking the approach of looking at criticisms that rest on one's theological method or hermeneutical principle. Somebody approaches the issue from a different method of doing theology or proposing another principle of interpreting the word of God. And so what I'm saying is not from the standpoint of church state relations or from the standpoint of sanctions or from the standpoint of redemptive history, but more generally, what is one's theological method or hermeneutical principle by which he argues against theonomy and Christian ethics? And this is going to encompass a number of things, not just one author. And what I've done here is I've listed some of my critics and how they approach the issue of theonomy in terms of a different theological method. So let me jump right into this. A former classmate of mine at seminary, Dr. Wayne Grudem, who now teaches at Bethel College in the New Testament area of New Testament, has written a chapter for a book that he hopes to see published. And the chapter of the book deals explicitly with the question, how much of the Old Testament law should we follow? And at one point, Dr. Grudem says, God has not given to any nation today the right to punish religious offenses. God is not given this right to any nation today. And then a little bit later on another page, he says, the New Testament does not say to do this. The New Testament does not explicitly say that secular government should punish religious offenses. Now I'm going to skip around here and pick up this same kind of thing, theme or program of criticism in other authors as well. John Richard DeWitt, professor of Systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, argues against the point of view that I hold, saying that the apostles in the New Testament did not impose upon the Gentile church the view that the Jewish judicial law was a continuing obligation. DeWitt says, we find no hint in the New Testament that the apostles explicitly imposed this view of the binding authority of the Jewish civil law on the Gentile churches. Another author taking the same approach, Robert Strong, formerly a professor of homiletics at Reformed Seminary, has written a general polemic against my book and distributed around the south, was a very influential Paper I understand in my dis invitation to speak at the Pensacola Bible Institute. And in this he argues that Christ and the apostles did not crusade against rulers of their day for failing to follow the Jewish civil law. Christ and the apostles didn't crusade against rulers for failing to follow the Jewish civil law. Donald Dunkerley, a pastor, Presbyterian Church of America, has written a paper, what is Theonomy? Another general polemic against my position that has received distribution, widespread distribution in the south, argues that the New Testament nowhere tells Gentile Christians to keep the laws given to the state of Israel. The New Testament nowhere tells Gentile Christians to keep laws given to the state Israel. And then in the report made on the question of theonomy in the Evangel Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America, we have this consideration raised against the theonomic perspective. Jesus did not press for the Roman government to enforce God's law as found in the Old Testament. Okay, I've gone over a number of authors, a number of places, but what is common to all of these? Any of you? What are they saying here? What is the thrust of this argument? What is the underlying premise? What is the strength or, if you will, the motif involved here?

Argument from silence.

Exactly. If it's not found in the New Testament, it's not obligatory. Let me read this again. God has not given any nation today the right to punish religious offenses. The New Testament doesn't say for us to do so. The apostles do not impose on the Gentile church the view that the Jewish judicials are a continuing obligation. Christ and the apostles don't crusade against rulers for failing to follow the law. The New Testament nowhere tells Gentile Christians to keep laws given to the state of Israel. Jesus did not press the Roman government to enforce God's law over and over and over again. The thought is we fail to find this in the New Testament. Okay, now let's take this very slowly and work through some answer to this approach. First of all, let's just ask ourselves, is it true? Is it true that the New Testament is silent on this point? Well, I guess I'm a little mystified by my critics saying the New Testament doesn't make any references like this. In light of the extensive evidence that I offer in my book for the New Testament saying these things now, everything that I offer in my book may be just wrong and I may have misunderstood it. And that would be well and good for my critics to say and show. But that's what mystifies me is that they don't say that they don't say Dr. Bonson gives what appears to be evidence but for the following reason. It's been misinterpreted. But I do offer evidence for the fact that the Jewish civil law is being enforced by Jesus and the apostles upon their own day and age. The Roman government. And this view is being advanced in the Genesis to which Paul writes. Lets think of some of this evidence we have recorded for us the fact that John the Baptist became something of a thorn in the side to Herod. Why? What was John the Baptist preaching? Kind of nice sweet apple pie in the sky by and by sermons. Right. That didn't touch on the political issues of his day. No. He became such noxious person using Herod's perspective because he kept talking about Herod's unlawful marriage. Unlawful? You notice John says it is not lawful for you to have this woman to be your wife. Well now what law is he talking about? Do you figure? Roman law? No, he's talking about God's law. He's a preacher of righteousness calling for repentance for violations against the law of the Creator. Jesus, after John the Baptist is beheaded for this kind of socio political preaching, a sensitive sort, once refers to Herod when messengers from Herod come to him saying that Herod has his dissatisfaction with the preaching of Jesus. Jesus says, you go back and you tell that vixen the following. Well now you might say you go back and tell Mr. President or his honored Majesty or the magistrate something respectful. But Jesus does not show any respect here. He says you go tell that vixen that vixen. And Jewish thought the fox was one of the lowest of animals for its cunning and its treachery. And a fox was a symbol for an evil ruler set over against the lion, known for his nobility and strength and prowess. But Jesus doesn't just call him a fox, which would have been low down, he calls him a vixen. Why? Because he's under the control of his evil wife. You go tell that vixen. Well one gets the impression here that Jesus and the apostles are pressing for a certain lifestyle in conformity with the law of God. Now Paul writes to the church in Thessalonica. You may remember in the book of Acts, Paul is in Thessalonica in chapter 17 and he has to flee the city because there are those who are raising a riot against the Christians in the preaching of Paul. And their accusation is these men teach contrary to the decrees of Caesar. Well does that mean they were involved in socio political preaching of an extra biblical sort or did they have a biblical point of view over against Caesar's? Well, specifically they taught there was another king, Jesus. Jesus has his laws too. He's the king of kings and the Lord of lords. And all civil magistrates must be his servants. They must be ministers of God. Okay, Paul has to flee from Thessalonica. He writes back in the book of first Thessalonians. He says, you know how earnestly I wish to come to you, but Satan prevented me. Both FF Bruce and Leon Morrison, commenting upon that passage in Paul, neither one of which can be accused of angtheonomic sympathies, say that Paul was explicitly alluding to the city council of Thessalonica as such. Satan, he said. They both say Paul expected his readers to catch the illusion. They knew very well the reason he can't come back to Thessalonica is because the city fathers will not let him. But Paul says Satan prevented us. No socio political preaching from the law of God. Paul in Second Thessalonians writes again to this same church and he tells them the day is coming in which the most evil ruler they'd ever imagined was going to come on the scene. And when the restrainer is withdrawn, then will be revealed the man of lawlessness. Lawlessness. Well, whose law is he without his own law? Is he without the civil law? Is he teaching contrary to the Roman law? No, it's the Roman Emperor that he's thinking of, whether it be the Roman Emperor in that day or in some coming restored Roman Empire. I will not get into tonight. The fact is it's a political ruler and Paul says he is a man of lawlessness. Now this same person is portrayed in the book of Revelation, chapter 13. John now portrays him as a beast who wants his name and number written on the forehead and upon the hand of everybody who would enter into the marketplace. The Old Testament law, according to Deuteronomy, was to be written on the forehead and the hand. So here you have the beast, the man of lawlessness, taking God's law away from the forehead and hand, putting his own law in that place. And then, after all, we really can't forget, can we? Romans, the 13th chapter, where Paul does give a Christian view of the civil magistrate. And he says this magistrate is to be a minister of God, avenging wrath against evildoers. Whose wrath is the magistrate avenging his own, his own private vendetta against people who don't do what he says, as just said at the end of chapter 12 to Christians, avenge not yourselves, for vengeance is mine, saith The Lord I will repay you. Go down six verses and you find out here's how God expresses his vengeance. Vengeance is mine. And the minister of God is called an avenger of wrath. God avenges civilization, penalties in civil offenses, sociopolitical evil doing. He avenges wrath against this through the person of the civil magistrate. Moreover, it is evil that the magistrate is to punish evil doers. He is to be a terror to evildoers. And if you read on in the same chapter, Romans 13, you'll see that Paul defines evil as that which is not in accordance with love, and love is the fulfilling of the law. So the first thing I say to my critics is, is it true that the New Testament is silent on this point? I don't buy that for a moment. I think the New Testament gives us far more than we had ever imagined about socio political ethics. And the evidence could go on. I mean, the very fact that the New Testament preaches against the evil of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ tells you that they believed that sociopolitical evil, the crucifixion of an innocent man, was of interest to them. Well, we could go on. But the second point I want to make against my critics now is even if the New Testament were utterly silent on the point, an argument from silence is always fallacious. That isn't to say that what you conclude from silence cannot be right. You can have a poor argument for a true conclusion. Okay, what if I conclude that this is Sunday night because the cow jumped over the moon? Well, the premise is very poor, the cow jumped over the moon. But the conclusion would be true. So it may be true that New Testament doesn't have us follow the law of God in socio political ethics, but it cannot be true because the New Testament is silent. That would be a bad argument. An argument from silence is never valid argument. Let me give you an example. In Acts, the 15th chapter, we read that there are those troubling the church called Judaizers who teach that men must be circumcised if they're going to be saved. And the response of the Jerusalem Council there is very firm that this is an erroneous heretical point of view. But it's interesting that they never go on to say that circumcision couldn't possibly be required because we know that baptism has replaced circumcision in the plan of God. Now, since they don't use that argument, and it certainly would have been a relevant argument there, then clearly they didn't believe that baptism had been replaced by circumcision Anybody want to buy that argument from silence? Or how about this in first, John, John is arguing against those who deny the full humanity of Jesus Christ, that he came in the flesh. One of the arguments that would have been a real clincher for that point of view is that Jesus was born of a woman. He was born of a woman. He had to be a real human being. But John never once mentions that Jesus was born of a woman. Consequently, John didn't believe that Jesus was born of a woman. Right? You see, arguments from silence lead to horrendous conclusions. Oftentimes we're silent on a point because the point just doesn't have to be raised or there's another way to approach it. Silence can be interpreted in a lot of ways. So my second point is that it's just philosophically fallacious to argue from silence. But my third and I think the most important point is that an argument from silence is fallacious over against the very strong presumption that the New Testament explicitly gives that everything in the Old Testament is binding. You see, we have passages of Scripture like James chapter two, that a man who keeps the whole law and yet violates it at one point is guilty of breaking all of it. One would certainly get the impression that James is saying you should keep every point of the law. Paul says every scripture of the Old Testament is profitable so that we might have instruction in righteousness. One would get the explicit instruction from Paul there, I think, to follow every scripture of the Old Testament. Jesus our Lord says, man shall not live by bread alone, but shall live by every word from the mouth of God. One would get the impression then, wouldn't he, that every word of the Old Testament has binding authority. Jesus says in Matthew the fifth chapter, anyone who teaches the breaking of even the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Again, you get the impression, don't you, that we're supposed to keep all of the commandments. Now, I should say that that gives us a presumption that unless the New Testament is qualifies those general pronouncements that we should particular law found in the Old Testament. These passages all teach the presumption of continuity of moral standard between Old and New Testament and over against those explicit passages. An argument from silence is in fact contradictory to the word of God. Covenantal law says you shall not take away from the law of the Lord and you cannot take away from that law without God's say so. Therefore, an argument from silence is not simply the philosophical fallacy. All should be aware of it is in fact contrary to the very teaching of God's word to let silence abrogate anything from God. So here's one approach to arguing with theonomy. The New Testament doesn't say these things. Well, one, the New Testament does say these things. Two, even if it didn't, it'd be a philosophical fallacy to appeal to it. And three, it would be contrary to the explicit teaching of continuity in the New Testament to use that approach. Okay, ready to change gears again in the general field of theological method and hermeneutical principle. It has been argued by Dr. Van Groningen for Theological Seminary, an Old Testament professor, that my book is guilty of proof texting and is guilty of proof texting. He says. Now I should say that while this is not expanded upon, that this is generally an argument falling within the question of theological method. How should we do our theology? What is our method of theologizing? And if I understand this right, my method was wrong in the book. Now he thinks particular conclusions are wrong, but more generally my method was wrong because what I engaged in proof texting, how would I respond to that accusation? It all depends on what Dr. Van Groningen means by proof texting. Sometimes that is a label applied to people who go to the Bible without any sensitivity to context and to what the whole Bible has to say on a subject. And just if you will piece together just portions of verses or verses out of context as a pretext for some other conclusion that's preconceived. Now, if that's what he means by proof texting, then what he really ought to do is to give evidence of it. He ought to give evidence that I habitually read passages of the Bible out of context. And if that should be shown, I think we should all be very, very interested in that, because that would, I think, tend to disqualify what is being argued. If a person appeals to the Bible, but doesn't really appeal to what it's saying, but only what it appears to say when you take it out of context. And that would be a terrible thing. The difficulty is that Dr. Van Groningen doesn't offer one evidence of proof texting in that bad sense. Moreover, he doesn't show show that it's a habit of mine elsewhere. From what Dr. Van Groningen argues against me saying that I take the Bible too analytically and try to be too precise in joining together what it teaches from place to place. I get the impression that he's not saying I read it out of context. I think what he's saying is that our theological methods are different. You feel the need to go to the Bible and find some particular statement that backs up your premises, and I don't. And now am I going to defend myself against this charge? I really don't feel the need to defend myself against this charge. I think Dr. Van Groningen is a proof texter too. In his heart of hearts. He's an evangelical and he believes in sola scriptura. I think he's much better in practice than this criticism makes him out to be. But it's the criticism he is spread wide and has given to his classes. And it's one that has to be answered. And I should just say that if he were consistent with his principle, praise God, he's not. But if he were, I would just say we have different religions. And my religion is one of proof texting. I believe that what I teach, as thus saith the Lord, has got to have some foundation in the word of God. And that means that when I argue in theonomy, I'm proud of the fact there's over 2000 references to particular Bible verses. I'm not proud of it if I've done it poor, poorly, if I read it out of context, or if I've abused the word of God. And I'm sure because we're all sinful, that will be found. But I don't think anybody will rightly show that I'm in the habit of doing that kind of reading in the Bible. Okay, another argument. This is now a third thing. We're changing gears again. Again, Dr. Van Groningen says, contrary to the theological method as theonomy, that it uses a static view of Scripture, ignoring progressive revelation. It uses a static view of Scripture, ignoring progressive revelation. Well, I'm at a disadvantage in answering this because I don't know what a static view of Scripture is. That's a metaphor that just escapes me. I tend to think that that's just another way of saying ignores progressive revelation. Progressive revelation is this dynamic, on the move view of Scripture. And I have one that doesn't allow for that. Therefore, it's static. Now, if he means something else, he'll have to explain himself, but I don't know what else it could mean. But now do I ignore progressive revelation? If I ignored progressive revelation, I would think it's strange. I would have spent 80 pages on Matthew chapter 5 trying to interpret the Old Testament law in light of the new New Testament teaching. Strange for a person ignoring progressive revelation. Or why is it if I ignore progressive revelation, I make such a point that it is sinful and evil to follow the ceremonial law today, ignoring that the fulfillment of that has come in Christ. See, this doesn't seem to be to be fitting of a person who doesn't believe in revelation to let the New Testament interpret the Old, to let the ceremonial law be fulfilled in Christ, and so forth. I think the problem here is that Dr. Van Groningen has confused progressive revelation, the idea that God progressively reveals his will more and more and more with an evolutionary view of God and his moral standards. See, I don't believe progressive revelation means evolutionary ethics, that God has one ethic in the Old Testament and a different ethic in the New. And so I think that's the underlying fallacy here. Let me turn to another general idea of criticism, theonomy. From the point of view of theological method and hermeneutical principle. It has been argued that theonomy is inconsistent because it insists on spooky New Testament change or repudiation of the law if it's not to be followed. And yet theonomy does allow for the change of the Sabbath day without specific instruction in the New Testament. The argument is theonomists say we don't change an Old Testament law unless the New Testament says so, and yet theonomists are willing to change the day of Sabbath observance. I'm not going to spend a lot of your time, your valuable time tonight answering that criticism. I'm simply going to say that I allow for a change of the Sabbath day just because I think the New Testament teaches it. And if I didn't think the New Testament taught it, I wouldn't practice it. The assumption here is I think this is Leroy Taylor of Reformed Seminary who was writing this criticism. I think the assumption here is we all know as Presbyterians we can't justify this on any explicit textual basis. We just kind of do it because of the feeling of the New Testament. And I'm not sure how he would categorize it. You see, I think the apostolic example is very clear, and I believe the apostolic example is authoritative for the Church of Jesus Christ founded upon the testimony of the apostles. Consequently, I think there is explicit New Testament evidence for the change of the day. I don't find any difficulty with that. Granted, not everybody is convinced by the evidence. Seventh Day Adventists are not convinced. But that's another issue. It may not say it the way they want it to be said, but I nevertheless consider it explicit evidence. So I don't find any inconsistency. Dr. Well, it's not. Dr. Mr. Taylor, Leroy Taylor has also argued in various letters that he has circulated against my book that theonomy imposes a system of logical analysis on Scripture, not using a biblical theological exegesis following redemptive history. That's a broadside if there ever was a broadside. And I do think that I understand biblical theology and redemptive history, and I think there's plenty of illustration of that in the book. I'm not going to take your time to look up all the pages, but I think it's rather clear if you read chapters in the book on covenantal unity and ceremonial law and all that. But now this imposing a system of logical analysis on Scripture is an interesting thing for an opponent to say. What he's saying is you're being too precise and too logical. Well, I guess at that point that's where you want your opponent to say, now speak up right into the microphone. Tell the public in clear words that you don't want to be precise and logical about this. I think I don't want to defend that. I simply want to say, of course we have to be consistent. We have to be logically precise. We have to ask, what does the Bible say? How do these verses relate to each other? And if that seems too logical and precise, then we have a different approach to theology. I believe in proof texting. I believe in being logical. And if you don't believe in being logical, then just speak up into the microphone because I want the public to know that the opponents of theonomy grant that they are the illogical ones. I don't think they really want to say that. But I mean, if you're going to criticize me for being too logically precise, then I think that's the implication. All right, let's see if we can find a few other of these general principles. Doctor Van Groningen has said that the hermeneutical principle that we should use for distinguishing between laws that are valid in the Old Testament, laws that are not valid in the New, or Old Testament, laws that are not valid today, and Old Testament laws that are. The principle that we use for distinguishing is the idea of organic progressive revelation. Under the leading of the Holy Spirit, We have to grant progressive revelation. We've already looked at his criticism from progressive revelation, but specifically under the leading of the Holy Spirit, to which I would simply say he either means the leading of the Holy Spirit outside of the word of God, or he means the leading of the Holy Spirit according to the word of God. Is the Spirit illumining my reading of the Holy Scripture? That's how I know. Or is the Spirit telling me this apart from the Word of God? Well, if he thinks that the Spirit tells us this apart from the Word of God, then we really do have a theological difference. And if he means that the Spirit teaches this according to the Word of God, then we have to get right back into the ball game and say, where's your exegetical proof? It isn't enough to say the Spirit's leading me to hold this position. You have to show where the Spirit leads us from the Word of God. Okay? Ian Murray at the Banner of Truth Trust writes in a In a series of letters to Dan Morse of Pennsylvania, OPC Pastor, former Professor of Old Testament Reformed Seminary A number of things about theonomy and these letters have received general circulation. And I've been in communication with Mr. Murray about this. And in this series of correspondence he argues that a person is talking about abuses to which the rushduni view are taken. He speaks of a man who will not buy automobile insurance. As you see how ridiculous this theory becomes. Now, of course I'm not going to spend time on that. Rush Jr. Doesn't believe that. Rush Jr. Doesn't teach that. The law of God doesn't teach that. So if somebody who follows our general approach claims that he's claiming it totally apart from our teaching and it's an abuse of a principle. It has nothing to do with central claims. But here is what I would like to get into. Mr. Murray goes on to say from that isn't the problem with this person in recognizing that the purpose of Scripture is not to reveal socio political standards? His error, says Mr. Murray, is failing to see what the real purpose of Scripture is. It's not that he's made an erroneous judgment as to what the Bible teaches, but he's wrong to think the Bible teaches anything about such a subject as this. To which my answer is that all Scripture inspired of God is profitable for doctrine and for proof and correction and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work and that means he's equipped for good works of a socio political sort as much as good works for a private moral sort. Consequently, if the Bible supplies our every ethical need for righteousness, it is not improper to look at the Bible to see what it teaches about these matters. How can we fail to think that God is interested in socio political morality when we see so much in the New Testament saying that he will condemn kings and rulers for their failures to honor his standards in socio political matters. How can we look at the Old Testament law and think that God does not have an interest in socio political morality? All right. I believe these are the general hermeneutical and theological principles and methods that are used by the critics of theonomy to argue against the specific conclusions that I come to. I'm going to look at one more major one, that is the approach, the argumentative approach from the embarrassing details of the law. One more hermeneutical approach or theological method. But this may be a good point to stop for a few minutes and let you ask questions and discuss it.

One of the very impressive arguments for me after I had read your book a couple times was in one of the Rustuni Chalcedon letters, a man by the name of Sloat, not Leslie Sloat, but a different slot, wrote an article on the sin unto death. And he made a case that the sin unto death is exactly that. It is a sin in which capital punishment was a prescribed punishment by God. And after I thought about it, that's the only intelligent exegesis of that text I can think of. You know, for years I have struggled and taught around that verse, the sin unto death. It never occurred to me once, it's not that I rejected it, it just never occurred to me that that could be capital punishment. I thought that somehow it was the unforgivable sin or something like that. But I think the apostle now is saying there's a sin unto death. I say, not that you should pray for it. My reading of that now is there's a sin for which the civil magistrate by God has a capital punishment. And I say, not that you should pray that the punishment be removed. In other words, a Christian falls under this capital punishment and let's say he's forgiven and he's restored by his church, you should not beseech the Lord that the punishment be removed.

I believe that that conclusion is correct. I'm not sure whether that exegesis is right. I just haven't worked that through.

But my point is I can't think of anything else that even comes close to meaning anything.

Yeah, it is true that most people either trivialize the verse or come up with very eccentric interpretations.

Once you go the way of the unforgivable sin, the text can't mean anything. It just can't mean anything.

It is difficult. That's an interesting suggestion. I'm not going to commit myself, especially on tape, to it. But I must say the conclusion is right. And the proposal that's the meaning of the verse is intriguing. And I'll just have to study that.

And the reason I bring it up at point this juncture is because we were talking about silence, and I think that's a loud barking dog.

If that's the meaning of the verse, that would be extremely strong.

I can't read that verse now without thinking of that exegesis of it. A sin unto death, capital offense. It makes so much sense to me now.

Other questions or remarks, discussion. You almost be tired and docile tonight. Okay, let's look at the last approach that I call one of the arguments from general theological method, and that's the argument from the embarrassing details. The approach here is to bring up certain horrid examples of the application of God's law to today. Okay? So Dr. Grudem, that I referred to earlier, says that some of the penal sanctions of the Old Testament simply seem too harsh to us, such as death for cursing one's parents. Some of the penal sanctions seem too harsh to us today. In Mr. Leroy Taylor's correspondence against theonomy, he points out that a candidate for the ministry who holds the theonomic view may not have really thought it through because he's not aware that rebellious children, Sabbath breakers, blasphemers, false prophets, those engaged in premarital unchastity, who hide the fact from their husbands, those are capital crimes. He's not aware of the fact that the annihilation of a city is called for, for apostasy in the law. Cursing parents is a capital crime. A wife grabbing the private parts of a man who's fighting with her husband has to have her hand cut off. Debt, slavery, the whole institution of slavery, police, polygamy, concubinage, the levirate, marriage, hybrid seeds, mixed fibers, the flogging of people, all these things are found in the law. Now, all I can figure is that he's bringing these things up because he considers them horrid examples. He's certainly not bringing them up saying, oh, and by the way, you may recall, the law says these things. No, it's in an argument against the application of the law when she says, we've got to be mindful, all these things are called. And then Mr. Taylor says that this would certainly be a practical impossibility for us today. And what somebody needs to do who holds this view is to get into the real world. All right? Dr. Strong, formerly of Reformed Seminary, in his polemic against my book that has been circulated, points out that homosexuals have the death penalty applied to them, that polygamy is allowed in the Old Testament concubinage slavery, cities of refuge, Sabbath observance is required. Then he mentions demon possession and idolatry. And he says there is a great difficulty of carrying over intact Old Testament laws into the New Testament. Donald Dunkerley, in his polemic against my book, says that one of the problems is that it calls for extreme positions on social obligations. His example is that it calls for the execution of adulterers, homosexuals and rebellious children. He comes back to the rebellious children. That is especially an outstanding example of how bad this view is that rebellious children are called for, death is called for them. And then you will all know from having read the interchange between myself and Aiken Taylor, not Leroy Taylor, but Aiken Taylor, the editor of the Presbyterian Journal, that when he takes up the question of theonomy and Christian behavior, his after introductory remarks, his whole polemic is how does theonomy respond to capital punishment for adultery, cursing parents and sabbath breaking? How does theonomy respond to the idea that a man with crushed testicles cannot enter into the sanctuary? That somebody born as an illegitimate child cannot be part of the congregation? How does it respond to permanent slavery or family behind if you're emancipated from slavery? Or the literal use of the lex talionis, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the literal cutting off of an offending hand, as Jesus says, wives having more secure rights depending upon their relationship to the family previous to marriage, the prohibition of mixed cloths. How does the enemy respond to these things? The idea is, look at these horrid examples. Well, how should we respond to this? I think of all the methods of arguing against theonomy, this is perhaps the least respectable approach to the whole issue. It's least respectable because even if a person believes that the Old Testament law is not on good and sound exegetical basis to be followed today, one may never take to himself the prerogative of ridiculing what is found in the Bible. As John Frame says, in a number of places, it is never our position to deprecate the Old Testament laws themselves. We may believe that they don't apply to us, but we can't believe they don't apply to us because they're somehow silly or wrong headed. And that is exactly what this approach says. This can't be true because look at the ridiculous and harsh and terrible things we have to do. Well, it may be I don't have to hold this conviction. It may be that the Bible teaches we aren't to follow them, but the Bible never teaches we don't follow them because they're somehow wrong in themselves. If they were good for Israel so that the psalmist could praise the perfection of the law and could thank God for granting him by his grace, the law. If Moses could say, all this law has been given for your good. If these things were good for Old Testament Israel, then it cannot be utterly obvious that they are wrong today in and of themselves. It may be taught in the Bible, but it is not obvious in themselves that these laws are wrong. That is to deprecate the very wisdom of God in giving these laws. Moreover, it is fishing for an emotional reaction rather than an exegetically based, intellectual and rational decision. It is saying, how do you like this? Maybe your kids will be killed. Maybe it will be your sister who is put to death. How would you like to have to run to a city of refuge? But where does God ever say, how would you like to follow my law? How does this sound to you? Paul's approach is, let God be true, though every man's a liar. If God says to do the most absurd thing in the world, apparently I would rather do it and gain his blessing than to be right with the world. Now, of course, I don't happen to think God does give absurd laws. I happen to think that when we look at a law and say, wow, there's something weird about it. The weirdness is in us. You see, we're the bent ones. We're the ones who don't see things right. We're the ones who've been blinded by sin. We're the ones who live in a world that doesn't know how to get along with patterns of justice and righteousness. We're the ones who need to be straightened out. God's law doesn't need to be straightened out. Now, again, I'm not saying that these laws have to be kept just by looking at them. I am saying that by just looking at them, you can't reject them because you think they're somehow weird. They are not harsh because God is never harsh. They are not weird or strange or inapplicable or not part of the real world. I should tend to think that our world is moving more and more into unreality because of its failure to follow the law of God. Now, of course, I could take your time tonight to go through every one of these examples. Some of them are just simply misinterpretation of the law itself. Some of them don't honor the distinction between ceremonial and moral law. And so here's an attempt to make A theonomist look ridiculous by attributing to him something that he never would hold, like the literal following of the lex talionis. I don't think anybody has ever understood the lex talionis to be taken in a literal way, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. So that if I've done something that breaks your arm, then the civil magistrate must now put my arm out and break it in exactly the same way. The Jews of the Old Testament didn't understand it that way. And there's no reason to think that a theonomist must. But let's assume that that is the meaning of the law. Who are we to stand back and say God, you don't know what you're talking about. Now I don't happen to think that is what it says. But if it said that and I were convinced of it, then we would be obligated to do it unless God said otherwise. We never take extreme positions on socio political obligations. We only take positions which in the face of our secularism and our age about us look extreme to the world. They seem extreme. Well, maybe our thoughts are not God's thoughts and our ways are not his ways then. And this is an opportunity for us to learn what it is to be submissive to every word from the mouth of God. I think it's put very well by the report of the evangelical, excuse me, of Evangel Presbytery, the pca. Just a word about the report of this committee. This committee was formed after the presbytery was asked to vote that those who hold the theonomic view would not be acceptable in that presbytery. The press took that stand and then said maybe we ought to have a committee to study the issue too. All right. Now this much this must be said for this presbytery in this committee. However, they did put two theonomists on the committee, the two in the Presbyterian. These men were faithful and diligent and prayed that God would open minds and give a hearing to the word of God. They even were able to get the committee to pay to come to Alabama and testify before them. And while there's a lot that could be said pro and con for their procedure, this is what they reported. I'm not going to read the whole thing but one paragraph. Toward the end of their recommendations a year later, after they had condemned the theonomic view, they had written to every reformed seminary in the country saying that candidates who come to us who hold the theonomic position will likely not be acceptable. But they later wrote this that Evangel Presbytery acknowledged that its action of June 10, 1978 on this issue of theonomy was taken without proper study and deliberation. That the report of this committee be accepted as Evangel Presbytery's present position on this matter as it modifies and clarifies the former action, that copies of this report be sent to the seminaries receiving notice of the former action, that copies of this report be made available to other courts of the church studying the issue early. I think when comes out with a very balanced thing, although people who are against the otomies still state their objections, they say it cannot be made a matter of orthodoxy. It praises the book for a number of things and okay, they say they're speaking of the they have about four pages single space, the advantages of theonomy and why they now think that it was a good thing that the book be written and so forth. They speak of my book saying his work is admittedly threatening to read. His book can be wearying. He writes with exhausted details, which is a cute play on the word exhausted detail. But to respond negatively without interacting with his work, and particularly without arguing from the Scripture, is to fail to do the necessary job of coming to understand the Bible through through exegesis. Thus, for example, to argue against aspects of theonomy merely on the grounds that it seems harsh or strange, or that the implications are too far reaching, or that it will never work in the 20th century, or that things are different now is to fail to interact with Scripture. The point must ever be what does the word of God teach and mean for us today, and not whether it is comfortable, easy, or painless? God's Word, even in the New Testament, is going to cut radically across the grain of our increasingly secular culture. Dr. Bronson interacts exegetically with the Bible, thus we are grateful to be driven back to sound exegesis in dealing with this issue. And I didn't read that to pat myself on the back. My point is our obligation is to understand what does the word teach and then get to the job of applying it. And not to say does this really fit into our expectations.

Is that report a matter of public record?

Yes, it is.

And can we obtain copies of that?

Hopefully you can. Would you like the address where you can write for it? Yes.

I can see you privately later if you want.

Or maybe you can just make a copy of mine if you'd like.

Yes, I would. I'd like to.

And I plan to publish a good portion of this in my book too, because a lot of what they say I think is valuable.

Maybe the whole fellowship would like copy. Greg, it might be a good idea for you to give that address in case anybody listening to tape might want that address.

I'll do that. I hope that I'm giving the right thing. I'm giving you the address of the chairman of the committee. And if it's not the right address, anybody on tape writing can probably get the proper one from him. It's a James Hatch at the Oak Park Presbyterian Church, 1615 Mulberry Street, Montgomery, AL 36106. I trust that Mr. Hatch will either arrange for or tell you where you can get a copy of this committee report. Now the committee report, like I say, has nice things to say about the book. And it says the terrible thing is the way this whole issue has been pursued. And it goes on to give what they consider cautions against theonomy. Has theonomy adequately recognized this? Has theonomy adequately recognized that? And I don't mind if you read that. You'll find my answer to whether it's been adequately recognized and so forth in my book. But I was very pleased that God had graciously given a spirit of reconciliation and open mindedness to this committee. It's a real victory for the power of the gospel, I must say, because as you already see, these men came in with minds made up that they were going to string up theonomist ecclesiastically.

What's the date of that dialogue document? When was it made a matter of public record?

Well, this was sent to the Presbyters on the 5th of June and Presbyterian Met on the 12th of June. That's when this report was received by the Presbyterian Act.

And when did you appear before them?

I believe I. I appeared before. I'd have to look at my personal calendar. I think it was In March of 80. Of 80?

Yes.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. March 79. March of 79. And then? Then they came to their report toward the end of May. In June they wrote it up and the presbytery received it. So again, my point wasn't. I'm glad to bring this out. It is. It is good news for us to see that. That mines do get open and changed and that sort of thing. But my point here is this were exactly right in responding to the horrid example. Argument against theonomy seems horrid to you. It may be that you haven't got your emotions squared away with the word of God and our obligation is to do exegesis, not to ask how easy or comfortable it is to do the law of God.

What about the bottom line? Did they rescind the index against theonomists coming to their Presbyterians?

Yes, that's what I read for you. They said they were sending a letter to every other, to all these seminaries renouncing the act they had taken. And in this they admit guilt that they came in with their minds made up and it was wrong.

So candidates may now be interviewed.

If a person came with the theonomic conviction, he may be acceptable or may not be acceptable, depending on other factors. For instance, if he comes in and wants to be a white knight, you know, calling everybody a heretic who doesn't agree, then he may be rejected, but not because of his theonomic views, because he doesn't know how to get a walk, that sort of thing. But theonomy in itself, as I understand this report, will not keep a man from being ordained in that presbytery. Not in itself, but the way it's pursued.

Mind, do you know via the grapevine if the PCA has viewed that report with favor or with general disfavor?

Well, since we're on that subject, let me just say the PCA General assembly had a study committee going during the same year, and that is a short enough report that maybe we can. I can read that to you. The PCA General assembly gave it to the Christian Education Committee for the year 1979-80 to report on. Wait a minute, 78 to 79. Excuse me. And I won't read the report itself, but I will read the recommendations on the question of theonomy. The reports about a page and a half single spaced. Well, let me read a couple of paragraphs. It says, the psalmist proclaimed, oh, how love I thy law. It is my meditation all the day. Every true Christian loves the law of God and in that general sense should hold to some view of theonomy. The extremes which biblical Christians must always avoid are antinomianism and legalism. Antinomianism means being against the law. Legalism is seeking to be saved by keeping the law. We are not saved by keeping by law keeping, but for law keeping. Very good. And it admits that. This is the view of some Puritans at the Westminster assembly that the controversy in our day is over social and political righteousness and the political use of the law, it says here. Some, however, would insist that the underlying principles of all the Old Testament case law are permanently valid and that wherever a situation allows, the literal case law still applies. The point being made is that Decisions must be reached on an exegetical basis and not on a subjective basis. All of which, of course, I'm very pleased with. The recommendations to the whole church which were adopted were following a that since the term theonomy in its simplest definition means God's law, the General assembly affirms the Westminster Confession of faith. Chapter 19 in the Larger Catechism, questions 93 to 150, is a broad but adequate definition of theonomy, which of course is very pleasing to me as it recognizes the larger catechism appeals to the judicial law of the Old Testament to interpret the Ten Commandments. 2. That no further study of the subject of theonomy be undertaken at the General assembly level at this time, but that individual Christian section and presbyteries having particular interest, be encouraged to study the subject in a spirit of love, kindness and patience. 3. That the general assembly affirm that no particular view of the application of the judicial law for today should be made a basis for orthodoxy or excluded as a heresy. For that the General assembly encouraged pastors and Sessions to instruct their people in the law of God and its application in a manner consistent with our confessional standards. Two things. It says that theonomy will not be a touchstone of acceptance or rejection. Therefore, that makes it acceptable in the Church, which of course it must be, since it's confessional anyway. But the last statement, totally apart from the political question who's on this side or that side of the line? If nothing else, I praise God that my book got to the point of stimulating a denomination, a large one, to say that the General assembly encourages pastors and Sessions to instruct their people in the law of God and its application, even if they don't agree with every detail of my approach to it. The very fact that the Church is being told study the law and how it applies means we've taken a huge step forward from the secularism and antinomianism of our day. And so I was very pleased for this report.

Now, that document was evolving. The same type of the Evangel Presbyterian.

That's right.

You don't see a causal relationship between them?

No. In fact, I'm fairly sure there wasn't a causal relationship.

I thought I detect in that. In the one you just read, the style of Nigel Lee. Was he on that committee?

No, he wasn't.

There are a couple of phrases in there that are reminiscent of him, although.

My pastor, Michael Schneider was on that committee, which I was very happy for. Other questions on tonight's lesson, I'm gonna Put these away. But go ahead. We can keep talking.

You said you're not gonna take the time tonight to discuss misunderstandings of some Old Testament penalties, right? I would be interested in hearing between now and May, you see is the peculiar wisdom of some of the these statutes. Because I have a feeling, for example, when you bring out what you think is uniquely wise about some of these penalties, that it will reveal some of our own misunderstandings in them. For example, I know when I read your book about the unruly child, so to speak, it's a person who beats up his father and his mother too much. He drinks. She cannot be controlled. So we're talking about at least a teenager, right?

Oh sure. Someone who can get drunk and who should have a job and doesn't, who can get away with fighting with his father. Right.

So I would be interested if the body would be interested sometime some evening you going through the peculiar wisdom you see in each of these, in some of these penalties. And I think it would reveal a lot of exegesis we have it faced.

Let me say something about that particular law. It's interesting to me that that is over and over again in my opponents appeal to is look at the horrendous things that must be done. If we follow this. We'd have to execute our rebellious children. Does anybody know in all the teaching of Jesus there is only one reference to a capital crime that Jesus cites with approval?

I believe it's Matthew 15, Matthew 15:4.

Jesus says God says execute your rebellious children. But you say, and it's in the context of condemning them for letting their traditions get in the way of following the word of God. The implication which is not easily accepted by my opponents, but the implication is clear in the text that Jesus says I condemn you for not following those laws. The only law that jes. The only capital crime Jesus makes reference to is the execution of rebellious children. And yet that's the very one my opponents have gone to is showing how horrendous my view is. I think that's ironic, isn't it? Almost providential.

Are you amenable to going through such a list of misunderstandings?

Sure. I just couldn't do it tonight because time required that I. My strategy in these lessons is to take up different approaches to criticism. Last week we looked at intrusion ethic. This week to different like arguments from silence and progressive revelation and embarrassing details. And then next week or the week after actually we'll be talking about another approach. Maybe the whole redemptive historical argument or the church state separation argument. That sort of thing. But, yeah, we could do that sometimes.

One other thing I would like, John, if we have the time, is one point that I had tremendous trouble with about six months ago is. Is the Christian who discovers a crime of some Christian in the church, is he obligated to report that to the civil authorities for penalties? The whole subject of obligation of reporting. I would like some clarity on that. Must we surrender these people to the civil magistrate? Must we report them? Must we initiate the reporting?

First of all, it's rather clear that if the state doesn't have laws against these things, there's nothing to report. We don't report ex post facto. So that if we find out there's a practicing homosexual in our church, won't do any good to take him to the state today. The state doesn't care. He says, okay, so what? He's a homosexual. So the question is, what if we had an ideal situation where the state honored the law of God, then would we have to turn them in? And you understand the distinction I'm drawing. Okay, so if there were laws on the. On the. On the statute book against, say, homosexuality, when we have to turn in a practicing homosexual. And I suppose different theonomists have different approaches to this. This is my own, and it's subject to correction. I'm teachable on it. It's a tough question, but this is the way I approach it. Seems to me there's a difference in the Old Testament between laws that. That if you will call for penalty because of an outstanding debt or habeas. Not habeas corpus, but a corpus delicti, so that if somebody has been murdered, there is that body there, and there must be a counterbalancing execution of the murderer. If you have stolen money, there is that debt there and you must pay it back with restitution. But there are other crimes which are punished not on the basis of some damage outstanding, the body, the lost money, so forth, but are punished on the basis of the continuing activity itself as being an abomination. Let me give you an illustration. A child who is incorrigible toward his parents instruction is to be executed. But now, what would happen if on the day before, this child is supposed to go to court to appear before the city elders at the city gate, he's converted. Now, it's true that the child had in the past been incorrigible, but the whole point of going to the magistrate is that the child's uncontrollable, but now the child's controllable. We say Child, we're thinking of teenager or older. But here this son is now saying to his father, I repent of all the evil I have done. I wish to be submissive to your authority. How can you prove. I mean, how can you take that child before the elders for execution when in fact the problem doing problem. So it's clear, it seems to me, that there is a difference between crimes of that nature punished because of the continuing practice, and crimes punished because of the outstanding debt, if you will. The body, the money, gone. And I should think that as we look at homosexuality, if we lived in an ideal state, that if a man is repentant of his homosexuality before the civil magistrate has evidence against him, he does not need to turn himself in. We don't need to turn him into the state if the practice has ceased. Okay, so a converted homosexual does not need to die. A converted murderer, on the other hand, is in the other category. The corpus delicti is there. A converted thief still has restitution to make, but an incorrigible child, an adulterer, a homosexual who's converted would not be in that same position. So I wouldn't think we have to turn in people who have formally committed such crimes. Such were some of you, Paul says, but now you were washed clean. That's all over with. The civil magistrate is not concerned for people who have given up the crime. It's concerned with people who are practicing the crime. But now, what if we find a professing Christian who's practicing homosexuality? Then I believe we have an obligation to turn him in because that is contrary to the law of God. It's contrary to the law of the state. And it's something not in his past, but something that's in his present. And the practice of that sin calls for the due penalty.

And a converted murderer, you would have.

To turn in, and he would have to turn in because it's in a different category, the corpus delicti category, if you will. If somebody can help me find a better way of terming that, that'd be great. But you get a feel for the difference. Now, I grant that we're working through some difficult material. I don't know who I can even tell you to read on this subject. As far as I know, I'm the only person who's even asking. Well, now, what about these different circumstances, different types of crimes?

Well, thank you for kind of thinking out loud there, because that was extremely interesting. If I may give one illustration of the tremendous level of fear on this subject is when I Taught law and society. Last year there was a pronounced level of fear. At this point, if the Lord requires us to refer criminals to the state, supposing I, I do not trust the state to fairly implement the civil penance. For example, one person said in class, oh, Professor Kikasawa, I am quite willing to accept your theonomic thesis that God's laws are better than man's laws. And if we're going to have penalties, we might as well have God's penalties. He wasn't quite sure that was the right way, but he knew that clearly was the better way.

Okay.

Then he said to me, my problem is I don't trust the civil magistrate that he will implement these fearsome penalties of God fairly. I mean, it's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God. And we're giving him penalties far more severe than he now possesses in some things. I just can't trust the civil magistrate as I know them to carry this out. And all the more, if I have to surrendered guilty to him, that compounds my fear even more. Sure, you see how that. What are you saying, Joe? That instead of. I'm quoting him, instead of punishing a.

Murderer, he'll stick him in prison for 20 years. And he just.

No, he was not saying that. He was saying God's penalty for murder is better than our prisoners. What he is saying is I'm just.

Afraid of the injustice of the civil.

Afraid of injustice, especially if I have to serve.

Consider it this way though. The civil magistrate is unjust today. And so the argument proves far too much that we never should turn anybody over because they might be unfairly treated. On the other hand, if you have the law of God and the high visibility of justice and God's requirements for righteousness, if the civil magistrate is not cautious and takes the life of innocent people away, then we have charge to bring against the civil magistrate. If a judge willfully condemns an innocent man, then the next person who should be judged is the judge himself. The law of God allows for taking care of unjust magistrates. We haven't got very many protections today against that. And when the magistrate has to deal with God's standards, that is, that is a fearsome effect upon him too. That puts him in the position God stands in. The congregation of the gods, according to Psalm 82. And when justice is not rendered, God will render justice to the judges. And so it seems to me, by keeping the highest of standards before our populace and before our judges, that will tend to make them more honest. It's not going to eradicate sin. But my point is, if the man's afraid that injustice will be done, injustice is being done. Now the question is what should be that we should follow? And then we do our best to have good answers.

If we conclude there is an obligation of reporting, the fear level is much higher.

Sure. And we must remember too that a lot of people say, well, if we had a death penalty for homosexuality, blood would be flowing in the streets. That's a terrible thing to say because in the first place, we don't believe in the ex post facto application of a law. That doesn't mean we're going to take all the past homosexuals and put them into Dassault law this week against homosexuality. What it does mean is that homosexuality is going to be forced back into the closet. Because now that it's upon the books, after you've executed one or two homosexuals, and I dare say that's all it will take is one or two, your society is going to say, you know, they mean business and they aren't going to be parading in the streets and flaunting the law and disrespecting God and his righteousness. If they're practicing homosexuals and they will continue to practice their homosexuality, they're going to do it out of public sight and away from our children being taught alternative lifestyles and that sort of thing. So blood will not flow in the streets. There may be some executions, but it isn't going to be a bloodbath by any means. So what is going to happen is have its proper sobering effect upon your society. You'll notice in Puritan New England, it laws against bestiality. As far as we know, only on a couple of occasions were people executed for bestiality. They had laws against juvenile delinquency and death. And to our knowledge, not one child ever had to die. So blood doesn't flow in the streets. What happens is these things are kept to themselves and that's where they belong. So the fear is there. And I understand that. But we, we don't believe in ex post facto application. We don't believe that in all cases converted sinners have to be turned into the magistrate. And in the few cases where we do, we believe that has its effect upon society so that we won't have as many cases to deal with in the future. Well, we're all. Okay, we'll take one more question then I think we should all break, I guess.

More comment. The one other situation that is constantly brought up in this sort of thing, especially when you talk about. Puritans respect the law of God and their active endeavor to put that law into practice is Salem witch trials. And reading recently in Bancroft, United States that is an example of the way he saw it. An abuse of a civil magistrate and using his powers illegitimately and even picking favorites and and doing away with his own religious or political enemies through the misuse of God's law. And it was the congregation and the other churches in the area and the rest of society which banished that person because they brought him up against that same law.

That's right. Christians don't believe that once the law of God is technically honored on the statute books of the state, their obligation is seized. They continue to put pressure upon the men who run the state to be honest and God fearing men. There's nothing automatic that if you just write it on a piece of paper and call it a law that it's going to be done and everything's going to be peachy. And so our obligations in society continue. And if you have a church that is strong enough in a society to have the law of God enacted as the law of the land, you have a church that's strong enough to keep judges honest.