“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”
—Prov. 18:17
Introduction
In view of the serious pressures placed on Christians and churches in the last two years, especially with respect to the relation of church and state, the Word of God and human government, the appearance and timing of a recent article by Tom Musetti on Dr. Joseph Boot’s noted work, The Mission of God (MOG) was particularly interesting. It was quickly followed by another critical review article in what appeared a coordinated effort by two friends, both with connections to The Gospel Coalition (TGC) Canada. The sudden flurry of renewed interest in Dr. Boot’s work in our cultural moment is worthy of note because MOG has been available for around eight years, enjoying a quiet and largely favorable reception in the Christian community, even by those who do not share all of Dr. Boot’s reformational convictions. For those unfamiliar with this hefty tome, MOG was read and endorsed by highly respected Canadian and British scholars such as Dr. Michael Haykin (a noted Canadian Baptist historian) and Dr. Jonathan Burnside, professor of Biblical Law at the University of Bristol – possibly Britain’s leading scholar of Biblical law with a profound understanding of its place in the history of the Anglosphere and its role in shaping Western constitutions – as well a variety of other apologists and scholars.
The terse and seemingly personally affronted tone of Musetti’s piece will doubtless be disappointing to many of those who have appreciated the writing, lectures, and ministry of Dr. Boot over the nearly two decades he has spent in Canada. At the same time, for those seriously interested in Dr. Boot’s thesis concerning Christian culture, it must be very gratifying to see the ongoing interest, debate and indeed controversy engendered by the vision cast in MOG, and encouraging to see a desire for some degree of engagement with the critical issues raised in this important work of biblical worldview and cultural apologetics.
Though Mr. Musetti might have had the initial intention of writing a review of Boot’s book, it is rather unfortunate that his treatment of it turned out very much like a hit piece. I had contacted the Ezra Institute to see if Musetti (an associate pastor in the same family of the southwestern Ontario churches as that of Dr. Boot) had followed academic convention in notifying them of his forthcoming highly critical review, inviting comment or correction, but I was informed no such courtesy was extended. Suffice to say, Musetti evinces a highly critical perspective on MOG, insisting that Boots’ project has “significant theological deficiencies,” targeting, in particular, his vision of biblical law and eschatology which Musetti essentially regards as dangerous. In fact, Musetti pays Boot a remarkable unintended compliment by suggesting that the far-reaching influence of MOG has produced real problems in the Christian community, “casting a shadow” across Ontario – he even acknowledges the book produced significant conflict between himself and his former pastor who was appreciative of Boots work. Why then is he troubled? Because Boot’s book, in Musetti’s view, has led many pastors and leaders to accept “theonomic conclusions” and an optimistic eschatology.
In view of these concerns, Musetti sees the need to appraise The Mission of God from his “biblical perspective.” Musetti divides his review into two sections: his summary of the central tenets of MOG and a critical evaluation. With the numerous criticisms he levels against MOG, the reader does start to wonder if Musetti is hard at work searching for offenses due to his obvious disdain for MOG’s theonomic leanings and his evident personal dislike for the author and his public stance on major cultural issues.
Though Musetti does make some effort to moderate his critique with the odd positive remark, his review of MOG is a sustained attack on its fundamental teaching. Since a proper treatment of his many objections would be overly time-consuming, I want to instead show that Musetti resorts to a straw-man fallacy and confirmation bias in his discussion of MOG. I will identify two representative examples where Musetti misreads and misrepresents Boot. I will also highlight how Musetti’s approach to Biblical Law is really a reflection of his scholastic religious assumptions that are uncritically assumed as valid. Exegeting Musetti’s presuppositions is vital for understanding his approach to biblical texts.
Helpful Feedback
To give credit where it is due, Musetti’s review of MOG does offer some valid constructive feedback, which could certainly aid in the publication of future editions. Musetti is quite right to observe some spelling, grammar, typographical, and citation errors that the editors need to fix in future editions. On page 96, for example, Boot mentions that the Greek lexicons show that “fulfillment…denotes that Christ is the object (end) of the law and the prophets.”[1] It would have been beneficial if Boot had cited the specific Greek Lexicons he referred to. These and some similar errors highlighted by Musetti are fair criticism, though minor and correctable and in no way undermine the value of the book and its thesis. Careful feedback of this nature is always helpful since authors, proof-readers, and editors are not inerrant. All of us are prone to mistakes and those who graciously identify them offer valuable constructive criticism.
A Straw-man Argument
Confronting a Misreading: The Mission of God is about the Lordship of Christ over all of life, not simply the civil implementation of Biblical Law
From Musetti’s reading, in MOG, Boot is simply arguing for the recovery and implementation of God’s law in civil society as a ‘catch-all solution’ to the global crises currently felt in the Western world. This recovery of God’s law would, in turn, bring about a prosperous and free future. However, as we will see, this reading of MOG fails to represent the arguments of MOG faithfully or accurately.
Musetti discusses Boot’s contentions regarding the link between the lawlessness of the broader society, and the missional neglect of the modern church, as well as highlighting Boot’s discussion of the contemporary church’s dichotomization of law and gospel resulting in the cultural decline of biblical authority and much of the church’s implicit acceptance of various permutations of two-kingdoms theology. Musetti appears to define two kingdoms theology as “a sort of cultural retreatism, an excuse for Christians to eschew involvement outside the walls of the church, thus driving an unnecessary wedge between Christians as the church and Christian in the world” and thereby seems to admit the connection.
Another focus of Musetti’s summary analysis concerns Boot’s position on natural law theories. He takes Boots’ view to be as follows: if natural law replaces biblical law within the church and the broader society, then ‘decay’ and ‘cheap grace’ will ensure the demise of our cherished cultural institutions as well as the collapse of Christian education in favor of a “neutral” pedagogy leading to harmful outcomes, namely the allowance of a pagan outlook, further contributing to the cultural decay.
While Musetti accurately identifies some broad themes in MOG, in general his overview lacks care, frequently over-simplifying or completely misreading Boot’s arguments. As a work on scriptural worldview and biblical missiology, MOG is primarily about grasping the importance of the Lordship of Christ, the Kingdom of God and the concrete application of His total Word through the obedience of Christians faithfully carrying out the Christian mission in all the diverse spheres of life.[2] Reducing MOG to some sort of purely political manifesto for civil society is a serious misrepresentation. The all-important question, which Musetti neglects to consider from his reading of MOG, is how God’s law-Word is ultimately recovered for society in Boot’s thesis – though it is unclear whether Musetti would support any such recovery of the principles of God’s law for our social order even if society demanded it.
Simply put, Musetti’s summary fails to fairly represent Boot’s understanding of how God’s law-Word is to be retrieved in the wider culture, leaving readers to assume that Boot’s position entails the coercive imposition of God’s law through legislation as opposed to personal regeneration and progressive cultural renewal through the seasoning impact of the gospel of the kingdom.
A careful reading of MOG shows however that for Boot, God’s kingdom is not advanced through a top-down coercive imposition of God’s law into the civil code but through regeneration and the working of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life in all spheres. In other words, the recovery of God’s laws takes place within the broader context of Kingdom advancement. In Boot’s view then, Christian believers contribute to the gradual recovery of God’s law-order in the wider society by rendering faithful service to Christ within the various spheres of their calling. What Boot highlights is not a totalitarian, top-down approach of contemporary statists codifying and enforcing endless laws meant to regulate behaviour in all areas of life — this is humanistic and legalistic, not a Christian perspective on the role and application of law. Since the rebellious lawlessness of the human heart is the main reason society is in a state of dysfunction, Boot stresses that regeneration, renewal, and reformation as opposed to political coercion is the solution to our society’s disrepair. By failing to understand Boot’s argument that the institutional recovery of God’s law-Word comes through regeneration and the working of the Holy Spirit, Musetti unhelpfully misrepresents the overall argument of MOG.
Musetti thus misleads his readers into believing that the central focus of MOG is the civil imposition of Biblical law as a ‘catch-all solution’ to society, but to any dispassionate reader this is clearly not Boot’s argument. MOG celebrates the universal reign of Jesus Christ and the proper application of his law-Word in the family, church, arts, education, sciences, and law as an aspect of the Triune God’s mission to advance the gospel of the Kingdom in all areas of life. We must conclude that here Musetti has resorted to a straw-man argument.
Confronting a Misrepresentation of Boot: Ad Hominem Fallacies?
In addition to misleading readers about Boot’s central thesis, Musetti seeks to discredit Boot’s Christian character by rather unfairly depicting him as uncharitable and intolerant of Christian leaders who disagree with his position, claiming that Boot resorts to “ad hominem fallacies” with respect to Michael Horton and Carl Trueman. Musetti writes:
When engaging with proponents of an opposing position, the work often employs genetic and ad hominem fallacies… Boot attacks Horton for his two-kingdom perspective. Boot refers to two-kingdom adherents as “cowards” and “cultural retreatists” (381)… Carl Trueman also receives unjust criticism, being charged with “English snobbery” and forsaking objective historiography with “a visceral emotional outburst” (644 n. 1).[3]
Ironically, Musetti resorts to depicting Boot as one who hastily resorts to name-calling yet Musetti himself makes charges against Boot while failing to perform the due diligence to investigate the broader context of Boot’s discussion concerning both Horton and Trueman. Can Musetti’s charge of the ad hominem fallacy stand in the face of the broader context of Boot’s discussion? First, a person who resorts to the ad hominem fallacy will typically neglect giving credit where credit is due. Boot is undoubtedly critical of Horton’s two kingdoms perspective, yet he displays intellectual courtesy in commending Horton for his love of ‘old evangelical soteriology,’ explaining:[4]
Horton clearly loves old evangelical soteriology and wants to preserve its faithful declaration, which is a necessary and noble task. Equally he does not want the church to lose its focus on heralding the good news of the grace of God manifest in Christ through vicarious atonement, and our redemption visibly represented by the sacraments of the church. With all this, I can heartily agree.
Clearly, in the strained effort to depict Boot as guilty of the ad hominem fallacy, Musetti deliberately neglects the greater context of Boot’s discussion. In addition, the ad hominem fallacy addresses only the man and not the issues, whereas Boot’s lengthy discussion of Horton’s ideas is centred on the critical issues themselves.
In a similar vein, Musetti insists that Boot ‘unjustly criticizes’ Trueman. But, again, Musetti does not adequately explain how the detailed and well-researched criticism of Trueman is unjust or the reason as to why Boot uses the terms ‘English snobbery’ and ‘a visceral emotional outburst’ to describe Trueman. In proper context, Boot is criticizing Trueman’s truly ‘uncharitable’ and slanderous tirades against the late Armenian American scholar, R.J Rushdoony. Trueman has publicly labelled him ‘mentally ill,’ ‘anti-Semitic,’ and a ‘racist.’ As a fellow Englishman well positioned to recognize cultural snobbery among his own people, Boot confronts Trueman’s arguments and actions in a well-argued and lengthy appendix in MOG. Musetti also neglects to mention that whilst confronting Trueman’s shocking language and attitude toward Rushdoony, Boot does not hesitate to compliment the quality usually encountered in Trueman’s work: “Trueman is a capable and helpful scholar in many respects who can be read to great benefit.”[5] The seriousness of Boot’s chastisement of Trueman is certainly understandable given the appalling manner in which Trueman engages with a fellow Christian brother in Rushdoony. Once again, Musetti’s charge of the ad hominem fallacy on Boot’s part proves not credible.
Confirmation Bias and Unexamined Presuppositions
Confronting The Dualistic Nature/Grace Theme Through a Distinctly Christian Lens
Musetti might faithfully confess a theologically orthodox faith that is broadly in keeping with historic evangelical theology (I have no reason to doubt the legitimacy of his confession). However, his philosophical presuppositions are clearly scholastic, emerging from the dualistic scheme of Nature and Grace inherited from Roman Catholic theology with its embrace of Aristotelianism through Thomas Aquinas. These presuppositions distort Musetti’s reading of MOG.
This dualistic theme of Nature and Grace seeks to synthesize the Christian view of creation, fall and redemption with the Aristotelian concept of nature which divided reality ontologically in terms of the categories of form and matter – a higher and lower principle within creation. Musetti would, thereby, maintain that Christian ethics and eschatology are theological and spiritual concerns belonging to an upper storey of reality, a redemptive kingdom (grace) in which the church institute has the key role. In contrast, the “religiously neutral” fields of philosophy, law, politics, medicine etc., are aspects of the lower level of reality (nature), sometimes called a common kingdom. This dualism falsely assumes that the various branches of theology can function independent of philosophy, rather than being profoundly informed by it.
Musetti is operating under the assumption that the discipline of theology, which is a form of theoretical knowledge, can independently ground a Christian’s thinking apart from a distinctly Christian worldview, emerging from the Christian’s religious centre – the heart. But theology and its tools, being theoretical by nature, cannot operate as though worldview and philosophical assumptions have no religious bearing on theological conclusions. Suppose, for example, that the theologian attempts to reconcile the Aristotelian concept of nature (physis) with the Christian view of creation: can a theologian consistently maintain a full-orbed Christian understanding of reality while surrendering divine revelation as the final authority for understanding all of reality? Theology as a theoretical discipline simply cannot work in isolation from a philosophical understanding of reality and Musetti does not seem to be alert to this. The question is, will our philosophical presuppositions be subject to scripture and its worldview or not?
Colossians 1:16 which says, “all things were created through him [Christ] and for him [Christ],” holds true because the divine revelation of God’s Word defines truth for all reality. The credibility of exegesis and hermeneutical analysis depends on the framework of a broader Christian worldview and philosophy, where our understanding of knowledge relating to all spheres of life, submit themselves to the divine revelation of a life-encompassing creation, fall and redemption. Most of Musetti’s hermeneutical disputes with Boot can be reduced to the differing lens of presuppositions through which each views the text.
In addressing some of the ways in which variations of Greek dualism are recurrent in the modern church, Boot offers two illustrations specific to Musetti’s review, namely an artificial separation of the Old and New Testaments (law and gospel) and faulty dualistic eschatologies separating creation and redemption and overdrawing the distinction between this present age and the one to come. The artificial separation of the Old and New Testament – seen since the heretic Marcion divided the Word in the patristic era – obviously undermines the enduring validity of Biblical Law in the Newer Covenant: Gospel in the New, one way or another, nullifies, diminishes, or replaces law in the Old. Boot also explains that faulty eschatologies attempt to create a radical discontinuity between this age and the age to come. For example, those within the church who subscribe to a historical or dispensational pre-millennialist position, claim that the Kingdom of God is not a present reality but is the anticipated hope in the age to come. Boot shows that the tendency of the contemporary church to incorporate this nature/grace dualism in the life of Christian ministry significantly hampers the prophetic voice of the Christian within the broader society.
A Dualistic Eschatology
Examining this further, Boot’s critique of modern eschatological trends stresses the pervasive dualistic elements infiltrating Christian thought. He highlights the tendency of various chiliasts to create a false discontinuity between the present age and the age to come as though the Kingdom of God has little or no bearing in this life. Boot writes:
Christian eschatology can become dualistic when it posits, in various ways, too great a discontinuity between human history, or the present age, and the age to come. Where discontinuity is overly stressed, heaven becomes increasingly unrelated to earth and the doctrine of the kingdom of God; the spiritual is largely disconnected from the material; the daily work of the present bears little relation to the future; and the kingship of Christ is shunted off from world history to eternity and from earth to heaven, where his reign is almost exclusively postponed till a future period. It is therefore worthy of note that there have been times in the life of the church where old dualistic heresies have re-emerged, gained popularity, and eventually posed a new orthodoxy.[6]
Naturally then, Musetti’s review of MOG intends to criticize Boot for several “theological deficiencies,” in particular, an over-realized eschatology. In Musetti’s mind, Christians should not expect success in this life and must reject a correlation between obedience to God’s law-Word and social, historical blessing, revealing his predisposition towards the nature/grace dualism just described and exposing his confirmation bias towards scholasticism. Musetti writes:
[T]he work appears to have significant theological deficiencies. Perhaps most evident is a manifestly over-realized eschatology. Throughout the work, Boot refers to past societies in the West, drawing a proportionality relationship between adherence to biblical law and prosperity. The book makes little to no mention of a future kingdom after the second coming Christ and puts forth no effort to distinguish between the heavenly and earthly, a distinction so prominent throughout the Scriptures.
A relationship between obedience to biblical law and cultural prosperity appears unthinkable to Musetti’s mind. Musetti’s critique here simply presupposes a separation in creation between an upper storey of grace with its “spiritual” gospel, and a lower storey of nature with its material and cultural prosperity. But does the Bible share this dualistic perspective by radically separating law and grace, Christian faithfulness to God’s Word with historical progress and prosperity?
As Jonathan Burnside defines it, Biblical law is “an integration of different instructional genres of the Bible which together express a vision of society ultimately answerable to God.”[7] If Biblical law is understood correctly, then it has universal authority, binding society’s allegiance under the headship of Jesus Christ. As Boot points out, Biblical law is God’s covenant word revelation in its entirety and is not limited to the Mosaic law (cf. Col 1:15-20). Biblical law thus has a principled jurisdiction over, for example, the responsibility of cultivating a strong work ethic in keeping with God’s creational calling for his image-bearers (cf. Gen. 2:15). For instance, in 2 Thess. 3:10, the Apostle Paul sternly warns his recipients: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” Here, Paul addresses the problem of idleness within the church—prosperity, as it relates to food, is established on the lawful principle that work, in keeping with God’s creational purpose for his image-bearers, is the prerequisite for plenty of food. Passages like Prov 10:4 would certainly ground the Apostle’s exhortation against a slothful disposition that would hinder building wealth: “A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.” Scripture does not make a dualistic distinction between a “spiritual” Christian life and cultural prosperity as a result of obedience — blessings come as the principles of God’s Word govern the Christian’s work. Contrary to Musetti, the worshipful application of Biblical law in grateful obedience to Christ producing cultural reward and blessing cannot be an example of an over-realized eschatology.
Musetti also criticizes Boot for neglecting to mention the future kingdom ‘after the second coming of Christ,’ revealing Musetti’s predisposition towards eschatological frameworks denying the present reign of Christ. Such eschatological views of necessity downplay the present reality of God’s Kingdom. Moreover, Musetti accuses Boot of failing to make a distinction between a heavenly and the earthly kingdom, a difference that, in his view, “is prominent throughout the Scriptures.” However, grounding his thinking on passages like Psalm 72:8: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth,” Boot unapologetically confesses the present reality of Christ’s rule over the nations (Psalm 72:8 is, in fact, the motto text of Canada) which is consummated at Christ’s return. Psalm 110:2 would certainly contradict Musetti’s assumption that anything other than the chiliastic argument of a future kingdom is the symptom of a theological deficiency marked by an ‘over-realized eschatology’: “The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies!” Psalm 110:2 also solidifies a solid biblical precedent for the present reign of Christ, not to mention Psalm 2 and the apostle John’s teaching in Revelation 1:5.
The Problematic Separation of Law and Gospel
In continuing to address the persistent dualisms in today’s church, Boot confronts the tendency of Christians to manufacture an artificial separation between law and gospel. The assumptions fuelling Musetti’s argument against Boot’s ‘general approach to Biblical law’ stems from the basic idea that grace replaces law. Boot counters this popular idea within the broader evangelical movement (shared it seems by Musetti), stating that “Christ declares the abiding validity of the law.”[8] Boot appeals to Matthew 5:17f: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (ESV).[9] In contrast to Musetti’s assumption that gospel replaces Biblical law, Boot argues from this text that Jesus Christ is the greater Moses and true interpreter of the law who put his law into full effect in the Newer Covenant with the advent of His incarnation, death, and resurrection. Boot also appeals to Titus 2:11-15:
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness…[10]
One of Musetti’s main objections to Boot’s argument in MOG is his general approach to Biblical law and its continuity. In Musetti’s view, the enduring application of Biblical law in the New Covenant is unthinkable since, in his view, the gospel replaces law. Musetti writes:
Perhaps the most questionable feature of TMG is the general approach to Biblical law. Historical examples of Biblical law as the basis of government far outweigh any discussion from Scripture. In developing his position on the source of law (God and nature), Boot rejects natural theology and natural law, arguing that it is a form of self-law, which stands in absolute opposition to God’s law (261-67).[11] He does not engage with any position that defends natural theology/law (with the possible exception of one article by Michael Horton on two-kingdom theology), and no latitude is given for the role of natural law at all. Thomistic thought is rejected a priori as pagan ideology (265).[12]
Musetti has a problem with Boot’s broad application of the law because he theologically takes issue with the use of Biblical law in the New Covenant. Boot’s reformational position argues that all of life is religious and bound by God’s law-Word, so if Biblical law is not to be applied to every sphere of life (as Musetti contends) what religious motive will stand-in to inform the Christian’s understanding of law? If so-called natural law is binding (and no such body of law exists and philosophers cannot agree on what constitutes the natural law), which for Boot, even in Christian formulations, is rooted in pagan conceptions of eternal law and the participation of man’s “reason” in this principle, Christians are required to subject themselves to an apostate direction of law while superficially adhering to an orthodox confession of faith. But given the truths revealed in Col 1:15-20 and Col. 3:1-4, can a Christian consistently adopt an understanding of the law that seeks autonomy apart from the structure and direction of God’s law-Word while simultaneously adhering to a set of biblically orthodox confessions?
In Musetti’s opinion, the Bible does not provide a basis for applying Biblical law to the structures of social orders and their civil governments. History, Musetti argues, manifests a more widespread and significant application of Biblical law to society than the Bible does. As a critic in the grip of scholastic assumptions, Musetti also takes issue with Boot’s rejection of natural law theories as an alternate basis for grounding social order. Musetti criticizes Boot for neglecting detailed argument with the proponents of natural law theories. Perhaps that would be a worthy future project, but MOG is already 700 pages long and the notion that a missiological work of biblical cultural apologetics and Christian worldview can cover all these subjects in detail given the already vast scope of the work is a clearly unreasonable demand.
A similar comment applies to Musetti’s allegation that there is insufficient exegetical analysis of the Pauline letters in MOG, especially of the book of Galatians. Is it fair to expect Boot to be taken up with extended exegetical analysis, parsing out nuances of the Greek in a work of Christian cultural philosophy and apologetics? Boot is discussing missiological concerns as a cultural philosopher and apologist, not as a Greek New Testament exegete. Musetti’s view that theology owns the market share on worldview and cultural philosophy, confirms the scholastic bias which regards the scientific discipline of theology alone as the lens through which Christians must view both scripture and created reality, subjugating philosophy to itself along the way. In his book The Gagging of God, D.A. Carson warns about the pitfalls that come with elevating the discipline of theology beyond its limited sphere of authority and relevance: “Christian thinkers have often mistaken their own tradition for the sum of all truth. Theology can become an agent of political correctness; Christian institutions can become corrupt; preachers can ratify the status quo, even when reformation is urgently needed.”[13]
Conclusion
Musetti’s review of MOG falls far short of offering a compelling argument to undermine either the credibility of Boot’s work and thought or the power and influence of this contribution to Christian thought. His treatment of MOG is replete with straw-man arguments and confirmation bias. Furthermore, Musetti misrepresents Boot’s character, falsely accusing him of ad hominem fallacies. Musetti has certainly put real effort into inventing his own narrative concerning the message of MOG, but his project fails to convince.
Musetti does not see beyond the nature/grace dualistic philosophy that informs his theology. As such he appears both unwilling and unable to appreciate Boot’s vision of the Christian mission as an extension and application of the Lordship of Christ and His kingdom rule over all of life and thought. By the Spirit’s sanctifying influence, Musetti would do well to cherish the universal authority of God’s Word over all creation. He might then come to view Boot’s Mission of God differently.
[1] Cf. Joseph Boot, The Mission of God, 96.
[2] For an example of Biblical law applied to the arts: “John Cooper of Skillet joins us to talk about their recent album, Dominion, about the experience of writing music in a dark and confused cultural moment, and about the importance of Christians participating in civil life.” https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resource-library/podcast/dominion-with-john-cooper/.
[3] https://www.thelondonlyceum.com/book-review-the-mission-of god/?fbclid=IwAR1n2SXanhE9zHs1nSrsaALbQp1VHmQ6iOc37xaepFE2trcSTH7A48SDMFY.
[4] I also discuss Boot’s charitable engagement with Horton in: https://cantaroinstitute.org/theonomists-at-the-protestant-table/.
[5] In these brief articles, Trueman exhibits a quintessential English snobbery (that I am all too familiar with as an Englishman), anti-Americanism and an intractable hostility to the Christian Right. The greater concern however is the lack of Christian charity on display in this incredible outburst that dismisses a respected brother in Christ as a mentally ill, anti-Semitic racist. Trueman is a capable and helpful scholar in many respects who can be read to great benefit, but on this issue he appears to have left the measured tools of the historian to one side, in favour of a visceral emotional outburst.
[6] Joseph Boot, The Mission of God, 82.
[7] Jonathan Burnside, God Justice and Society, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), xxxiii. Cited in Joseph Boot, The Mission of God, 36.
[8] Joseph Boot, The Mission of God, 96.
[9] Here we see a clear contrast between what Christ did come to do both negatively and positively. The wording emphasizes the negative καταλῦσαι (1AoInf) “to abolish the law and the prophets, and the positive, πληρῶσαι (1AoInf) to fulfill (them). καταλῦσαι, which interesting appears twice in verse 17, refers to ‘end the effect’ or ‘validity.’ In the immediate context of v. 17, Jesus denies the notion that the law and the prophets are “no longer in force or effect” (cf. BDAG, 522). Meanwhile, πληρῶσαι refers to “divine predictions or promises” (cf. BDAG, 829).
[10] Interestingly, one of Musetti’s points of criticism questions Boot’s use of Tit. 2:11-15 as a means to counter Boot’s argument that the ‘bifurcation of ‘the Old Testament as law and the New Testament as gospel’ is artificial and false.” One observation that Musetti makes is that “the passage is silent on the law.” He subsequently maintains that the Apostle Paul’s only reference to the law is in Tit. 3:9. But if Musetti is correct in his textual analysis, what is the reader to make of ἀνομίας (“lawlessness”) (v. 14)? Are we to ignore the fact that lawlessness, in the mind of the Apostle Paul, is “the product of a lawless disposition or…deed” (BDAG, 85) because the passage, as Musetti claims, is silent on Biblical law? Since ἀνομίας is, indeed, included in this text, it is difficult to maintain with Musetti that this text is silent on the law.
[11] Musetti’s reference to pgs. 261-67 (sec 8.3 The Source of Law: Nature or God). is located in Chapter Eight, where Boot addresses the topics of law, theocracy, and their contemporary relevance. Boot’s main argument stresses that God’s law remains relevant to contemporary society (cf. 291). Boot is confronting a widespread antinomianism, which has led young people in the church to “adopting pagan and humanistic ethical theories (that are) hostile toward biblical law.” (cf. 258). The adoption of antinomianism is not unrelated to the nature grace dualism already discussed which the modern church has been so influenced by. The section that Musetti references then must be seen as part of Boot’s broader argument that God’s law has contemporary relevance and abiding authority, giving readers a better understanding of Boot’s argument in sec. 8.3 The Source of Law: Nature or God, namely “The institution of civil government is not autonomous, nor under the church, but under God, and in exercising justice it must be governed by him and his word in the immediate sense, as representing and under his authority.” See Joseph Boot, The Mission of God, 267.
[12] https://www.thelondonlyceum.com/book-review-the-mission-of god/?fbclid=IwAR1n2SXanhE9zHs1nSrsaALbQp1VHmQ6iOc37xaepFE2trcSTH7A48SDMFY.
[13] D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 101.