THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
A Public Response to Brian Schwertley
by Greg Loren Durand

Exhibit C:
Greg Durand's 3 September 2007 E-Mail to Brian Schwertley

10:55 PM 9/02/2007
To: Brian Schwertley
From: Crown Rights Book Company
Subject: Re: My response to Greg Durand's comments on my sermon posted on sermonaudio

First, I would like to say that I am not a reconstructionist and have frequently criticized the reconstruction movement in my sermons.

All I can say in that regard is, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck." Brian even joined an officially Reconstructionist denomination (RPCUS) a few years back, and an internet article of his dealing with Matthew 5:17-19 echoed Reconstructionist/Theonomist sentiments exactly.

Perhaps Brian makes a distinction between Reconstructionism and Theonomy. I view them as synonymous terms: Reconstructionism is Theonomy applied to society.

Also, Brian's criticisms of Reconstructionism seem to center on their unwillingness to apply the first table of the Decalogue to the civil realm and their rejection of the Regulative Principle of Worship. He never criticizes their position on natural law, which is the crux of the matter. He doesn't criticize them here because he agrees with them.

Two Sundays ago, I even briefly refuted Bahnsen's contention that "fulfill" means confirm in Mt. 5:17.

That's a good start, because it does not mean "confirm." I believe that Christ's active obedience to the Covenant of Works is in view in this verse. God codified the Covenant of Works specifically for the Israelites in the Mosaic law, and as an Israelite, Christ fulfilled that law to the letter. In a broader sense, He therefore also fulfilled the Covenant of Works in behalf of the Gentile elect. The specific Mosaic code for Israelites, and the general Covenant of Works for Gentiles, was therefore abrogated as far as the believer is concerned because Christ's active obedience is imputed to their account. In order to escape His judgment, God commands faith in Christ, not obedience to the Mosaic code/Covenant of Works. To teach obedience to that system is an insult to His grace and is apostasy.

Christ was speaking to an audience made up exclusively of Israelites - for it was to them alone He had been sent - so he told them not to think that He had come to relax one jot or tittle of the Covenant of Works as expressed in the Mosaic system. Absolute perfection was required of them. Whoever taught such a relaxation of the Covenant of Works (precisely what Federal Vision does) would be called "least in the Kingdom."

I also think that the Reconstructionists' inability to comprehend this passage may be the reason why so many of them may now be found in the Federal Vision camp.

From Durand's book, Judicial Warfare, quotes in blue.
See my bracketed comments in black below:

Pg 21 "...it [the law] either stands as a covenantal whole "in exhaustive detail" or it was abolished as a covenantal whole. One may not arbitrarily interpret the phrase 'the law' to mean one thing (i.e. the moral law) in one passage of Scripture and something completely different in another (i.e. the ceremonial law)."

In context, I was referring to the Mosaic covenantal law, not the "law of God" in general, which most Reformed writers have identified as the moral law which preceded the Mosaic law and transcends it.

As far as I can see, Paul is using the term "the law" in the more limited sense to refer to the Mosaic system - and he clearly says that it has been "done away" (abolished) in 2 Corinthians 3:7-11.

Pg 26 Durand quotes favorably an author who says: "Neither Christ nor the apostles ever distinguished between the moral, ceremonial and the civil law when they speak of its establishment or abolition." (John Kitto) [In other words the whole law of God revealed to Moses including the Ten Commandments and all moral case laws have been abolished.]

Yes, that is true. Nowhere does the New Testament state that the ceremonial laws have been abolished but that the case laws remain in force. That is an arbitrary separation of the Mosaic law, which was a covenantal whole. I nowhere said that distinctions cannot be made between those laws that were ceremonial, moral, or judicial. Distinction is not the same as separation.

Pg 29 "The Mosaic law [Including the Ten Commandments] has not only been changed, but has been taken away and replaced by the New Covenant."

Again, that's what Paul clearly stated in 2 Corinthians 3:7-11. Does that mean that the moral prohibitions against blasphemy, murder, theft, adultery, etc. have been abolished? Of course not. Those obligations are coeval with man as part of his nature. They did not come into existence with the Siniatic covenant and they will exist as long as God is God and man is man.

Pg 30 "Christ...has abrogated the whole Mosaic covenant which agrees with the teaching of Hebrews that the law [Including the Ten Commandments] has not only been changed, but also has been taken away."

Again, what has been abolished is "the whole Mosaic covenant," not the moral law (the law of God).

Pg 42 "The Gentiles' admiration of the Israelites for their just laws [see Dt. 4:6-8] simply does not equal an obligation to enact those same laws in their own countries." [If the Gentile nations are not obligated to enact "just laws" as Durand admits, then are they allowed to enact unjust laws?]

Here's where Brian's Reconstructionist tendencies show through. Because of his rejection of the Reformed view on natural law, he cannot conceive of "just laws" outside of the Mosaic code. I did not state that "Gentile nations are not obligated to enact 'just laws.'" That is a gross misrepresentation.

Durand does a number of things in his book which are nonconfessional and unbiblical:

(1) He does not make any distinction between the law as it relates to earning salvation (justification) and the moral law as it relates to sanctification.

Wrong. Brian makes this statement because he does not appear to distinguish the moral law from the Mosaic law. That is my main complaint against Reconstructionism. The moral law has everything to do with sanctification; the Mosaic covenantal law has nothing to do with it because it was given only to Israel and has been abolished.

(2) He makes no distinctions between laws that are ceremonial and only applied to Israel and laws that are moral and obviously applied to all nations at all times (see Leviticus 18; Dt. 4:6-8) He does however contradict this when he says moral principles in the law continue. Thus, the Ten Commandments are both abrogated and binding at the same time. (only the principles)

That is no contradiction when one believes that the moral law was given to Adam in the Garden, a few thousand years before Moses was given the Decalogue. I clearly stated that the Decalogue was a codification of the moral law. By definition, a codification necessarily follows that which it codifies. For example, the Code of Justinian was a codification of the Roman civil law that has already existed for centuries. Similarly, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England was a codification and exposition of the pre-existing English Common Law. One may therefore study the Justinian Code and Blackstone's Commentaries to learn about the Roman civil law and the English Common Law without insisting that the codifications themselves are perpetually binding on their respective subject matter. American lawyers in the colonial period frequently studied Blackstone in order to apply common law principles to American institutions, but they did not therefore believe that they were still bound by the English law.

(3) Following dispensational writers he makes no discernable distinction between covenantal form (e.g., the Gentiles are obviously not required to adopt the whole Mosaic covenantal administration of grace as a covenant) and the moral content of the Mosaic code which obviously all nations at all times are obligated to obey.

Nonsense. Again, Brian cannot seem to admit that the moral content of the Mosaic code may be found outside of the code itself.

(4) Apparently, the goal of Durand's book is to get readers to not look to the moral laws in the Older Testament as a guide for laws for civil magistrates, but rather to look to natural law.

One may look to the Old Testament laws as a guide without viewing oneself as being bound to the covenant of which they were a part.

The natural law (i.e. that which is part of man's created nature and is therefore natural to him) and the moral law (i.e. that which reflects God's eternal nature) are one and the same.

Brian is a Van Tilian who doesn't believe that man has access to the natural/moral law outside of special revelation.

The problem with this is: a) Paul appeals to natural law or the law written on the heart to show that men are guilty of sin, not as a rule for a detailed system of law (Rom. 2:15).

That is because Paul never writes on the subject of political law. On the one occasion he does mention the civil magistrate, he simply states that the office exists by God's appointment and that Christians must submit to it. Recons/Theonomists read the Mosaic law into Romans 13:1-7, but it is not there.

b) The written moral laws in both testaments are perspicuous, while the human conscience has been corrupted by sin and therefore is not completely trustworthy.

As I said, Brian is a Van Tilian who not only believes that the human conscience is fallible, but completely untrustworthy. The Bible nowhere says that the conscience is incapable of knowing right from wrong. To the contrary, the New Testament clearly teaches that sinful men do, in fact, know that their behavior is immoral, but that they love their sin and hate the holy God who commands them to turn from it. If the problem is with the conscience itself, Paul would not have taught that consciences may become seared through repeated sin. The Gospel call to repentance is a direct appeal to the conscience, and it is made effectual by the Holy Spirit's regeneration of the man's mind to make it capable of agreeing with his conscience.

Man's problem is not a corrupted conscience, but a corrupted mind that is hostile to God. He already has the moral law written on his heart; he cannot escape it because it is part of his nature. That is why the preaching of the Gospel is such an offense - it brings the sinner face to face with what he already knows is true about himself, but what he spends his whole life trying to escape. I fail to understand how a written code is going to have any better success in overcoming this enmity. Of course, Reconstructionists like Gary North believe that man may overcome this enmity and submit himself to the Mosaic code without regeneration by an act of his own will. That is the false assumption behind their insistence that the Mosaic code be applied to modern society. Talk about being "un-Confessional" and "un-Reformed"!

I would challenge Mr. Durand to note one pagan nation in all of human history who has put in place the requirements of the first table of the law.

Try Nebuchadnezzar's declaration in Daniel 4 when he was restored to his throne. What about Darius' degree following Daniel's release from the lion's den? Pagan nations nearly universally enacted laws against blasphemy. The problem is that fallen men substitute their own gods for the true God for the reason stated above.

c) If natural law and the moral law are the same law, then why does Mr. Durand have a problem going to the moral laws in the Older Testament?

I don't and I do all the time. This question only demonstrates that Brian has not actually read my book to understand it, but only to pick statements out of context in order to label me as a "rogue theologian" and a "Dispensationalist."

(5) Durand's contention that one cannot make distinctions between ceremonial and moral laws when the word law appears in the New Testament renders many N.T. passages on the law incomprehensible:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5:19)

See above.

Paul says "all the world" is brought under the condemnation of the law (Rom. 3:19).

I believe Paul is using "the law" as a synonym of the Covenant of Works here (see comments above).

I had not known sin except through the law (Rom. 7:7).

Paul was not a Van Tilian because he taught that the unregenerate do in fact know what sin is (see Romans 1). I think his point was rather that the Mosaic code, to which he was subject as an Israelite, only served to aggravate his innate hostility to God and make him desire the very things which it forbade all the more. Hence, it made his situation worse (which was its purpose after all).

The law is holy, just and good (Rom. 7:12).

There is nothing unholy, unjust, and bad about the Mosaic law. All Scripture is given for instruction in righteousness, etc.

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Rom. 13:8-10).

The specific provisions of the second table of the Decalogue are said to be fulfilled by the one moral precept of loving one's neighbor as oneself. This seems to prove my contention that the Decalogue is a codification of the moral law, and that the codification may be abolished without affecting that which it codified.

But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully... (1 Tim. 1:8).

Reconstructionists do not use the Mosaic law lawfully. They attempt to rip it out of its covenantal context and demand subjection to it of people to whom it was never given. They are Judaizers.

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law (James 2:8-11).

Sin is the transgression of the law. (1 Jn. 3:4)

The definite article does not appear in this verse and it is more accurately translated "sin is lawlessness." I think it refers to the moral law.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Greg Loren Durand

Crown Rights Book Company
www.crownrights.com