JUDICIAL WARFARE
Christian Reconstruction and Its Blueprints For Dominion
by Greg Loren Durand

Conclusion

       One of the most important aspects of the traditional Calvinist teaching on the covenant is the use of the law-gospel distinction. The antithesis between law and gospel denotes two opposing principles of inheritance, appropriate to the Pauline teaching on the two Adams in Romans 5. The forensic contrast between the order of law (creation) and the order of grace (redemption) is one of opposition. Regrettably, much of recent Reformed theology has openly denied the importance of the law-gospel distinction, substituting in its place the Barthian notion of “law in grace.” The neoorthodox school of interpretation maintains only one order or covenant, the covenant of grace, comprehending both creation and redemption. Otherwise, contend these neo-orthodox critics, the speculative and dualistic notion of law and grace (comparable to the scholastic nature-grace dichotomy) results in a faulty conception of God as Creator and as Redeemer. Others in the Reformed tradition have been less open in their rejection of the law-gospel contrast, but nevertheless are sympathetic to Barth’s viewpoint. Repudiation of the law-gospel antithesis, however, immediately registers itself in other critical and related areas of Reformed exposition, particularly that of justification by faith and the atonement of Christ. The result is a radical reinterpretation of Reformation theology.
       The central issue in this present debate in Reformed theology, both within and without confessional orthodoxy, as it turns out, is the interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant.⁽¹⁾

       The above author was absolutely correct in suggesting that one's interpretation of the Mosaic covenant will have a profound effect upon his understanding of the Gospel message, and will either support or undermine the biblical doctrine of justification. While there has been debate within the Reformed tradition regarding the precise definition of the legal element within the Mosiac covenant — whether it constituted the actual covenant or merely existed within the covenant — all orthodox Covenant theologians have agreed that the Sinaitic economy was never intended to be normative throughout history and that it has been abolished. As we have seen, this legal element primarily had reference to possession of the land of Canaan and to temporal blessings and cursings, but, according to the New Testament writers, it was merely typological in nature and found its spiritual fulfillment in Christ and the eternal blessings which He merited in behalf of and bestowed upon His people, the Church. Second Temple Judaism (Pharisaism) confounded the typical and atypical dimensions of the covenant, and, failing to see its true pedagogical function, they changed it from a system of geo-political works-righteousness into a system of spiritual works-righteousness in which salvation itself could be attained through the works of the law. The Judaizers with whom the Apostle Paul later contended, though accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, likewise had this mistaken view of the law, and thereby insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and submit to the law in order to be fully accepted by God.
       Modern-day Theonomy commits the same foundational error when it teaches that the Mosaic covenant was only an administration of the Covenant of Grace, and thereby transfers the typological elements of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Because of the monocovenantal presuppositions of theonomic writers, any suggestion of a qualitative difference between the Old and New Covenants, or the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants, is often viewed as evidence of "the influence of Dispensationalism." This unwillingness to assign to the Mosaic covenant any distinctive feature of a covenant of works is usually rooted in a denial of the Edenic Covenant of Works, and invariably works itself out into a subtle recasting of the Covenant of Grace as a system of covenantal nomism in which the imputation of Christ's righteousness is rejected either implicitly or explicitly, faith is redefined as "covenantal faithfulness," sanctification is transformed into a form of progressive justification, and law-keeping is rendered a condition of entrance into God's Kingdom as it is manifested on earth through the dominion work of the Christian Church.
       In the final analysis, it is apparent that theonomic Reconstructionism is a serious departure from the Reformed faith. It is an aberrational theology at best, and may even cross over the line into damnable heresy when some of its premises are carried out to their logical conclusion. It seeks to impose a law-order upon the world which the Christian Church has historically believed was abrogated by the New Testament, and more importantly, never had direct application to any people other than national Israel. It tends to disparage the heavenly hope of the Church by shifting the Christian's focus from his present spiritual reign with Christ to a mythical earthly dominion in the future. It attempts to place the Christian back under a "bastard covenant of works"⁽²⁾ by making the law the basis of God's blessing or cursing and thereby compromises, if not rejects outright, the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ to the believer. Finally, it engenders contempt in its followers for other Christians who do not accept its teachings and a pharisaical rigidity toward those within its ranks who fail to live up to its own contrived standards.
       It should be noted that the preceding critique has been aimed solely at the Reconstructionist leaders and was not meant to imply that the followers of this movement are not sincere Christians, or that they are consciously pursuing an unbiblical agenda. These deceived souls really believe that they are applying "God's Word to every area of life" and, because of the ingenuity of the system and its foundation in Van Tilian fideism, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to entertain any doubts as to its validity.⁽³⁾ As with any cultic mindset, only the illumination of the Holy Spirit is able to cut through the intricate network of falsehood to reach the heart.
       Let us conclude this study with the following lengthy, though necessary, warning of Martin Luther regarding the source and dangers of legalistic perversions of the Gospel, taken from his commentary on the epistle to the Galatians:

       Unto another gospel. Note the resourcefulness of the devil. Heretics do not advertise their errors. Murderers, adulterers, thieves disguise themselves. So the devil masquerades all his devices and activities. He puts on white to make himself look like an angel of light. He is astoundingly clever to sell his patent poison for the Gospel of Christ. Knowing Satan's guile, Paul sardonically calls the doctrine of the false apostles "another gospel," as if he would say, "You Galatians have now another gospel, while my Gospel is no longer esteemed by you."
       We infer from this that the false apostles had depreciated the Gospel of Paul among the Galatians on the plea that it was incomplete. Their objection to Paul's Gospel is identical to that recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Acts to the effect that it was not enough for the Galatians to believe in Christ, or to be baptized, but that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses, for "except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." As though Christ were a workman who had begun a building and left it for Moses to finish.
       Today the Anabaptists and others, finding it difficult to condemn us, accuse us... of timidity in professing the whole truth. They grant that we have laid the foundation in Christ, but claim that we have failed to go through with the building. In this way these perverse fanatics parade their cursed doctrine as the Word of God, and, flying the flag of God's name, they deceive many. The devil knows better than to appear ugly and black. He prefers to carry on his nefarious activities in the name of God....
       When the devil sees that he cannot hurt the cause of the Gospel by destructive methods, he does it under the guise of correcting and advancing the cause of the Gospel. He would like best of all to persecute us with fire and sword, but this method has availed him little because through the blood of martyrs the church has been watered. Unable to prevail by force, he engages wicked and ungodly teachers who at first make common cause with us, then claim that they are particularly called to teach the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures to superimpose upon the first principles of Christian doctrine that we teach. This sort of thing brings the Gospel into trouble....
       Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you.... Paul calls the false apostles troublers of the church because they taught circumcision and the keeping of the Law as needful unto salvation. They insisted that the Law must be observed in every detail. They were supported in this contention by the Jews, with the result that those who were not firmly established in faith were easily persuaded that Paul was not a sincere teacher of God because he ignored the Law. The Jews were offended at the idea that the Law of God should be entirely ignored by Paul and that the Gentiles, former idol-worshippers, should gratuitously attain to the station of God's people without circumcision, without the penitentiary performance of the law, by grace alone through faith in Christ Jesus.
       These criticisms were amplified by the false apostles. They accused Paul of designs to abolish the law of God and the Jewish dispensation, contrary to the law of God, contrary to their Jewish heritage, contrary to apostolic example, contrary to Paul's own example. They demanded that Paul be shunned as a blasphemer and a rebel, while they were to be heard as true teachers of the Gospel and authentic disciples of the apostles. Thus Paul stood defamed among the Galatians....
       And would pervert the gospel of Christ. To paraphrase this sentence: "These false apostles do not merely trouble you, they abolish Christ's Gospel. They act as if they were the only true Gospel-preachers. For all that they muddle Law and Gospel. As a result they pervert the Gospel. Either Christ must live and the Law perish, or the Law remains and Christ must perish; Christ and the Law cannot dwell side by side in the conscience. It is either grace or law. To muddle the two is to eliminate the Gospel of Christ entirely."
       It seems a small matter to mingle the Law and Gospel, faith and works, but it creates more mischief than man's brain can conceive. To mix Law and Gospel not only clouds the knowledge of grace, it cuts out Christ altogether.⁽⁴⁾

Endnotes

1. Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publisher, 2000), pages 17-18.

2. Thomas Boston, Sermons and Discourses on Several Important Subjects in Divinity (Aberdeen, Scotland: George and Robert King, 1849), page 88.

3. Van Til taught his followers to distrust and even reject reason: "Reason has no right to judge in matters of theology, or for that matter, anything else" (Introduction to Systematic Theology, page 29). Because the Van Tilian may “embrace with passion the apparent contradictory” (Common Grace and the Gospel, page 9), the fact that logic, Scripture, and Church history completely contradict the Reconstructionist’s belief system will only encourage him to cling to it all the more passionately.

4. Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949), pages 27-29.