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

Chapter Ten:
Common Grace, Natural Law, and Civil Government

       In the words of Louis Berkhof, common grace is "a grace which is communal, does not pardon nor purify human nature, and does not effect the salvation of sinners. It curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men."⁽¹⁾ Of note in this description is Berkhof's mention of "the moral order of the universe." This phrase is a reference to the covenant established between God and Noah's descendants (Genesis 9:9) and ultimately with all of creation (verse 10), including the earth itself (verse 13). Matthew Henry wrote:

       Now here we have the Magna Charta — the great charter of this new kingdom of nature which was now to be erected, and incorporated, the former charter having been forfeited and seized.
       I. The grants of this charter are kind and gracious to men.
        1. A grant of lands of vast extent, and a promise of a great increase of men to occupy and enjoy them. The first blessing is here renewed: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (v. 1). Now, (1) God sets the whole earth before them, tells them it is all their own, while it remains, to them and their heirs. Though it is not a paradise, but a wilderness rather; yet it is better than we deserve. Blessed be God, it is not hell. (2) He gives them a blessing, so that in a little time all the habitable parts of the earth should be more or less inhabited. Though death should still reign, yet the earth should never again be dispeopled as now it was, but still replenished, Acts xvii. 24-6.
        2. A grant of power over the inferior creatures, v.2. Man in innocence ruled by love, fallen man rules by fear. Now this grant remains in force, and thus far we have still the benefit of it. Now here see, (1) That God is a good Master, and provides, not only that we may live, but that we may live comfortably, in his service; not for necessity only, but for delight. (2) That every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, 1 Tim. iv.4.
       II. The precepts and provisos of this charter are no less kind and gracious, and instances of God's good-will to man. The Jewish doctors speak so often of the seven precepts of Noah, or of the sons of Noah, which they say were to be observed by all nations, that it may not be amiss to set them down. The first against the worship of idols. The second against blasphemy, and requiring to bless the name of God. The third against murder. The fourth against incest and all uncleanness. The fifth against theft and rapine. The sixth requiring the administration of justice. The seventh against eating of flesh with the life [emphasis in original].⁽²⁾

       This covenant may rightly be called the "covenant of nature," being merely a renewal of the dominion mandate given to Adam in the Garden of Eden, but with the added provision that "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" (Genesis 9:3). The laws contained in this covenant are the "laws of nature," or "natural law" to which all mankind are accountable and continue in force for the duration of the covenant itself: "while the earth remaineth" (Genesis 8:22).⁽³⁾
       Speaking of the natural law which is "in a manner written and stamped on every heart," John Calvin wrote:

       ...[C]onscience, instead of allowing us to stifle our perceptions, and sleep on without interruption, acts as an inward witness and monitor, reminds us of what we owe to God, points out the distinction between good and evil, and thereby convicts us of departure from duty. But man, being immured in the darkness of error, is scarcely able, by means of that natural law, to form any tolerable idea of the worship which is acceptable to God. At all events, he is very far from forming any correct knowledge of it. In addition to this, he is so swollen with arrogance and ambition, and so blinded with self-love, that he is unable to survey, and, as it were, descend into himself, that he may so learn to humble and abase himself, and confess his misery. Therefore, as a necessary remedy, both for our dulness and our contumacy, the Lord has give us his written Law, which, by its sure attestations, removes the obscurity of the law of nature, and also, by shaking off our lethargy, makes a more lively and permanent impression on our minds.⁽⁴⁾

       Thus, natural law is an insufficient guide for the pure worship of God because it does not overcome the enmity that fallen man has toward his Creator; only a direct revelation of God to the heart of man can overcome this animosity of the mind (Colossians 1:21). However, Calvin nowhere implied that natural law is an insufficient guide for the drafting of just laws and the maintaining of an orderly society. Gary North has claimed that Theonomy is "Calvinism's judicial theology applied"⁽⁵⁾ and "the judicial extension of Reformed theology" [emphasis in original],⁽⁶⁾ but Calvin himself denied its most basic premise by writing that the judicial laws of the Old Testament have been abrogated along with the ceremonial laws.⁽⁷⁾ In fact, Calvin denounced the very same doctrines which are now propagated by Reconstructionism as "dangerous errors," "perilous and seditious," "stupid and false," "malignant... and invidious of the public good," and "most absurd." His rejection of the idea of a modern theocracy based on Mosaic law was unequivocal as the following lengthy quotation will aptly demonstrate:

       ...[T]here are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate that they are stupid and false....
       ...[E]ach nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle....
       What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected with all laws — viz. the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws. Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other (August. de Civit. Dei, Lib. xix.c.17).
       The law of God forbids to steal. The punishment appointed for theft in the civil polity of the Jews may be seen in Exodus xxii. Very ancient laws of other nations punished theft by exacting the double of what was stolen, while subsequent laws made a distinction between theft manifest and not manifest. Other laws went the length of punishing with exile, or with branding, while others made the punishment capital. Among the Jews, the punishment of the false witness was to "do unto him as he had thought to have done with his brother" (Deut. xix.19). In some countries, the punishment is infamy, in others hanging, in others crucifixion. All laws alike avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries, adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amidst this diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God — viz. murder, theft, adultery, and false witness; though they agree not as to the mode of punishment. This is not necessary, nor even expedient. There may be a country which, if murder were not visited with fearful punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There may be an age requiring that the severity of punishments should be increased. If the state is in troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms, were not men overawed by an unwonted severity of punishment. In sterility, in pestilence, were not stricter discipline employed, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malignant were it, and invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of the divine law. The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated, and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, and most absolutely, but from regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws.⁽⁸⁾

       Hence, "it matters not what your condition is among men, nor under what laws you live, since in them the kingdom of Christ does not at all consist."⁽⁹⁾ As noted by Calvin, this was the doctrine taught by Augustine in his landmark work, The City of God. Here, the latter wrote of the use the "heavenly city" (the living saints) is to make of "civic obedience and rule," stating that Christians are to work with non-Christians in society "to attain the things which are helpful to this life." He went on:

       Consequently, so long as it [the "heavenly city"] lives like a captive and a stranger in the earthly city, though it has already received the promise of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit as the earnest of it, it makes no scruple to obey the laws of the earthly city, whereby the things necessary for the maintenance of this mortal life are administered; and thus, as this life is common to both cities, so there is a harmony between them in regard to what belongs to it..... This heavenly city, then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognising that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adapts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced.⁽¹⁰⁾

       The subject of natural law, also known as the law or light of nature, and how it is to be made use of, is a doctrine with which the Westminster divines were very much concerned. Like Calvin before them, they believed that unregenerate men may know God, not only in a generic sense, but specifically in His attributes of goodness and sovereignty, although never in a salvific manner:

       Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation....
       The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.⁽¹¹⁾

       However, the divines were not content to leave the matter there, for such innate knowledge involves moral responsibility. Thus, the law of nature is elsewhere referred to as the moral law when discussed in the context of the Covenant of Works:

       God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man....
       The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.⁽¹²⁾

       The Confession does not teach that the Ten Commandments (Decalogue) are the moral law; instead, the moral law was delivered in the Ten Commandments. In other words, the law that was originally delivered to Adam in the Garden as “a covenant of works” — i.e. encapsulated, or summarized in the positive command to abstain from the Tree of Knowledge — was again summarized in the Decalogue⁽¹³⁾ as “a perfect rule of righteousness,”⁽¹⁴⁾ so that, though that particular covenantal form be abolished, the essential moral principles remain completely intact: “The Ten Commandments are the sum and substance of [the moral law]. There is, however, this difference between it and them: in it there is nothing but what is moral, but in them there is something that is positive.”⁽¹⁵⁾ Thus, it is the moral law to which all mankind is bound, not necessarily the specific laws of the Sinaitic covenant. In this way is reconciled the seeming contradiction between Paul’s declaration that the “ministration of death, written and engraven in stones” has passed away, and the clear prohibitions found throughout the New Testament against idolatry, adultery, theft, etc. To say that the Decalogue is an easily-accessed codification of the moral law to which a Christian may turn for “instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16), is a far different thing than saying that a Christian is under the Mosaic law with regards to covenantal blessings and cursings, which, as we shall see in subsequent chapters, is precisely what the Reconstructionists are teaching and what sets them apart from the Reformed doctrine of the law.
       In addition to this inscription of the moral law onto the tables of stone, God also delivered "sundry judicial laws," but the Confession is quick to add that these laws have "expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require."⁽¹⁶⁾ Clearly, the "general equity" spoken of here was the same as the "natural law" spoken of by Calvin and the "common law" spoken of by Augustine. It is this moral law which the Confession later declares it the duty of the civil magistrate to enforce "in the wholesome laws of each commonwealth."⁽¹⁷⁾ Nowhere does the Westminster Confession teach the continuing binding authority of the Mosaic case laws, although many of the provided scriptural proof-texts point to Mosaic statutes as examples of the enacted moral law.⁽¹⁸⁾
       None of the other Reformed confessions or catechisms differ in this matter.⁽¹⁹⁾ However, R.J. Rushdoony directly contradicted what has been taught by the Reformed faith for the last five hundred years by asserting that "it is a serious error to say that the civil law was also abolished, but the moral law remained" [emphasis in original].⁽²⁰⁾ Commenting on the "general equity" clause of the Westminster Confession, he unequivocally stated, "At this point, the Confession is guilty of nonsense."⁽²¹⁾ Reconstructionism rejects the social co-operation of Christians with non-Christians and the duty of the magistrate to uphold the "common law" of mankind as "heretical nonsense,"⁽²²⁾ as "silly, trifling reasoning,"⁽²³⁾ or as "philosophical humanism."⁽²⁴⁾ According to Gary North, "Christians cannot legitimately proclaim the continuing moral validity of the Ten Commandments without also proclaiming the continuing judicial validity of the Mosaic case laws."⁽²⁵⁾ He insisted that to rely on "Noah's low-content covenant" in formulating civil laws "grants enormous authority to self-proclaimed autonomous man and his representative, the messianic State,"⁽²⁶⁾ and that "an attitude favorable to natural law theory" leads to "common-ground philosophy, common-ground ethics, and the autonomy of man."⁽²⁷⁾ There is, of course, no proof that an appeal to the natural law of the Noahic covenant necessarily "grants enormous authority" to the State; in fact, the very essence of Jeffersonian limited government was based on the "laws of nature" from which were derived the natural rights of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."⁽²⁸⁾ The very secession of the American colonies from an oppressive government across the ocean was predicated upon the premise that "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Governments seize "enormous authority" because of the sinful tendency of men to desire domination over their fellow men, not because they are granted that power by the alleged "low content" of the Noahic covenant.
       North's second claim is also a non sequitur: just because a Christian believes in a "common-ground ethic" for believers and non-believers alike, founded in the eternal nature of God and the common nature of man as His image-bearer, does not mean that he will make the logical leap to affirm a "common-ground philosophy." It is certainly true that there is no common ground, philosophically speaking, between the children of God and the children of the world (2 Corinthians 6:15), but this is only because the latter "hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). The word katechonton (hold) carries the implication of actual possession, as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:2 ("keep the ordinances, as I delivered unto you"), 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ("hold fast that which is good"), in Hebrews 3:6 ("hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end"), and in Hebrews 10:23 ("Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering"). The point of Romans 1:18 is that unbelievers are actually in possession of the moral law of God, but they deliberately suppress it because of their hatred for Him and act "as though they possessed not" (1 Corinthians 7:30). The problem is therefore not epistemological, but moral; fallen men are not unable to know God, but are unwilling to know Him. This is brought out in the next verse: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them" (verse 19). Moreover, "they knew God" — unbelievers instinctively know His moral demands — but "they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (verse 21). There is, therefore, clear "ethical common-ground" between believers and unbelievers because both are created in the image of God and both are forced by their shared human nature to agree to a standard which is, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence, "self-evident."⁽²⁹⁾
       Fallen man's rebellion is against natural revelation and natural law, not against the law of Moses. Was Paul therefore teaching the "autonomy of man" because he affirmed that there is indeed a "natural law" and a "common-ground ethic" which is inherent to the nature of man as God's creature? Certainly not, for he said to the heathen philosophers on Mars Hill, "...[T]he times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31). God's universal standard of righteousness is antecedent to and transcendent to the localized laws which were delivered to Israel, and it is the former by which the world will be judged, not by the latter.
       C.S. Lewis did an excellent job of explaining the self-evidence of natural law in Book One of his classic work, Mere Christianity, and he rightly used this "common-ground ethic" as the springboard for the presentation of the Gospel:

       These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in....
       It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power — it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. When you have realised that our position is nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the Christians are talking about. They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of the law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God Himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God.⁽³⁰⁾

       If mankind is thus so disobedient to the "work of the law written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15), why should we expect that enacting the written laws of Moses in society at large would be met with any better reception? The Reconstructionists will answer that the Mosaic code will not be imposed upon society until there has first been a massive spiritual revival and the people have voluntarily accepted it.⁽³¹⁾ However, this answer runs counter to Paul's declaration in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 that "the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine...." It is doubtful that a society consisting of regenerate men who fully understand the grace of God and their lofty position in Christ will willingly subject themselves to the "weak and beggarly elements" (Galatians 4:9) of a law "added because of transgression, till the seed [Christ] should come to whom the promise was made" (Galatians 3:19). What they will do instead is enact just laws which reflect the eternal moral law of God by restraining and punishing evil-doers when they commit acts "against nature" while leaving the righteous to govern themselves without regulation or restraint (Romans 13:3-4).⁽³²⁾ This peaceful freedom to live their lives to the glory of God and to preach the Gospel without interference is what Christians are to pray and work for (1 Timothy 2:2), not the imposition of an outdated and rigid law code that was specifically designed four thousand years ago to restrain and bind "a stiff-necked people" (Exodus 32:9) who "do always resist the Holy Ghost" (Acts 7:51):

       They (the Jews) had therefore a law, a course of discipline, and a prophecy of future things. For God at the first, indeed, warning them by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning He had implanted in mankind, that is, by means of the Decalogue (which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation), did then demand nothing more of them. As Moses says in Deuteronomy [5:22], "These are all the words which the Lord spake to the whole assembly of the sons of Israel on the mount, and He added no more; and He wrote them on two tables of stone, and gave them to me." For this reason He did so, that they who are willing to follow Him might keep these commandments. But when they turned themselves to make a calf, and had gone back in their minds to Egypt, desiring to be slaves instead of freemen, they were placed for the future in a state of servitude suited to their wish — a slavery which did not indeed cut them off from God, but subjected them to the yoke of bondage; as Ezekiel the prophet [20:24], when stating the reasons for the giving of such a law, declares: "And their eyes were after the desire of their heart; and I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments in which they shall not live"....
       Why, then, did the Lord not form the covenant for the fathers? Because "the law was not established for righteous men" [1 Timothy 1:9]. But the righteous fathers had the meaning of the Decalogue written in their hearts and souls, that is, they loved the God who made them, and did no injury to their neighbour. There was therefore no occasion that they should be cautioned by prohibitory mandates (correptoriis literis), because they had the righteousness of the law in themselves. But when this righteousness and love to God had passed into oblivion, and became extinct in Egypt, God did necessarily, because of His great goodwill to men, reveal Himself by a voice, and led the people with power out of Egypt, in order that man might again become the disciple and follower of God; and He afflicted those who were disobedient, that they should not contemn their Creator; and He fed them with manna, that they might receive food for their souls....⁽³³⁾

       When the Judaizers were troubling the early Church, the Council of Jerusalem was convened to render a decision on the disputed question, Were Gentile Christians obligated to observe the Mosaic law? The final verdict has direct relevance to our present discussion:

       Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well (Acts 15:24-29).

       It is important to note that the council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself, did not look to the Mosaic code as an ethical standard for Gentile Christians, but rather to the standard set forth in the Noahic Covenant of Genesis 9 — natural law. If such is the Bible's ethical standard for God's people in the Church, why should we think that it is not also the ethical standard for those outside the Church? The reader will remember that Greg Bahnsen himself denied that God should "be represented as having a double standard of judgment."
       In direct contradiction of the teachings of John Calvin and the Westminster Confession is Reconstructionism's hermeneutic basis "that each of God's revealed Old Covenant case laws is still in force, having been resurrected with Christ unless a New Testament revelation or principle has annulled it" [emphasis in original]⁽³⁴⁾ and that "nothing is more deadly or more derelict than the notion that the Christian is at liberty with respect to the kind of law he can have."⁽³⁵⁾ In the face of this obvious discrepancy, the Reconstructionists still present themselves as "Calvinists"⁽³⁶⁾ and, in some cases, as "Reformed Presbyterians."⁽³⁷⁾
       We close this chapter with the following astounding admission of Gary North regarding the novelty of Reconstructionism as a theological system:

       For almost two thousand years, Bible commentators — Jews and gentiles — have simply not taken seriously the specific details of Old Testament law. Despite the fact that John Calvin did preach about two hundred sermons on the Book of Deuteronomy, including its case laws, and that the Puritans, especially the New England Puritans, did take biblical law seriously, they did not write detailed expositions showing how these laws can be applied institutionally in New Testament times....
       This exegetical approach is unquestionably new.... This is why the Christian Reconstruction movement does represent a major break with recent church history. On this point — and just about only on this one — Reconstructionism's critics are correct. We represent a discontinuity in church history. Christian Reconstructionists alone have gone to the Bible's legal passages in search of permanent authoritative guidelines ("blueprints") for what society ought to do and be. In this sense, we Reconstructionists are theological revolutionaries.⁽³⁸⁾

       North has claimed that no one else in the history of the Christian Church — with the possible exception of the New England Puritans — has held the views which have promulgated since the late 1960s by the Reconstructionists. That fact alone should give us reason to doubt the validity of what they are teaching, for, as Tertullian so aptly stated in the early Third Century, "[W]hatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date."⁽³⁹⁾

Endnotes

1. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, page 434.

2. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), page 22.

3. Chaim Clorfene and Yaakov Rogalsky, The Path of the Righteous Gentile: An Introduction to the Seven Laws of the Children of Noah (New York: Philipp Feldheim, Inc., 1987).

4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter VIII:1.

5. North, Theonomy, An Informed Response, page 26.

6. North, ibid., page 30.

7. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XX:15.

8. Calvin, ibid., Book IV, Chapter XX:14-16.

9. Calvin, ibid., Book IV, Chapter XX:1.

10. Augustine, The City of God (New York: Random House, Inc., 1950; translated by Marcus Dods, D.D.), pages 695-696. Ironically, Gary North credits Augustine's book for "restructur[ing] Western civilization's concept of history" by "adhering to the biblical worldview" (Tools of Dominion, page 2).

11. Westminster Confession, Chapter I:1, XXI:1.

12. Ibid., Chapter XIX:1-2, 5.

13. Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 98.

14. In a previous chapter, it was noted that “righteousness” is a technical term which refers to the fulfillment of a covenantal requirement and does not refer to the quality of one’s behavior. “Covenant of works” and “perfect rule of righteousness” are therefore corresponding phrases meant to connect the giving of the law at Mount Sinai with the original Adamic covenant. The “personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience” which was the condition of the Covenant of Works was restated in the Mosaic covenant (with the stone tablets of the Decalogue standing for the unwritten moral law), along with the promise of life for fulfillment of the condition and the threat of death for transgression.

15. Colquhoun, Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, page 7.

16. Westminster Confession, Chapter XIX:4.

17. Ibid., Chapter XXIII:2.

18. An American law textbook might also cite a particular law of England as an example of how a legal principle may be applied to a particular situation without binding it as an obligation upon the reader. William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England was a favorite reference work for American lawyers in the Eighteenth Century.

19. The Belgic Confession, Article XXXVI; Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter IX, Chapter XII; London Baptist Confession (1689), Chapter XIX:4.

20. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, page 304.

21. Rushdoony, ibid., page 551.

22. Rushdoony, ibid., page 9.

23. Rushdoony, ibid., page 653.

24. North, Tools of Dominion, page 20.

25. North, ibid., page 89.

26. North, ibid., page 314.

27. North, ibid, page 20.

28. Jefferson substituted the latter phrase for John Locke's "property," apparently assuming that one could not pursue happiness without property.

29. The reader is invited to read the Declaration of Independence alongside the first chapter of Romans. Jefferson, though not a Christian himself, came very close to outlining the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, even using (albeit unknowingly) some of the same terminology. The fact that most Reconstructionists point to the Declaration as evidence of America's "Christian [i.e. theocratic] heritage," is very odd in light of its clear endorsement of "natural law theory." Only Gary North has seen the contradiction and thus repudiates the Declaration and the later Constitution as "atheistic" and "humanistic" documents (Political Polytheism, page 403).

30. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Westwood, New Jersey: Barbour and Company, Inc., 1952), pages 7, 27.

31. North, Tools of Dominion, page 57.

32. “The teachings of Christianity are facts and principles, not propositions and restrictions; its institutions are simple outlines, not precise ceremonies; and its laws are moral sentiments, not minute mechanical directions” (H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell [editors], The Pulpit Commentary: II Corinthians [New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1890], page 80).

33. Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapters 15, 16; in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (editors), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, pages 479, 481.

34. North, Theonomy, An Informed Response, page 7.

35. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, page 14.

36. In his book, Political Polytheism, Gary North asked the rhetorical question: "How can a Calvinist, who affirms the absolute sovereignty of God over every aspect of history, deny the existence of theocracy?" (page 207). In response, one might ask of North, How can a professed Calvinist deny the clear teachings of Calvin on natural law? Elsewhere, North admitted, "That Calvin was no theonomist is clear...." (Tools of Dominion, page 1211).

37. According to Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, "Many of the teachings of 'Christian reconstructionists' are developments of particular Reformed doctrines that find their best expression in the confessional standards of the Westminster Confession of Faith" (Reduction of Christianity, page 31). As may be clearly seen in this chapter, and as will be further proved in the remainder of this book, the main tenets of Reconstructionism instead directly contradict the Westminister Confession.

38. North, Tools of Dominion, page 7.

39. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter II; in Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III, page 598.