Appendix K CRITICS OF THE FIVE-POINT COVENANT MODEL In analyzing now the nature of Biblical law, it is important to note first that, for the Bible, law is revelation. . . . The law is the revelation of God and His righteousness. . . . The second characteristic of Biblical law is that it is a treaty or covenant. Kline has shown that the form of the giving of the law, the language of the text, the historical prologue, the requirement of exclusive commitment to the suzerain, God, the pronouncement of imprecations and benedictions, and much more, all point to the fact that the law is a treaty established by God with His people. . . . The third characteristic of the Biblical law or covenant is that it constitutes a plan for dominion under God.
R. J. Rushdoony (1973)(1)
Rushdoony began The Institutes of Biblical Law by explaining biblical law in terms of a preliminary but undeveloped model of the biblical covenant: the first three of the five points. He cited as authoritative Meredith G. Kline's discussion of the parallels between the Mosaic law and the pagan suzerainty treaties of the second millennium B.C. But having introduced a preliminary covenant model into this, his most authoritative and comprehensive work, he failed to pursue this insight. Ray Sutton did. In That You May Prosper (1987), he extended Kline's insights to demonstrate the Bible's comprehensive theonomic foundation. Kline does not approve of this theonomic application -- or any other theonomic application -- and has remained silent regarding Sutton's book. This is not surprising. Kline's premier opponent in the theonomy movement, Greg Bahnsen, does not appreciate works built on Kline's insights, and he has remained unconvinced by Sutton's application. This is also not surprising. Because the development of the five-point model came out of Tyler, and because it places so much emphasis on the institutional church, Rushdoony has remained silent. This, too, is not surprising. This has left me as the main promoter of Sutton's thesis.
The Necessity for Systematic Theology Charles Hodge's re-write of Francis Turretin's seventeenth-century loci(2) in the early 1870's will no longer suffice, assuming that it ever did. These loci were Protestant versions of Roman Catholic Scholastic categories: theology proper (God), anthropology (man), hamartiology (sin), soteriology (redemption), ecclesiology (church), and eschatology (last things). There is nothing innately incorrect about these categories, but they were derived from Scholastic philosophy, not the texts of Scripture. Francis Landley Patton, who served as president of Princeton Seminary, 1902 to 1914, was not exaggerating when he referred to Turretin as the Thomas Aquinas of Protestantism.(3) That was the problem: with Turretin and Old Princeton.
The Protestant church needs a systematic theology. It does not have one today. Such a systematic theology must incorporate the insights of biblical theology, i.e., the study of the uses and development of biblical symbolism (rhetoric) from Genesis to Revelation. In other words, systematic theology must incorporate the work of Geerhardus Vos and his disciples.(4) At the same time, the speculations of Vos' disciples must be brought under the discipline of the judicial theology of the Bible. Those who follow Vos have been what economist F. A. Hayek has called "puzzlers" and "muddlers."(5) There is more to theology than solving curious puzzles. Ecologists insist that we cannot change just one thing. The pieces of the biblical puzzle are part of a systematic whole. You cannot restructure just one piece.
Theology demands structure. There can be no theology without theological structure. It may be a hidden or implicit structure, but there will always be a structure. A Bible-affirming theology must proclaim a biblically derived structure. In contrast, modern critics of orthodox theology deny the existence of any consistent structure. For example, liberal higher criticism denies the theological unity of the Bible.(6) The rise of dialectical theology, especially Barthianism,(7) in the twentieth century has made it all the more imperative that Christians proclaim a Bible-based theological system. Barthians deny that the Bible provides us with propositional truth; the Bible is supposedly is a "witness to God's word," not God's word itself. Rushdoony has put it well: "There can be no systematic theology if the God of Scripture is not a coherent unity, and if His word is not a coherent whole."(8) Christians must respond to allegations of the Bible's disunity or incompleteness by affirming what the Bible says of itself: it is the authoritative source of propositional truth, suitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction, for it is inspired by God (II Tim. 3:16). It is not sufficient to defend the faith with some muddle-headed variant of "No creed but Christ, no law but love."
What should be the structural principle undergirding systematic theology? It is my contention that a biblical systematic theology must be based on the covenant: that which binds God and man. Covenant theology reveals who God is: the transcendent yet immanent Creator. It reveals who man is: made in the image of God; under God and over nature, and now fallen. It speaks of God's law, God's judgments, and the future. It is a comprehensive framework under which the fundamental doctrines of the faith are subsumed. It is, above all, a judicial framework.
Such a systematic theology has yet to be written, for traditional covenant theologians have yet to present a systematic biblical covenant model. Without a covenant structure or model, there is no covenant theology. There can of course be a theology that for tradition's sake is called "covenant theology," but it will just be Calvinism's five points accompanied by the endless droning of the equivalent of a New Age mantra: "Covenant theology, covenant theology, covenant theology. . . ." What traditional covenant theologians need is a demonstrable, biblically derived definition of "covenant." They need to answer these questions: What is a covenant? How do we recognize it? Where is it found in the texts of Scripture? What are its categories that are found in every occurrence of a covenant in the Bible? Covenant theologians have remained mute or incoherent regarding answers to these obvious questions for well over three centuries.(9)
Calvinists, while publicly affirming covenant theology, have for over three centuries substituted other conceptual frameworks for systematic theology. The six loci represent one attempt to define and explain the Calvinist faith. Another is known as the five points of Calvinism.
The Five Points of Calvinism There is no doubt that Calvinists have long accepted as theologically legitimate (though not ecclesiastically binding in their form as five points) the Synod of Dort's famous five points of Calvinism. They would reject any assertion that these five points do not, in fact, define their position. No anti-Calvinist critic would be foolish enough to make such an assertion, since everyone loves a good whipping boy, which the five points appear to be in the eyes of Arminians and humanists. Some good Calvinist may ask, as Leonard Coppes has asked, "Are five points enough?"(10) but no one pays much attention. The better informed within Calvinist circles will even point out that all five points were developed in the early seventeenth century in response to the five points of Arminianism, Jacobus Arminius' Trojan Horse gift to Protestant theology. What are Calvinism's five points?
1. Total depravity of man
2. Unconditional election by God
3. Limited atonement (particular redemption)
4. Irresistible grace
5. Perseverance of the saints
The acronym in English is TULIP, a Dutch-associated flower.
Calvinists are quite content to proclaim these points. The TULIP acronym helps them remember exactly what they believe that distinguishes them from their rivals. But then along comes Sutton, with his five-point model. "No, no," the Calvinist critics cry. "His structure is imposed on the Bible!" So, let us consider Sutton's five points, but in a different order:
1. Total depravity/Ethics (man's)
2. Unconditional election/Oath (God's)
3. Limited atonement/Hierarchy (representation)
4. Irresistible grace/Transcendence
5. Perseverance of the saints/Succession
To which the Calvinist critics reply (if at all): "Oh. A structure. A model. Five points. Hmmmm. Interesting. Yes, I see your point. In fact, I see five points. But. . . . But this proves nothing. Nothing!" The fact that Sutton's model precisely fits all five points of Calvinism is dismissed as irrelevant. More than this: it is dismissed as proof that Sutton's model is just too simple, just too universal, just too easy, just too good to be true. It therefore cannot be true. The Calvinist critics casually dismiss the huge theological benefit to them of the existence of a rigorously tight fit between the two five-point models. What benefit? If Sutton's model is based on the exegesis of specific biblical texts, then the structure of the five points of Calvinism can be shown to be covenantal. This makes the five points of Calvinism structurally biblical, not just abstracts of five structurally disjointed theological conclusions.
There is no single text anywhere in the Bible that teaches the five points of Calvinism. Calvinists know that their beloved five points were derived from a number of different Bible texts, none connected structurally to the others (they suppose), none exhibiting a self-contained structure in itself (they suppose). The five points of Calvinism are regarded by their defenders as a system -- not one derived structurally from the texts, however, but deduced from many texts and then imposed on theology as a whole. This theological imposition -- this theological "Procrustean bed" -- is regarded as legitimate by Calvinists. Why? Because they readily admit that their five-point system is not derived from any biblical text. This obvious apologetic weakness is regarded by them as Calvinism's pre-eminent strength!
Then I came along using Sutton's discovery(11) and announced in effect: "Look, brethren, here it is at long last: an exegetical defense of our beloved five points. The structure of Calvinism's five-point model really is derived from the structure of God's word after all. Before Sutton, we had no proof of this wonderful fact, but now we do." Are they happy? Of course not. They much prefer to admit that Calvinism's five points are not found in any particular text. Then they insist that this fact makes their five points more reliable than Sutton's five points, which are found in many, many texts. It is a very strange business, this movement called Calvinism.
Traditional covenant theologians defend a deduced theological system that they claim is biblical, yet they are without a precise covenant model. They deeply resent and resist Sutton's fusing of Calvinism and the biblical covenant. Why? Two reasons. First, Sutton's model proclaims not only predestination (point one), but ecclesiastical hierarchy (point two), theonomy (point three), the Lord's Supper as an act of covenant renewal (point four), and postmillennialism (point five). One or more of the final four doctrines will bring howls of protest from almost any Calvinist defender of predestination, i.e., point one, God's absolute sovereignty. Second, Sutton discovered it first, and he was outside of academia at the time he discovered it. "Not discovered here" is the academician's reason for automatically rejecting any new idea or discovery.
The Four Points of Christian Reconstruction Within the world of Calvinism has arisen an even more precise, even more theologically rigorous subset: Christian Reconstruction. The Reconstructionists also have a model that distinguishes them from everyone else. They are proud of it. It has four points:
1. Predestination(12)
2. Theonomic ethics
3. Presuppositional apologetics (Van Til)
4. Postmillennialism(13)
The two rival camps -- Tyler(14) and Vallecito(15) -- are agreed on all four. But there is one additional point that Sutton and I have insisted on:(16) the doctrine of the covenant itself, i.e., the five-point model. Where does it fit? It is point two in a revised Reconstructionist outline.
1. Predestination/transcendence
2. Covenant/hierarchies: church,(17) State, family
3. Theonomy/ethics
4. Presuppositionalism/judgment
5. Postmillennialism/inheritance
The offensive point is point two: hierarchy. Among some Christian Reconstructionists, a rejection of the doctrine of the church's authority is common. Some theonomists want independent churches. Some want none, i.e., none with any judicial authority to excommunicate. They see clearly where Sutton's five points lead: toward a hierarchical church authority that brings lawful judgments in history, just as John Calvin insisted(18) (point two: hierarchy/representation). This also implies that churches should offer frequent (weekly) communion, just as John Calvin insisted(19) (point four: oath/sanctions). It means employing young child communion, retarded member communion, and Alzheimer's victims communion as a means of covenant renewal (point four).(20) This view of the Lord's Supper is not acceptable to most Presbyterian Reconstructionists. They are quite content to accept the five points of Calvinism plus four points of Christian Reconstruction. They have not rushed to embrace Sutton's thesis. They are willing to adopt theological models, but only so long as these models are not presented as biblically authoritative.
A Biblical Structure for Biblical Theology One of the problems I face in promoting the five-point covenant model is this: its theologically conservative critics do not like the thought that there is an authoritative model for theology that was discovered this late in church history. There is an innate suspicion among Reformed theologians that theological innovations are generally dangerous. I respect this attitude, but only as an initial presupposition. I agree: major theological innovations should be considered guilty until proven innocent. Even small innovations are suspect. The camel of heresy has repeatedly pushed its way into the tent of orthodoxy with small innovations. Nevertheless, each suggested innovation must be examined in terms of the Bible. The church does discover new biblical facts. There has been progress in church history. There has been progress in the development of the confessions of the church. The church does not still rely exclusively on the Apostles' Creed.
I have stated the case for the five-point model very strongly. I have argued that it is a major integrating theme in the Bible. The five-point model, I have argued, is the integrating model for understanding covenantal law and covenantal relationships. Therefore, to the extent that the biblical theme of covenantalism is essential to some passage, the judicial aspects of one's interpretation of this passage must be explored initially in terms of the five-point model. Not every passage in Scripture is visibly covenantal, but a lot more are covenantal than is admitted by non-covenant theologians.
The fact that non-covenant theologians should reject my sweeping use of the five-point model is understandable. They refuse to accept the idea that the covenant is a major theme in Scripture. What bothers me is that so many professed defenders of covenant theology reject the applicability of the five-point model beyond the Book of Deuteronomy. Meredith G. Kline, an early promoter of the Deuteronomy model in his book, Treaty of the Great King (1963), ignores it with respect to the New Covenant, the Decalogue, and a great deal more. Not only do covenant theologians reject the five-point model, they refuse to consider the evidence of its wide applicability in those texts of Scripture that Sutton examined in his newsletter, Covenant Renewal, 1987-1993. The critics pretend that this newsletter never existed.
That the five points fit Deuteronomy is not a revolutionary observation late in the twentieth century. What is rejected, and rejected strongly, is any suggestion that the structure of Deuteronomy is relevant for anything beyond Deuteronomy. I am showing, commentary by commentary, that the same five-point model that structures Deuteronomy also structures the Pentateuch itself. The five books of Moses, in their very arrangement, reflect the five points of the covenant. When I say reflect, I mean governed by. This is another way of saying that the Pentateuchal model is the archetype. Deuteronomy's structure is a subordinate application of this archetype. The same is true of the structure of Leviticus and Exodus.
It is not wrong to look for governing structures in the texts of the Bible. It is not automatically heretical or ill-informed to announce the discovery of a theme or structure in numerous texts. To discover and expound such patterns is one of the tasks of the discipline known as biblical theology. It is true that I cannot go to a verse in Scripture that says: "Lo, thou findeth the five-point model of Deuteronomy also in the structure of the five books of Moses." Writing biblical theology is not that easy. Try reading the works of Geerhardus Vos if you doubt me. But Vos was a master of the Scriptures, and it is a serious mistake to dismiss his methodology.(21) Had the other Princeton theologians understood what Vos was doing, and had they used his insights to restructure their late-nineteenth-century version of Turretin's seventeenth-century Protestant Scholasticism,(22) they might better have resisted the forces of theological liberalism that captured Princeton Seminary in 1929. Presbyterian liberals after 1875 used an imported version of biblical theology -- higher criticism -- to undermine men's confidence in traditional Calvinist orthodoxy.
Then Came Fisher Critics of the broad use of the five-point model now have a major problem: Milton Fisher's Foreword to the 1992 edition of That You May Prosper. Dr. Fisher is without doubt the most thoroughly credentialed Bible-believing Old Testament scholar in the United States, and probably anywhere. He received his Ph.D. in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University, written under the legendary Cyrus H. Gordon, and an M.A. from Johns Hopkins in oriental studies, completed under the equally legendary W. F. Albright. Dr. Fisher writes the following:
The book you now hold in your hand is doubtless the clearest exposition of Bible-as-covenant (that is, Bible as meant to be understood) that you've ever read. That's because the author has spelled out in no uncertain terms the implications of historic reformational covenant theology in the light of current scholarship. . . . Its commanding logic demands your interaction with the flow of reasoning and its often surprisingly fresh suggestions will prove a stimulus and assistance to your formation of judgments of your own. . . . Fresh insights into God's Word are sure to be gained, to say the least, through Sutton's work. I found it to be so, after nearly half a century of serious study and teaching of the Bible. Thinking through this book will enable you to focus upon and relate by covenantal principles certain details which you have either overlooked or found puzzling. . . . So, a revived interest and excitement in Bible study is an assured byproduct of reading this book.
When you read criticisms raised by "Deuteronomy only!" critics, keep this question in the back of your mind: "How did poor old Milton Fisher get taken in so completely by such a misleading, overstated book as Sutton's?" Then ask yourself this question: "Or it is possible -- indeed, highly probable -- that the critic, in this case at least, does not know what he's talking about?"
Sola Scriptura Anyone who believes that the acids of modernity have not seeped into the temple, let alone the gates of the city, need only consider the implicit relativism of many who today present themselves as the defenders of Sola Scriptura. They do exactly what the modernists did in their capture of the mainline denominations in the early twentieth century. The modernists also dismissed all creeds, confessions, and biblically derived models as convenient theories without binding theological, judicial, or ecclesiastical authority. The modernists sought to escape three things: the judicial authority of the churches, the theological boundaries of orthodoxy, and negative church sanctions. They were successful in this attempt. They inherited the conservatives' theological and financial legacies, denomination by denomination.(23) (They did not, however, escape the sovereignty of God, His authority, His theological standards, and His eternal sanctions. As each modernist has crossed the biological boundary of death, he has been disinherited.)
Consider the Calvinist. If the Calvinism's five points are just one more convenient but non-binding classification scheme among many, in what way are they theologically binding? Merely on the basis of personal taste? To most people, all five of Calvinism's points taste rotten. If theology is merely symphonic, what if someone wants to hum a new tune? What if the tune is really catchy? This is the question of theological standards (point three). If Calvinism's five points are not textually derived, which their defenders admit, and their "mere" theological status -- their status as a theological model -- makes them institutionally non-binding, how can anyone logically justify the establishment of a Calvinist church in terms of the five points? The question, "Are there more than five points?" can far more easily become: "Are there fewer than five points?"
Rejecting The Evidence
There is inescapable evidence in Deuteronomy of a five-point structure.(24) This is my starting point for any discussion of Sutton's five points. I ask, not altogether rhetorically: "Well, Mr. Calvinist Critic, which biblical book is structured in terms of the five points of Calvinism? Also, Mr. Theonomist Critic, which biblical text reveals the four points of Christian Reconstructionism?" The answer to both questions is none. Worse, the defenders of the "many theological models, but none with any binding authority" thesis like it this way. It somehow comforts them to know that what they believe with all their hearts in actually only a mental construct: a convenient but judicially disposable theory, without a single book or text in the Bible that reveals its outline. Conclusion: if Sutton had only the Book of Deuteronomy, he would still be one book ahead of all of his critics except Meredith G. Kline, who has remained prudently mute on the thesis of That You May Prosper, despite its appendix on his theology.(25)
Countering the Critics In 1986, prior to the publication of That You May Prosper, I decided to undermine the legitimacy of what I knew would become the standard criticism of Sutton's thesis: "Deuteronomy only!" I hired Sutton to write a monthly newsletter, Covenant Renewal. Each issue discussed a specific biblical passage or text that is structured in terms of the five-point model. Each newsletter was the equivalent of 18 double-spaced typed pages. The first issue appeared in January, 1987. Only in the spring of 1993 did he cease writing it on a regular basis because of his duties as president of Philadelphia Theological Seminary, the seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church.(26) There were over seventy issues of Sutton's newsletter, more than 1,200 double-spaced typed pages of evidence. This effort cost ICE a great deal of money: tens of thousands of dollars. Why did ICE go to this expense? To remove forever the legitimacy of the "Deuteronomy only!" argument.
The existence of Covenant Renewal has not silenced Sutton's "Deuteronomy only" critics, nor did I expect it to. But these critics have systematically failed to mention the existence of Covenant Renewal. This deliberate silence has fooled most of their victimized followers, but it has also condemned these critics before God (Ninth Commandment: bearing false witness). This surely has been worth ICE's money.
My publishing strategy has now led to another kind of criticism. It goes as follows: "Yes, Sutton's model fits all kinds of passages. This proves that it cannot possibly be biblical. It is just too convenient. It is just too good to be true. It is therefore an invention of man. The more passages it fits, the more clearly it has to be a counterfeit." I call this the "one size can't fit all, unless it is stretched out of shape" criticism, also called the "too good to be true" criticism. But it represents a major retreat from the "Deuteronomy only" criticism.
These critics have a strategy, one described by Van Til in a fine analogy. They stand in front of what they regard as a bottomless pit. Each one holds a large shovel. "Throw any fact you like at us!" So we do. One critic after another takes his shovel and tosses the most recent fact over his shoulder into the pit. "Now throw us another. We dare you! We double-dog dare you!" This can go on for years, as I hope to prove. It is expensive to keep tossing the facts at them, but as the defenders age, those shovels will become increasingly heavy for them. They will also find that their brighter disciples are decreasingly impressed with this unproductive defensive strategy. The fact is, there are no bottomless pits in life. Even if there were, there is more to the defense of a position than shoveling facts into a pit. Those who adopt this strategy never move forward. Their disciples eventually conclude there is more to theology than bottomless pits, and more to eschatology than stationary shoveling. There is, in the final analysis, the Great Commission.(27)
These critics never respond to specific presentations with specific refutations; they just shovel each new fact over their collective shoulders. This is regarded as first-rate scholarship by today's seminary faculties. This is why Christianity can be so easily dismissed by its critics as the faith of old women of both sexes. Christians are not taken seriously because most of them do not take ideas seriously. Calvinists always had one thing going for them within the Church International: they were Protestantism's scholars. No longer. The academic neo-evangelicals have replaced them. But these neo-evangelicals are defenders of theological mush -- heavily footnoted mush. This leaves modern evangelical Protestantism as intellectually paralyzed as Israel's army was before Goliath. But when Sutton, like David, arrived from the pastoral hinterlands bearing his five stones, the army's officers were deeply resentful. They still are.
It is not sufficient to be a defender if a battle goes on indefinitely. The offense eventually wins. The longer the battle continues, the truer the old slogan: "The best defense is a good offense." It does little good for a critic to reject Sutton's thesis unless he has a better one to put in its place. All the critics -- the "Deuteronomy only!" critics and the "One size can't fit all!" critics -- are united in this confession: "All theories are equal, but one is more equal than others: our rejection of Sutton's five points."
The assumption of the critics is that God has no integrated covenantal structure in His mind; at least, His revelation does not reveal such a structure. God's mind supposedly operates without an identifiable pattern with respect to covenant theology: so the covenant theologians insist. When Sutton presents many passages in the Bible that conform to the five-point model, the critics automatically dismiss his discoveries as man-made "eisegesis": reading a structure into the text. They are insistent: "Covenant theology has no biblically authoritative structure!" This, it should be pointed out, is exactly what myriads of critics of covenant theology have maintained for over three centuries.
Biblical Analogical Reasoning The theoretical question is this: If man's mind is analogous to God's, thinking God's thoughts after Him, then if man does not receive these patterns from God's mind, how can man be said to be made in God's image? If we cannot find intellectually and judicially binding patterns in the Bible, how can we render judgment in terms of God's priorities? Are we stuck with Barth's dialectical god: wholly concealed yet wholly revealed? Or has God revealed Himself clearly to creatures who are morally and judicially bound to speak His word in a creaturely but covenantally faithful manner?
In 1978, Rushdoony wrote: "The canon or rule of life and faith is either from God or from man. It is either the canon of covenant law, or it is the canon of man's word as law."(28) A year later, he published an essay denying the existence of any underlying master (humanist) principle. He insisted: "The quest for a master principle is in essence anti-Biblical and is destructive of Christianity."(29) It is worth noting that he used a five-point argument in his attempt to prove this. Each of his five points conforms to one of the biblical covenant model's five points, a fact Sutton noted in 1987.(30) Sutton's critics face the dilemma of every covenant theologian who denies that God's covenant has a fixed structure: without a structure, there can be no covenant.
If you do not have a theological model, you do not have a principle of biblical interpretation: a hermeneutic. Christians need a hermeneutic. The question is: What should it be? Theological liberals have one: "The Old Testament, but, above all, the Book of Leviticus, is judicially irrelevant." The problem is, most evangelicals share this opinion of the Old Testament, and especially of Leviticus.
The Substitution of Rhetoric for Evidence My arguments and evidence regarding the broad applicability of the five-point Pentateuchal model are rarely commented on by critics except indirectly. I would put it even more strongly: the specifics of what I have written are never commented on; the blackout strategy is in force. Those few critics who seem to understand what I have written are universally unwilling to go into print with the specifics of their case against my arguments, as well as Sutton's text-by-text evidence. Instead, they resort to rhetoric, and misleading rhetoric at that.
Let us consider a representative case of this rhetorical strategy. Rev. Andrew Sandlin writes of my broad application of the Pentateuchal-covenantal model: "What is objectionable about this insistence is that, like scholastic dispensationalism, five-point covenantalism when applied as a textual and theological construct is not exegetically derived. To extrapolate from Deuteronomy's patent covenantal structure to the view that Sutton's version thereof `must serve as the necessary classification scheme for all orthodox Christian theology' is unwarrantable inasmuch as it is an implicit denial of the reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. To the Reformers Scripture itself is the ultimate authority; and when useful biblical models we develop begin to supersede the Scriptures themselves `as the necessary classification scheme for all orthodox Christian theology,' we come dangerously close to a crypto-Catholicism in which the word of man competes with and dominates the word of God."(31) I am the target of his rhetoric. He calls my exposition on the covenant an example of "overrefinement" and "confusion."(32) When a biblical scholar's exposition is not exegetically derived, is overrefined, and is confused, it must be deeply flawed. The accuser presumably has considerable evidence to support his charges. Unfortunately, in the case of the most vociferous of my critics, they never do. They insist; they do not attempt to prove. The employ rhetoric; they do not offer evidence.
Sandlin also says that "North's insistence introduces sectarianism into reconstruction."(33) He then compares me with militant fundamentalist Bob Jones II -- which I find amusing, but Bob Jones III would not. (BJIII and I had a lengthy exchange of hostile letters in the late 1970's regarding the definition of fundamentalism). Nevertheless, his accusation regarding my concern about sectarianism is not off the mark. I am indeed doing my best to make the five points of the biblical covenant model a defining feature of Christian Reconstruction: specifically, point two of the five points (not just four) of Christian Reconstruction. Once again, these five points are: 1) the absolute sovereignty of the Trinitarian Creator God (Calvinism-Augustinianism); 2) the covenant itself, which is governed by the five points; 3) biblical law (theonomy); 4) Van Til's presuppositional apologetic method; and 5) postmillennialism. The earlier version -- points 1, 3, 4, and 5 -- was what Rushdoony and I pioneered from 1973 on.(34) I have broken with Rushdoony on his refusal to add point two: the covenant. My explanation for his refusal to adopt it is this: he rejects it because it points directly to binding church hierarchy -- the kind of authority that Calvin defended in Book IV of The Institutes.(35) Sandlin on this point remains in Rushdoony's camp. He recognizes what I am trying to do, but he has misinterpreted my intent. I am not trying to sectarianize Christian Reconstruction. I am trying to show that Rushdoony's version of the position -- anti-church to the core and therefore anti-covenantal -- is deeply sectarian. I adhere to the traditional doctrine of the church and the sacraments; he has forthrightly rejected both. I am distancing myself from Rushdoony's sectarianism. Sandlin is unwilling to acknowledge Rushdoony's sectarianism, and he responds by tarring me with that brush.
The fact is, if the church at large never adopts either of our versions of Christian Reconstruction, or some development thereof, both camps will remain sectarian. Because I am a churchman, I can freely admit this. Because Rushdoony isn't, he cannot. Sandlin announces: "Reconstruction does not rest upon -- and never has rested on -- ecclesiastical polity."(36) This is indeed true of Rushdoony's version, which is why it is sectarian. But if by polity Sandlin means participating in the Lord's Supper as a local church member under the authority of elders, then Reconstructionism does indeed rest on ecclesiastical polity. Rushdoony stopped taking the Lord's Supper for over two decades; he refused to join a local church for the same period.(37) This is what separates my version of Christian Reconstruction from his.
Rhetorical Flourishes
Sandlin uses very strong language to dismiss my position on the covenant, although I think "crypto-Catholicism" is choice, however off-target. We right-wing Americans of the 1950's era used to use "crypto-Communist" for similar rhetorical purposes. (The liberals never used "crypto-fascist." They just shouted "You fascist!" and let it go at that. They had no subtlety, no class.) But to say that a large portion of a Christian expositor's life's work -- not to mention his enormous publishing expenses -- is not exegetically grounded is a direct challenge either to his moral integrity or his intellectual capability. He is either a knave or an incompetent. While it is legitimate to make such a challenge on occasion, since the academic evangelical world today is filled almost to overflowing with theological knaves and incompetents, the accusation should always be supported by detailed, textually based evidence. I recommend David Chilton's book, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators, as a representative model of how such a challenge should be presented. But this is what my published critics never offer. This is what annoys me. It leads me to do things that are considered unchristian in my day (though not Luther's and Calvin's day, and surely not in Cromwell's day), such as calling attention to the critics' naked backsides. It is now Rev. Sandlin's turn.
Rev. Sandlin is a theonomist of the Vallecito variety. I single him out, not because I have anything against him personally (I have never met him), but because he is the first writer I have come across who has been willing to take me on in print regarding my broad use of the five-point covenant model.(38) Also, here is someone who employs rhetoric -- which I sincerely do appreciate -- though unfortunately at the expense of both logic and evidence.
In a single passage, readers are terrorized with two traditional bogeymen: dispensationalism (which uses a model) and Catholicism (which also uses a model). Let me suggest another traditional model: the five points of Calvinism. That model, surely, is a lot closer in structure to the five-point covenant model. More to the point, the five points of Calvinism are in fact an application in the area of "theology proper" of the much broader five points of covenantalism. Whatever objections Rev. Sandlin has against my broad use of the five points of covenantalism should also be applied to the five points of Calvinism.
While no Calvinist dares to say that the five points of Calvinism are superior to Scripture, all of them say these five points are superior to the five points of Arminianism, which is where they came from in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, the Synod of Dort (1618-19) offered them in response to Arminius' five points. The Calvinist says to the Arminian, "My five points are better than your five points." I am indeed saying to the world, "Sutton's five points of the covenant are better -- more exegetically derived -- than Calvinism's five points." The Pentateuch is not structured in terms of the five points of Calvinism. Neither is Deuteronomy. Neither is Leviticus. Neither is Exodus.
Had Sandlin challenged me to defend my assertion regarding the superiority of Sutton's five points to the five points of Calvinism -- which are a subset of the covenant's five points -- I would have no objection. That is what theological debate is all about. I would then engage him in a printed debate. I launched this debate when I decided to begin publishing Covenant Renewal months before That You May Prosper appeared. ICE spent a lot of money publishing Sutton's Covenant Renewal. My objection to Sandlin is that he has used excessive rhetoric in order to imply that I have advocated heretical nonsense, i.e., his suggestion that my recommended theological model supersedes Scripture in the same way that dispensationalism's model is assumed by its adherents to do, or Catholicism's models. If I believed such a thing about theological models, I would indeed be a Roman Catholic in my hermeneutic. In short, he was not content to challenge me regarding my detailed defense of the covenant's five points against rival classification schemes regarding structure of the biblical covenant and its applications in covenantal matters. He made it sound as though I am opposed to Sola Scriptura. For rhetorical purposes, the man deliberately misrepresented me.
At the most, his article was read by only a few hundred people. I respond here only because his rhetorical flourishes are representative of a broader class of contemporary would-be theological debate: verbal assault without theological interaction.
Before I reply in detail, I raise the following pair of not-quite rhetorical questions. First, are the creeds of the Christian church judicially binding as confessional models for church membership, i.e., membership in a covenantal institution? Second, are confessional statements of specific denominations judicially binding as confessional models for ordination to the ministries of the church? If Rev. Sandlin says yes to both questions, thereby placing himself within the orthodox tradition of the Christian church, his rhetorical assault on my broad use of Sutton's five-point backfires on him. He has now acknowledged that there can be judicially binding statements of faith -- theological models, to use another word -- that are under the authority of the Bible and over the church. That is to say, these theological models are covenantally binding. On the other hand, if he says no, he thereby places himself in the antinomian camp, with its constant claim: "No creed but the Bible, no law but love!" The logic of his own critique escaped Rev. Sandlin. This is always the risk of adopting strong rhetoric.
I presume that he affirms that the creeds and confessions are covenantally binding as ecclesiastical statements. But this is only the beginning. A creed is a brief statement of personal faith. It begins with credo, "I believe." But are there examples in the Bible of theologically binding structures of belief that are more than accurate summaries of certain theological conclusions? Put differently: Does the Bible itself present structured summaries of correct belief -- summaries whose very structures govern the revelation of God in the Scriptures? Put differently still: Are the very structures of certain biblical passages themselves binding as representative systems of belief? Finally, are theological constructs sometimes actual biblical constructs?
Models: An Inescapable Concept
Sandlin implies that some systems of doctrine are autonomous creations of error-filled men who have sought to make these theological constructs superior to Scripture. This, he says, violates the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. On this point, he is quite correct. To which I reply: "So what? What has this traditional Protestant observation got to do with me?" The only answer supported by his article's evidence is this: not a thing. But his rhetorical implication is that this criticism of theological systems has everything to do with me. What he implies -- but refuses to prove from my writings or my use of evidence -- is that I have elevated the five-point covenant model above the Bible. Again, let me quote him verbatim: "To the Reformers Scripture itself is the ultimate authority; and when useful biblical models we develop begin to supersede the Scriptures themselves as `the necessary classification scheme for all orthodox Christian theology'" -- my words -- "we come dangerously close to a crypto-Catholicism in which the word of man competes with and dominates the word of God."(39) He says "we come dangerously close"; what he means is "North comes dangerously close."
He accepts the use of "useful biblical models." He rejects the use of models that "supersede the Scriptures themselves." I ask two questions. First, can there be useful biblical models that are not mandated by the Scripture? I see no judicially binding usefulness in any theological model that is not mandated by the Scriptures. Some literary model may be interesting or curious in a Vos-like sense, but in discussing the covenant, we must limit ourselves to judicially binding models. Second, are there theological models that go beyond the realm of pragmatism -- mere usefulness -- to become judicially binding on men's consciences? I have in mind the Trinity and the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on Calvary. If so, then we should describe these biblical models -- not merely "useful biblical models" -- as being inherent in the very revelation of the Bible. To describe them in this way is not the same as saying that they "supersede the Scriptures themselves." Their authority is equal to the Scriptures because they are inseparable from the Scriptures. Or are the Jews correct in their insistence that the Trinity is a New Testament addition -- a theological construct of men, one not grounded in God's authoritative self-revelation?
I am arguing that inherent in the very structuring of God's self-revelation in the texts of Scripture there are models. It is simply not true that every model or structure that a theologian (or anyone else) brings to the study of the Bible must always and inevitably be an autonomously derived construct that he seeks to impose on the Bible. There are constructs that were from the beginning imposed by God on the texts of Scripture. This is because it is impossible for men to think apart from models. We cannot know everything exhaustively -- a major theme in Van Til's system. We cannot relate every fact in the universe to every other fact. We therefore require accurate models in order to integrate the limited knowledge we have. These models must "do justice" -- point four of the covenant model -- to the facts. But where should we obtain such theologically authoritative models? The answer ought to be obvious: in the Bible.
It is our task to think God's thought after Him as creatures. God communicates to us as creatures; His revelation is structured in terms of models that we can understand and employ in rendering theological judgments. For instance, God announced ten commandments, not eleven or nine. Accurate theological models are themselves biblically structured revelations from God. These models can be grammatical, theological, or symbolic. We cannot think apart from such structures. Our minds were created to think this way. The universe is also structured to match the structures of our minds. If this were not so, there could not be modern science. The astounding structure we call mathematics would not coincide with the regularities of the external world.(40)
There is a kind of conservative theological relativism that says, or at least implicitly assumes, that all theological structures are the creations of men's minds; none is imbedded in the texts or the structure of the Bible. This assumption is fatal to orthodoxy. It assumes man's legitimate autonomy. It says, in good Kantian fashion, that there is no inherent order in the "thing-in-itself" (in this case, the Bible), and even if there were, man could not know this order directly. Thus, all of our knowledge of the Bible is properly ordered by man's categorical structure of thought. We bring order to the Bible. We bring different orders. What we have here is symphonic theology. All tunes are equal (but some are more equal than others).
This assumption of the non-ordered nature of both the Bible and creation is wrong. Man can know the revelation of God covenantally, and God holds each man eternally responsible for the proper though subordinate understanding of it. This revelation is general (the universe) and special (the Bible). The Bible's revelation has precedence over general revelation. We are required to structure our understanding of general revelation in terms of the structure of biblical revelation. This is the meaning of Van Til's presuppositionalism. This is why it is rejected: it places our knowledge of reality under the authority of the Bible. But if Van Til is correct, then we cannot avoid this conclusion: the Bible provides integrating structures for human thought. Put differently, it offers blueprints. These blueprints govern theology. This means that our theological models must be derived from the inherent structure -- models -- of the Bible itself. The only theological symphony we are allowed to play is the one provided by the Bible itself. We are not to bring theological models to the Bible from outside the Bible. But this means that we must go to the Bible in search of authoritative models. Models are an inescapable concept. It is never a question of models vs. no models. It is always a question of which models. This should be obvious to any follower of Van Til.
With respect to the five-point covenant model, I say without any reservation that this model -- this structure -- is far more visible in the texts of the Bible than the Trinity is. This is not to say that it is more important because it is more visible. Belief in the five-point model is not on the same level as belief in the Trinity in terms of eternal consequences. The structure of God's covenantal relationships to man is not of the same consequence as God's eternal relationship with Himself: the aseity of God. We need God; He does not need us. But I am saying that in God's decision to reveal Himself to fallen man by means of written revelation, God has seen fit to reveal the structure of His covenantal relationship to man in the actual structure of numerous texts of Scripture. He has not done this with equal clarity when revealing His Trinitarian nature. I have seen attempts to find the Trinity in the structure of Scripture. I have not been impressed, and neither have most theologians through the ages.
I have not read this five-point structure into Scripture. God put into Scripture, and I am merely reading Scripture. In contrast, Sandlin has read it out of Scripture. It is there, but he refuses to admit this. Seeing, he will not see.
The Question of Exegesis Sandlin has misused his rhetorical gifts to suggest that my broad use of the five-point covenant model is illegitimate because it is not exegetically derived. He did not say that my exegesis is erroneous. That would have required direct citations from my writings and specific discussions of my errors. That would also have meant interacting with me and with the Bible. His language can be interpreted as implying that I have not attempted to derive my conclusions from the Bible. He was also very careful to avoid any mention of the (then) more than five years of specific applications of this model presented in Sutton's newsletter. He did not refer to my Preface to The Sinai Strategy: The Economics of the Ten Commandments, which shows that the Ten Commandments are structured into two parallel sets of the five points: one priestly, the other kingly. He did not refer to my commentaries to show that the Pentateuch is structured this way. I have been arguing this since 1987, beginning with my General Introduction in the revised edition of The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. He told his readers that my thesis is not exegetically derived, and then he remained silent about my lengthy exegetical defenses of my thesis.
I should be used to this sort of rhetoric by now. I should be, but I am not. I cannot seem to get used to it. I am a scholar and a Christian, and this sort of thing is considered a breach of integrity in both worlds. There is also the question of the Ninth Commandment. We are not to bear false witness. If you say that a Christian scholar has not rested his case on the Bible, when he has said repeatedly that his system does rest on the Bible, you have a moral obligation to present some evidence. If you do not have room to prove your case in one place, you (or someone reliable) should already have presented the case elsewhere. But Sandlin refused to do this. He authoritatively dismissed my work on the structure of the covenant as non-exegetical, and then went on to another topic: an attack on James Jordan. I have previously called this approach to theological debate hit-and-run scholarship: you drive over the targeted victim from behind and then speed away into the night.
He announced, without offering any evidence, that the five-point covenant model, if applied beyond Deuteronomy, is the theological equivalent of dispensationalism and Catholicism because it is not exegetically based. Therefore, he implies rhetorically, defenders of the covenant model implicitly assume that this model is superior to the Bible. But such an assumption is a denial of sola Scriptura. Sandlin's argument rests completely on an assumption: that my broad use of the model is not exegetically based. His "proof" of this statement is his refusal to acknowledge the existence of Covenant Renewal and everything I have published on the five-point model.
My point from 1986 on -- my blatantly obvious point -- is not that Sutton's classification scheme is above Scripture. I am arguing two very different things. First, and most important, Sutton's proposed model is in fact derived from the structure that was built into the Bible by God -- not above the Bible, but in the Bible. Deuteronomy reflects it, not because only Deuteronomy reflects it, but because Deuteronomy reflects the Pentateuch, which is structured by the five-point model. Second, and far less important, I have argued that the five-point covenant model is a whole lot better, and a whole lot more exegetical, than traditional Scholastic Calvinism's (i.e., Turretin's) six loci.
If Rev. Sandlin is incapable of challenging me theologically on these two points, he should keep his rhetorical flourishes to himself. Rhetoric is not a valid substitute for theological disquisition and detailed, comprehensive exegesis. Not to put too fine a point to it: one half of a single brief essay is not a valid substitute for a major text in theology (That You May Prosper), six years of newsletters, and a growing shelf of Bible commentaries.
Sandlin vs. Biblical Theology Having said all this, let me make one last observation about the professed concern of Rev. Sandlin regarding the supposed lack of exegetical support for my broad application of the five-point model. What I have argued, and what Sutton also argues, is that theology must be both systematic and biblical, i.e., dogmatic and exegetical. Orthodox theology must acknowledge the historical development of God's revelation, Genesis to Revelation, as well as affirm the doctrinal constancy in God's progressive revelation, which undergirded and shaped this revelation. Why must both be affirmed? Because man is an historical creature. Mankind develops in wisdom and knowledge, and this will continue in eternity. God is infinite; man is not. Therefore, our knowledge of God will grow for all eternity. Because I simultaneously defend the idea of fixed, unchangeable truth in the mind of God and the idea of the finitude of man, I defend both systematic theology (fixed theological categories) and biblical theology (progressive revelation in the Bible). There is equal ultimacy here: fixed truth in the mind of God and God's progressive revelation to mankind. Once the canon of Scripture was closed, man's systematic theology could not remain absolutely fixed because man's knowledge of God cannot remain constant. Finite man cannot comprehend -- encompass -- an infinite God.
Sandlin clearly distrusts biblical theology as a separate academic discipline. He is far more enamored with Turretin's Scholastic theological system than he is with modern biblical theology, which is more closely tied to the exposition and exegesis of specific texts than post-Turretin systematic theology has ever been. He defends Turretin and attacks biblical theology: "The shift from a dogmatic and confessional theology of Turretin's sort to a purely exegetical and biblical theology, however, tends to result in heterodoxy. . . ."(41) What does he mean, "purely exegetical"? He does not say. Is there something suspicious about exegetical theology? Isn't his formal criticism of my use of the five points the fact that my theology is not exegetical? Could it be that his real objection to my use of the five-point Pentateuchal-covenantal model has more to do with my rejection of Turretin's six loci as a judicially binding model than with my supposed lack of exegetical evidence?
Surely exegetical and biblical theology did not shift to heterodoxy in the hands of Geerhardus Vos. Furthermore, historically speaking, the Princetonians' defense of their only slightly modified Turretonian theology collapsed under the weight of Kant, Darwin, and modernism early in the twentieth century, if not before. Van Til was correct: the Princetonians' attempt to tie Calvinism to rationalism -- in Princeton's case, Scottish common sense rationalism -- was doomed to failure, as are all attempts to unite Jerusalem and Athens. The categories (loci) of Turretin's covenant theology were established in response the categories of Roman Catholic Scholasticism, not in terms of the Bible's actual covenant structure. They could not survive the collapse of Catholic Scholasticism. In fact, they collapsed first.(42) By "collapsed," I do not mean that they became incorrect. I mean that they became irrelevant to the culture around them, including the American Presbyterian Church itself. This is the fate of every theological construct grounded in man's logical categories rather than in explicitly biblical categories.
What Sutton and I have argued is that biblical theology should be governed by biblically revealed theological categories. Only the Bible is simultaneously unchanging and relevant to history. Therefore, only the Bible's categories are reliable as fixed theological standards to govern the exegetical insights derived from biblical theology. Biblical theology should always be structured by biblical categories. The five-point covenant model is by far the most comprehensive biblical structure, for it is simultaneously creational, judicial, and eschatological. It, not Protestant Scholasticism's six loci, should govern the presentation of the Trinity, the atonement, and other explicitly revelational concepts. In the task of providing a judicial framework to biblical (exegetical) theology, the five points of the covenant have far greater Scriptural authority than Scholastic Calvinism's six loci. The five points are actually found in the texts of Scripture. The Scholastic loci are found only in the minds of theologians. This does not make the loci incorrect, but it does make them less reliable, long term, that the covenant's five points, in developing a covenant theology. The six loci are mental constructs that are derived from passages in Scripture, but they are never found as a unit in Scripture. The six loci are the imposition of a logically contrived structure over the texts of Scripture, not a structure present in the texts themselves.
What I now perceive, since I have read Sandlin's 1994 defense of Turretin, is that his 1992 public criticism regarding my supposed lack of exegesis may have been more rhetorically motivated than I had suspected. I am calling for the adoption of a Bible-revealed structure to govern biblical theology. Sandlin does not really want biblical theology at all. He does not trust it. He wants good, old fashioned, rationalistic, seventeenth-century Calvinism. To which I respond: "We've been down that road already. It leads to a dead end."
Without both biblical theology and systematic theology, we will not recover lost ground. Both must be developed in terms of the Bible. Biblical theology must always be governed by the terms of systematic theology in order to keep biblical theologians from flying into the "wild blue yonder" through unrestrained interpretive maximalism. But the governing categories of systematic theology should not be the categories of seventeenth-century Protestant Scholasticism. The categories of systematic theology must be explicitly biblical, including the actual structure of the texts. There is circularity here, but of a biblical kind.(43)
Conclusion Deuteronomy is structured in terms of a five-point model. Kline's Treaty of the Great King (1963) makes this clear. But this same five-point biblical structure is visible in far more passages in Leviticus than in Deuteronomy -- or so I think at this point: before I have written my commentary on Deuteronomy. Not only is Leviticus structured in terms of the covenant model, the five-point structure appears again and again in its subsections.(44) So, the "Deuteronomy only!" critics have another large problem to add to their Genesis problem and their Exodus problem: the Leviticus problem. This will not faze them, of course. They will still carry on about the non-existence of this pattern except in Deuteronomy. But anyone who has read this commentary, plus Tools of Dominion and The Sinai Strategy, will expect more proof than the repeated assurances of critics who steadfastly refuse to comment on anything that Sutton and I have written since 1987, or on what Gary DeMar, and George Grant wrote in 1987,(45) or on what Ken Gentry wrote in 1990.(46)
Rhetoric is not a legitimate substitute for textual analysis, and the "Deuteronomy only!" critics have offered nothing so far except rhetoric. They do not respond to the evidence. Their pit is filling up. I conclude that it is now up to the "it's too good to be true, because we seem to find it everywhere" critics to defend the camp of traditional covenant theology against a covenant theology with a textually derived structure. If there is one thing that traditional covenant theologians cannot tolerate it is a textually derived theological structure.
I have said it before, and I shall say it again: the vocal critics of Christian Reconstruction have a moral obligation to produce detailed Bible commentaries that show why mine are incorrect. These commentaries must also demonstrate what is correct, both theologically and in terms of applying the Bible to the modern world. The critics no doubt prefer to confine their efforts to a an occasional negative book review in some small-circulation magazine, but such protests are not substitutes for the hard and expensive work of producing commentaries and comprehensive treatises built on commentaries. A three-page negative review is little more than a wail: "I just don't like this, and neither should anybody else!" Wailing against God's law in the face of an encroaching humanist civilization is an exercise in futility. Without an explicitly biblical alternative to God's law, such wailing constitutes a surrender to humanism.
What I say here about the critics of Christian Reconstruction applies equally well to those Reconstructionists who deny the five-point covenant model. The four points of Christian Reconstruction are not found in any passage in Scripture. The five points are.
Footnotes:
1. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 6, 7, 8.
2. Volume 1 was translated into English and published in 1992: Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed). Two more volumes are scheduled for publication.
3. Cited by Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), p. 281.
4. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology -- Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, [1948] 1992). Vos taught at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1892 to 1932.
5. F. A. Hayek, "Two Types of Mind" (1975), in Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas (University of Chicago Press, 1978), ch. 4.
6. See Appendix J, above.
7. Cornelius Van Til, The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1947); Van Til, Christianity and Barthianism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962). Presbyterian & Reformed is now located in Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
8. R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (Vallecito, California: Ross House, 1994), I, p. 67. He wrote this chapter in 1979. The entire manuscript was completed in 1984.
9. For an example of this lack of definition, see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, [1949] 1963), p. 213. For my analysis, see "Publisher's Preface (1992)," in Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), pp. xiv-xv.
10. Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism (Manassas, Virginia: Reformation Educational Foundation, 1980).
11. North, "Publisher's Preface (1992)," That You May Prosper, 1992 edition, p. xvi.
12. Rejected by would-be Arminian Reconstructionists.
13. Rejected by premillennial and amillennial theonomists, who sharply distinguish Christian Reconstruction from theonomy. There are very few of these people, and none has offered a theological defense of his system. See, for example, Peter Burden-Teh, "Theonomic and Historic Premillennialism," Calvinism Today (Jan. 1994), and my response, "Eschatology and Social Theory," Christianity and Society (April 1994). Address: P. O. Box 1, Whitby, North Yorkshire, England.
14. Jim Jordan is now in Florida and says he is no longer a Reconstructionist. Sutton is in Philadelphia.
15. The headquarters of the Chalcedon Foundation after 1975.
16. Jordan has resisted this claim, despite his book, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus. He used "sequence" rather than "structure."
17. With the church as primary or central, not the family: the major point of conflict between Tyler and Vallecito. See Appendix B, above: "Rushdoony on the Tithe: A Critique."
18. Calvin did not like the word "hierarchy." John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), IV:iv:4. But his doctrine of infant baptism rested on a doctrine of judicial representation by parents. Ibid., IV:xvi:7, 17-20. He believed in a similar judicial representation in church government. He defended the office of bishop if the bishop is under the judicial authority of the assembly. That is, he defended episcopacy while rejecting prelacy (rule by sovereign bishops). Ibid., IV:xi:6.
19. Ibid., IV:xvii:44.
20. If young children are not allowed to take communion because they do not understand its theological ramifications, what about retarded adults and people suffering from Alzheimer's disease? But if the latter may lawfully take communion, on what basis are young children excluded? Age? But what non-Baptist Calvinist church identifies age as such as the legal boundary between participation and exclusion?
21. A good introduction is Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, edited by Richard B. Gaffin (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980).
22. Hodge's Systematic Theology (1871-73) was adopted by Princeton because by that time, American students could no longer read Latin well enough to read Turretin.
23. Gary North, Rotten Wood: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994).
24. Deuteronomy 1:1-5; 1:6-4:49; 5-26; 27-30; 31-34.
25. Appendix 7: "Meredith G. Kline: Yes and No."
26. Sutton will tell anyone that the academic approval of That You May Prosper is what led to his presidency. He was awarded the Th.D. from the Central School of Religion in England in 1988, and this led to his new job.
27. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).
28. R. J. Rushdoony, Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept (Vallecito, California: Ross House, 1978), p. 26; Systematic Theology, p. 23.
29. Rushdoony, Necessity for Systematic Theology, p. 62; Systematic Theology, p. 108.
30. Ray R. Sutton, "The Inescapability of a Master Principle," Covenant Renewal, I (June 1987). Rushdoony's essay is titled, "The Search for a Master Principle," ch. 16.
31. Andrew Sandlin, "Reservations on Tyler Reconstructionism," Calvinism Today, II (April 1992), p. 23.
32. Ibid., p. 24.
33. Ibid., p. 23.
34. I exclude Bahnsen here because Bahnsen has always argued that theonomy (biblical law) is not connected theologically with postmillennialism. Rushdoony and I have argued that the two are linked theologically. Since 1986, I have argued that point four of the covenant model -- sanctions -- supplies this link: covenant-breakers will get weaker as God's kingdom unfolds, while covenant-keepers will become more influential. Bahnsen calls himself a theonomist; he rarely if ever describes himself as a Christian Reconstructionist.
35. See Appendix B, above.
36. Ibid., p. 24.
37. Gary North, Tithing and the Church (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), ch. 10.
38. My critics tend to avoid interacting with me in print. Perhaps they recognize the old, pre-Internet rule: "Don't get into a public confrontation with someone who orders ink by the barrel."
39. Sandlin, "Reservations," Calvinism Today, p. 23.
40. Eugene P. Wigner, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences," Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, XIII (1960), pp. 1-14. Wigner won the Nobel Prize in physics.
41. Andrew Sandlin, "Review of Institutes of Elenctic Theology, by Francis Turretin," Christianity and Society, IV (April 1994), p. 30. This is the re-named Calvinism Today.
42. I would date the beginning of the collapse of Rome's Scholasticism with Pope John XXIII (1958-1963); the demolition was completed by his successor, Paul VI.
43. On biblical circular reasoning, see Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, volume II of In Defense of Biblical Christianity (Den Dulk Foundation, 1969), p. 12.
44. James Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).
45. Gary DeMar, Ruler of the Nations: Biblical Blueprints for Government (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987). George Grant, The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Blueprints for Political Action (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987).
46. Gentry, Great Commission, Part II: "Configuration."
If you are interested in receiving Dr. North's FREE monthly e-mail newsletter send an e-mail to:
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out.