A Public Response to Brian Schwertley

Many people can boast of their "fifteen minutes of fame." Well, I've been "blessed" with about 500 minutes of fame so far on Sermon Audio, thanks to the good Reverend Brian Schwertley. It seems that he took unbrage at my 2003 critique of Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism when a potential parishioner left his church after reading it last year. Since late August of 2007, he has been preaching an ongoing series entitled "A Reformed View of the Judicial Law," in which I am the primary target — ten parts thus far. The only problem is, though I am the target by name, my actual position, as presented in my book, is not. Schwertley sees himself as a defender of Reformed orthodoxy, but he has proven himself to be, in this series at least, nothing more than a destroyer of straw men.

Here is Schwertley's complaint in a nutshell:

Greg Loren Durand has written a book against Theonomy. And the book is not just against Theonomy. I can understand people writing a book against the abuses of Theonomy, but he basically rejects the Reformed faith for a modified form of Dispensationalism. The book is totally unconfessional. The idea that the whole law of God has been done away....

If you want to know if a law is right and good, you have to go to God's Word. And what amazes me about these people that say, "Well, we're going to ignore" — especially Greg Loren Durand, or whatever his name is, "we're going to ignore the whole law — he teaches that the whole moral law of God — the whole law of God that was given to Moses has been done away, even the Ten Commandments.... That's exactly what he teaches....

Greg Durand’s book is just pitiful. ..[H]e believes you cannot use the law of Moses in any way — and we’re talking about the judicial or the Ten Commandments — you can’t use those in any way for sanctification.... He takes the book of Galatians, which was written to rebuke those who believe that you need to follow the law of Moses, including the ceremonial laws, to be justified before God. You need to keep the law. And he takes that and he says, “No, we’re not allowed to go to these laws for sanctification either”....

Now, to expose Durand's heretical understanding of God's law, the first thing we want to do is correct his false presupposition regarding the book of Galatians. Did Paul, as Durand asserts, write Galatians to show believers that the whole law of Moses was abrogated — that believers are now not in any sense under the law of Moses? Now, remember, the Christian Reconstructionists... he's saying that they're a bunch of legalists because Christian Reconstructionists say that we should obey the laws in the Old Testament as a guide for sanctification....

Contrary to what Rev. Schwertley has asserted in his series, I do not believe that the moral principles, or general equity, contained in the Mosaic judicial laws are not binding on the nations of the world and that the civil magistrate may not use them as a guide for just laws. I do not believe that the Ten Commandments, taken individually on their own merits and outside of their immediate Old Covenant context, have been abolished and are not binding on all mankind. I do not believe that the Old Testament should be ignored and that it may not be used for personal sanctification. His claim that I am teaching a "modified Dispensationalism," his labelling of me as a "natural law antinomian," and his latest charge of "heresy," are all incredibly absurd.

Here is what I do believe: The Mosaic law had both typological and antitypological aspects which Covenant theologians in the past have described in terms of the legal and gracious elements present in the Sinaitic. In other words, the Sinaitic covenant assumed the pre-existing Abrahamic covenant of grace, but added to it a legal arrangement which echoed the Adamic covenant of works. Many Reformed commentators have noted the striking similarities between the Adamic and the Sinaitic covenants and have concluded that the latter is a typological restatement of the former while being careful to teach the impossibility of the actual re-institution of the Adamic covenant. A few, particularly Samuel Petto, have gone further to state that the Mosaic covenant was more than merely typological, but that it was an actual covenant of works put in place for Christ, as the true Israel, to fulfill.

In opposition to classic Dispensationalism, all Covenant theologians who fall into the above categories are agreed that the legal element of the Sinaitic covenant was subservient to, and therefore did not abrogate, the Abrahamic covenant. This legal element stands at the forefront of the covenant and has reference primarily to possession of the land of Canaan and to temporal blessings and cursings, but, as indicated by the New Testament writers, this temporal element was merely typological in nature and found its spiritual fulfillment in Christ and the eternal blessings which He merited in behalf of and bestowed upon His people, the Church. Second Temple Judaism confounded the typological and antitypological dimensions of the Mosaic covenant, and, failing to see its true pedagogical function, the Jews changed it from a system of geo-political works-righteousness into a system of spiritual works-righteousness in which salvation itself could be attained through the works of the law. The Judaizers with whom Paul later contended, though accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, likewise had this mistaken view of the law, and thereby insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and submit to the Mosaic economy in order to be justified. It is my contention that the Reconstructionists of today, following the writings of R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North, commit the same foundational error when they transfer the typological elements of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, and teach law-keeping as a condition for entrance into God’s Kingdom as it is manifested on earth through the dominion work of the Christian Church. Thus, Second Temple Judaism, First-Century Galatianism, and modern-day Reconstructionism are all variations of the same heresy, despite their superficial dissimilarities. Ironically, classic Dispensationalism also commits this same error when it fails to interpret the Old Testament land promises typologically and therefore teaches a future resurrection of the Jewish theocracy and a reinstitution of the Mosaic covenant during an earthly millennial period.

In my book, I focused almost exclusively on the typological aspects of the Mosaic law, which have been abolished in Christ, while in his series, Schwertley has focused almost exclusively on the moral aspects of the law, which are not, and cannot be, abolished. As a result, every time he has criticized my typological arguments from his moral perspective, he has committed a categorical fallacy and thus has completely misrepresented my position as a “modified form of Dispensationalism,” which it certainly is not.

In answer to the inevitable question: Yes, I have confronted Schwertley privately according to Matthew 18:15-17, and he has refused to listen or repent of his misrepresentations. I am biblically justified, therefore, in taking this matter to the Christian public. The entire record of my correspondence with Schwertley, and a detailed clarification of my position on the Old Testament law may be read HERE.

The Error of Theonomy in a Nutshell

Although it has some roots in New England Puritanism and historic Covenant Theology, Theonomy, or Christian Reconstruction, is a distorted version of both and may perhaps be classified as "hyper-Puritanism." Its adherents often will claim that they hold to the classic three-fold division of the Mosaic law into ceremonial, judicial, and moral categories, but they actually collapse the judicial into the moral and therefore think in terms of only a two-fold division. This presupposition may be seen in their frequent reference to the "moral case laws" found in the Old Testament, which, as we will see, they insist were binding on the nations outside of Israel and remain perpetually binding. However, this division is much different than in conventional Reformed thought, amounting to a radical separation of "the ceremonial law" from "the moral-judicial law" so that the one may be abolished while the other remains intact.

As a result, Theonomists are forced to redefine Covenant Theology and posit a continuity where Reformed commentators generally have not. For example, the traditional Reformed position sees a continuous unfolding of redemptive history in various administrations of the one Covenant of Grace, beginning with the promise of the Redeemer in Genesis 3:15, continuing with the establishment of the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants, and finding its clearest pre-Christian expression in God's promise of the "New Covenant" in Ezekiel 37:36 and Jeremiah 31:31-34. The Mosaic covenant, or "Old Covenant," is seen as a temporary "parenthesis" period existing from its establishment at Mount Sinai 430 years after Abraham until its judicial termination on Calvary and its actual termination with the expiration of the nation of Israel in A.D. 70. It was "added because of transgression" (Galatians 3:19) — the rebellious and "stiff-necked" nature of the Israelites (Exodus 32:9-10; Acts 7:51) — and served to "shut [them] up unto the faith" (Galatians 3:23) which was foreshadowed in the various sacrifices and ceremonies and would later be fully revealed in Christ Himself. It was the Mosaic covenant itself that separated the Jews from the Gentile nations of the world and made them a distinct people, and it was this covenant which has now passed away.

This is clearly the doctrine of the New Testament, particularly the Pauline epistles. However, Theonomists deny the provisional character of the Mosaic economy and instead view it as one of the two administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The terms "Older Covenant" and "Newer Covenant" were coined by Greg Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics, and have been used by other writers such as Brian Schwertley, in order to distinguish between the previous administration of Moses and the new administration of Christ without implying discontinuity between them. Consequently, Theonomists have two different things in mind when they speak of "the law," depending on the context. When Scripture speaks of "the law" as having been "established," as in Romans 3:31, or "fulfilled," as in Matthew 5:17-19, they interpret this to mean "the moral-judicial law." However, whenever Scripture speaks of the Mosaic law as having been "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:7-11) or "abolished" (Ephesians 2:15), Theonomists invariably interpret this to refer to "the ceremonial law." They wrongly identify only "the ceremonial law" as the covenantal barrier between Jew and Gentile which was "added" at Mount Sinai and later "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14), thus ending forever the covenantal separation of Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:14-15).(1) Consequently, they cannot see Paul's cogent argument in his epistle to the Galatians that any attempt to carry the Mosaic economy over into the New Covenant era is a denial of the very Gospel itself, and instead read this epistle as a diatribe against the use of "the ceremonial law," and circumcision in particular, as a means of justification.

This underlying error leads to other errors, some of which are quite serious. Chief among these is their concept of "taking dominion" using "God's law-word" (the "moral judicial law") — a novel version of Postmillennialism which arises from R.J. Rushdoony's theory of "restitution." Briefly stated, Reconstructionists view themselves as having been restored to the covenantal relationship which Israel forfeited by disobedience, together with its mission to make restitution to God for Adam's rebellion by subduing the world, or reconstructing the nations of the earth in God's image. They believe that this covenantal restoration, or "justification," is through faith alone, but that the dominion mandate, or "sanctification," is fulfilled individually through the application of "moral judicial law" to "every area of life," and nationally through the application of that same law to society by the civil magistrate. When a five-fold restitution has been paid to God by the Christian Church, according to the principle of Exodus 22:1, her mission will be complete and Christ will return to consummate history. To reject this "restitution gospel" in favor of the mainstream eschatologies such as either historic Postmillennialism or Amillennialism, or even Dispensationalism, is to be "antinomian" and thus an enemy of the true covenant people of God. Thus, no more subtle re-packaging of the ancient Judaizing heresy may be found than in the modern Reconstruction movement.

How To Spot a Tare

I found this comment recently on Sermon Audio:

A tare doesn't care, has no love, has no mercy, no sense of justice or fairness, no love of the truth, loves and makes a lie. They are fakers and phonies, full of pride and looking down their noses all the time. They are greedy and destructive, and they usually claw their way to the front of the church, and you can usually find them up on the dais sitting in the red velvet chair next to the pastor, and/or oftentimes in the pulpit itself.

I have run across more than a few of these people in my 23 years as a Christian, and most of them have had "Rev" before their names.

Encounter on the Path Travail

Below is a poem I wrote about 15 years ago after reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress for the first time. It was meant to be an allegorical illustration of spiritual declension and renewal.

--------

‘Twas an evening dark and cold as I labored on the trail;
A signpost to the right of me marked out the path "Travail."
My eyes were fixed upon my feet, no further could I see;
My back was bent beneath the weight of the burden placed on me.

‘Twas nigh to night I didst perceive a stranger at my side;
He fell in step with those mine own and bid me in him confide.
"My friend," said he, "I pray thee tell, by what name are ye known?
And wherefore doth thou treadest now this dreary path alone?"

I strained to look upon his face and my lips produced a sigh;
I thanked him for his company, and then finally said I,
"'Despondence' now by name I’m known, though once my name was 'Free;'
I labor now upon this path beneath the burden thou doth see."

"Yea," said he, "I clearly see the weight upon thy back,
And that thy gaze is fixed upon thine own feet as they track.
I pray thee tell the reason why thou didst choose to change thy name
From one of such nobility to this so full of shame?"

"My name," said I, "‘Despondence’ now, for this is all I know;
My feet tread slow for unsure am I whither do they go.
The burden on my back you see is a weight I must now bear -
A symbol of anxiety, which garments I now do wear."

"I recall," continued I, "When once my cares did cease;
My burden then as now was great, but in Him I found release."
I spoke of a path I did once pursue, joy its fruit begotten;
My head in sorrow hung as I confessed ‘twas all forgotten.

Reaching out to me he offered silent comfort with his hand;
And then with gentle words bade me to help him understand.
"Thou sayest that thy step was light and nothing didst thou lack;
Wherefore doth thou now return this burden to thy back?"

"Was He to whom thou hadst turned unfaithful and untrue?
Did He ever break His oath and turn away from you?
Or didst thou simply shun His peace, thus choosing for thine own,
The state in which I find thee now, upon this path alone?"

"Stranger," said I, "Thou makest clear the folly that was mine,
In taking back the things I didst then leave in hands divine.
Thy wisdom kindly spoken has allowed me now to see,
‘Tis naught but mine own unbelief that binds this weight to me."

I loosed the burden from my back and dropped it to the ground;
Then turned to thank the stranger there, but nowhere was he found.
I thought perchance he may have been an angel from above,
Sent to point the way once more back to my first love.

And so turned I myself about, a new path my feet didst track;
One by name of "light" and "easy," with no burden on my back.
Surrendered to the Holy One, "Faithful and True" His name;
Free once more within His care, and there I shall remain.