Part 2: FAQs – Question 1: What Is Christian Reconstruction?

What is Christian Reconstruction?

And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations. And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers  f our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

Isaiah 61:4-6; King James Version

Christian Reconstruction, unlike Christian “movements” in general, has no central director, no overall, tightly controlled strategy. What unites Reconstructionists is their commitment to certain distinctive biblical doctrines that are fundamental to the Christian faith and have been supported by the church for centuries. In particular, Reconstructionists espouse the following distinctives:

1. Regeneration – salvation by grace through faith – is man’s only hope both in this age and in the age to come. Only new men who reflect the image of God in Christ can bring about any significant social change since social change follows personal change, and personal change can only come through regeneration. God’s sovereignty as it relates to personal salvation and limited institutional authority is foundational for the salvation of man and the abolition of tyranny.
2. The continuing validity and applicability of the whole law of God, including, but not limited to, the Mosaic case laws is the standard by which individuals, families, churches, and civil governments should conduct their affairs.
3. A victorious view of the future progress of the kingdom of God prior to the return of Christ is foundational for the building of a Christian civilization.
4. Presuppositional apologetics as opposed to evidentialism establishes that God’s Word is self-authenticating and is the judge of all other supposed authorities, human reason included.
5. A decentralized social order where civil government is only one legitimate government among many other governments, including family government and ecclesiastical (church) government, is the basis for a free and orderly society.

One does not have to hold to all of these distinctives to be thought of as a Reconstructionist, although the belief that personal regeneration precedes family, church, civil, and societal regeneration is foundational to all theories of social reform. (The rejection of this premise was the fatal flaw among those who advocated a “social gospel”) God has not prescribed either anarchy or revolution as ways to change our world. (This is the error of “liberation theology.”)

As the informed Christian will quickly realize, each of the above distinctives has a great deal of biblical support as well as having formed the foundation of orthodox (conservative) Christianity for centuries. In a word, Christian Reconstructionist distinctives are nothing new to the church. The same cannot be said for Christian Reconstructionism’s most ardent critic, dispensational premillennialism, which had its beginnings in the early nineteenth century and has been denounced as aberrant since its inception.

In simple terms, however, a Reconstructionist is anyone who believes that the Bible applies in some way to issues beyond personal salvation. Do you believe that the Bible has some very direct instructions on how a pre-born baby ought to be treated and that civil government has a role in prohibiting abortion? (Exodus 21:22-25). If you do, then you are a Reconstructionist to some degree. Do you believe that the Bible is a blueprint for prison reform? (Exodus 22:1-9; Ephesians 4:28). If you do, then you are a Reconstructionist to some degree. Read, for example, what Charles Colson, president of Prison Fellowship, writes about prison reform:

Recently I addressed the Texas legislature…I told them that the only answer to the crime problem is to take nonviolent criminals out of our prisons and make them pay back their victims with restitution. This is how we can solve the prison crowding problem.

The amazing thing was that afterwards they came up to me one after another and said things like, “That’s a tremendous idea. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that?” I had the privilege of saying to them, “Read Exodus 22. It is only what God said to Moses on Mount Sinai thousands of years ago.”[1]

This is the essence of Christian Reconstruction. The Bible’s laws, including, but not limited to, the case laws of the Old Testament, are applicable today, and, in Colson’s words, are “the only answer to the crime problem.” Of course, a Reconstructionist would say that these laws are an answer for our crime problem and much more, including, but not limited to economics, education, law, politics, business, ecology, journalism, and medicine.

The above five distinctives are the most debated features of Christian Reconstruction. One might be able to find other distinctives held by people who call themselves Reconstructionists, but these five are usually the ones that come up in discussions over the topic.

Regeneration

Regeneration is the starting point for Reconstructionists, as it should be for all Christians. Little can change for good in the broader culture unless man changes. The only way man can change is through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Those “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) must have a “new heart” and a “new spirit.” The “heart of stone” must be removed and a “heart of flesh” substituted. This is God’s work. God’s Spirit must be in us before we can “walk in” His “statutes.” The result will be that we “will be careful to observe” His ordinances (Ezekiel 36:26-27). The New Testament summarizes it this way: “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17, NASB). All of this requires a belief in the sovereignty of God. Only God can make dead men live. Only God can make a dead culture thrive. Noted Reconstructionist scholar Rousas J. Rushdoony summarizes it this way:

The key to remedying the [modern] situation is not revolution, nor any kind of resistance that works to subvert law and order. The New Testament abounds in warnings against disobedience and in summons to peace. The key is regeneration, propagation of the gospel, and the conversion of men and nations to God’s law-word.[2]

Clearly, there is no hope for man except in regeneration.[3]

Politics, a conservative economic policy, and other social-oriented agendas are not the ultimate answers to man’s dilemma. Man is a sinner in need of salvation. He cannot make proper evaluations of how he ought to live in the world until he has a new heart that guides a new mind.

If any critic of Christian Reconstruction fails to recognize this distinctive, then that critic has not done his homework. He has not read what Reconstructionist authors have written over and over again: personal regeneration is essential before any appreciable change will occur in the broader culture.

Keep in mind that we espouse Christian Reconstruction. There will be no reconstruction unless there are Christians. While unbelievers can follow the Word of God and benefit by its wisdom, it is only the Christian who can fully understand the full implications of what God’s Word is all about. The non-Christian has the work of the law written in his heart (Romans 2:15), but not the law itself (Hebrews 8:9-13).[4]

Biblical Law

Civil governors, legislators, and judges are just as responsible to keep God’s law as any individual is in his family, school, business, church, and civic duties. Many Christians want to deny that God’s law is applicable today, especially in the area of civil government. These Christians cut themselves off from the Old Testament in spite of the New Testament’s own validation of it. Paul says the Old Testament is “inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Consider for a moment what options we have if the Old Testament laws, especially the case laws of Exodus, no longer apply. We are left with either a New Testament-only ethic, natural law, general revelation, or some form of moral relativism (typically described as “pluralism”). But all Ten Commandments from Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are repeated or alluded to in the New Testament, including the Sabbath rest law.[5] Since these laws summarize all of the laws found in the Bible, we can conclude that it is proper to look to the Old Testament for legal instruction for individual morality, church law, and civil law. Jesus and the New Testament writers certainly do not hesitate in applying certain laws from the Old Testament to New Testament situations. Here’s a sample of Mosaic laws reaffirmed and applied in the New Testament:

But let’s suppose that only those laws repeated in the New Testament from the Old Testament are valid. Of course, there is no such principle of interpretation found in the Bible. And we might go even further by stating, as the dispensationalist does, that the church age did not begin until after Acts 2. This would mean that laws found in the gospels would be relegated to the Old Covenant era. They cannot be made to apply during the “church age,” the dispensationalist wants us to believe, since Jesus was addressing Israel, not the Gentile nations.

There was a time in dispensational theology when even the Sermon on the Mount could not be adopted by the church as an ethical code. It could only be applied in the future millennium. The Sermon was described as “kingdom law,” and since the kingdom (millennium) had not come, these laws had to await a future application. With all of this in mind, the church is now left with a Bible from Acts 3 through Revelation 3 from which he can formulate a law code.[6] This would mean, for example, no specific prohibitions against abortion and bestiality since there is nothing in the New Testament that would prohibit their practice. But even if the case could be made that prohibitions against abortion and bestiality can be deduced from the New Testament prohibition against fornication (and they can), these prohibitions would apply only to the church since fornication must be defined in Old Testament terms as they relate to the people of Israel! The State could then decriminalize abortion and homosexuality (as it has done) because, as noted dispensational advocate Norman Geisler maintains, the “Mosaic legislation” is no longer “binding on human governments today.”[7]

The only consistently biblical position is that the precepts of God’s law (prior to Moses, the Mosaic legislation, the wisdom literature, the prophets, the ministry of Christ in the gospels, and the remainder of the New Testament) are “morally obligatory for all men in all ages to obey.”[8] Since the New Testament supports this thesis, the New Testament is the interpretative guide in determining how all of God’s law should apply.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism[9] is the belief that God’s kingdom will advance throughout history, that all authority in “heaven and in earth” has been given to Jesus, that God’s kingdom is represented by the stone that is cut without hands and becomes a mountain that fills the whole earth (Daniel 2:34, 44-45). Premillennialists assert that these promises are reserved for a future “millennium” where Jesus Christ will be physically present on earth.

Postmillennialists believe the Bible teaches that the stone cut without hands immediately follows the destruction of the fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream: First-century Rome. The dispensational premillennialist must create a future fifth kingdom made up of the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue (a resurrected Roman Empire) in order for this yet future kingdom to be realized.

Clearly, the Bible tells us that “the kingdom of God has come upon” us (Matthew 12:28). How do we know this? Because Jesus cast out demons: “But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20).

Those who believe that the kingdom promises are relegated to a millennium yet to come, also believe that little if anything can be done to change this world. Societal destruction is inevitable under both amillennialism and all varieties of premillennialism, especially dispensational premillennialism. Prominent dispensational writers have created a theology that discounts a future earthly perspective that could lead to any success prior to an earthly millennium. Consider these examples:

This world is not going to get any easier to live in. Almost unbelievably hard times lie ahead. Indeed, Jesus said that these coming days will be uniquely terrible. Nothing in all the previous history of the world can compare with what lies in store for mankind.[10]

What a way to live! With optimism, with anticipation, with excitement. We should be living like persons who don’t expect to be around much longer.[11]

I don’t like cliches but I’ve heard it said, “God didn’t send me to clean the fish bowl, he sent me to fish.” In a way there’s a truth in that.[12]

Ted Peters writes of dispensationalism that “it functions to justify social irresponsibility,” and many “find this doctrine a comfort in their lethargy.”[13] Ideas, especially eschatological ideas, have consequences. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary, the current bastion of dispensational theology, considers involvement in societal issues as “wrong-headed.” What does he say of those who are working to apply the Bible to issues beyond personal piety?: “I just can’t buy their basic presupposition that we can do anything significant to change the world. And you can waste an awful lot of time trying.”[14]

There is no neutrality. If you believe that the Bible applies to issues beyond personal salvation, then you are a Reconstructionist in some sense. If you do not believe that the Bible applies to issues beyond personal salvation, then you are not a Reconstructionist.

Presuppositionalism

As presuppositionalists, Reconstructionists hold that there is no neutrality, that the only common ground between believer and unbeliever is that both know that God exists. The unbeliever, however, suppresses the truth of his knowledge of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-32). He knows God and what God requires of him, but he chooses to reject God. The unbeliever, because he rejects both God and His Word, seeks to build a worldview independent of God. As the unbeliever becomes more consistent with His anti-God position, his worldview self-destructs. God is not mocked.

The successful aspects of non-Christian philosophies are the result of borrowing from the biblical worldview. The scientist who holds to the evolutionary theory of chance occurrence does not believe in chance occurrence when he works within the framework of the scientific model where chance is not a consideration. Here he borrows biblical presuppositions to make his experiment work, all the time developing theories that hope to show that there is no need for God.
There is a tendency among evangelicals to assume (1) that there is an area of philosophical neutrality in the areas of law, education, politics, and economics; (2) that knowledge is somehow “neutral,” (3) that facts can be interpreted without any prior presuppositions, and (4) that the facts “speak for themselves. This is an untenable position. All facts are interpreted facts. It is a mistake, therefore, to believe that the world of unbelieving thought has anything to contribute to the Christian worldview when it is based on unbelieving presuppositions.

Humanistic theories of law, politics, education, and economics survive because they draw on the fruit of the Christian religion, although they deny the root, Jesus Christ. This can be seen in the current attempts of the humanists to derive an ethic antithetical to Christianity. Christian concepts like virtue, freedom, compassion, and honesty are given humanistic content. But these ideals do not exist in an evolutionary worldview without God. Therefore, if humanism has any life in itself, it is only because it still operates within a Christian context. Strip humanism of its Christian categories and it would, if it were consistent with its man-centered presuppositions, lead to heinous results.

Norman Geisler claims in his book Is Man the Measure? that “Secular humanism has made many positive contributions to human life.”[15] One “positive contribution” of humanism, Geisler says, is the recognition of “the need for freedom of the individual. In ‘Humanist Manifesto II’ they declare, ‘To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies.’”[16] But civil liberties without a biblical context can lead to death. Abortion is claimed to be a fundamental “right” by those who believe in “a full range of civil liberties. Homosexuality is also touted as a “right.”

Centuries ago the following question was asked: What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens? Jerusalem represents Christ, His Word, and revelation-driven Christian thought. Athens was the epitome of a man-centered philosophy committed to the “Academy” of humanistic learning. Tertullian asked it this way:

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instructions come from the “porch of Solomon” [Acts 3:11], who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.[17]

Tertullian writes in the same context that “heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy.” But it was a certain kind of philosophy that he had in mind, what the Bible describes as “deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (l Timothy 4:1), produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world’s wisdom to hear anything but the truth of the gospel (Acts 7:57). Paul had been at Athens, and had become acquainted with their supposed wisdom which pretends to be sent from heaven (Acts 17:16-34). “He did not attempt to find common beliefs which would serve as starting points for an uncommitted search for ‘whatever gods there may be.”‘[18]

Paul was well aware of the philosophical climate of his day. Accordingly he did not attempt to use premises agreed upon with the philosophers, and then pursue a “neutral” method of argumentation to move them from the circle of their beliefs into the circle of his own convictions. When he disputed with the philosophers they did not find any grounds for agreement with Paul at any level of their conversations. Rather, they utterly disdained him as a “seed picker,” a slang term (originally applied to gutter-sparrows) for a peddler of second-hand bits of pseudo-philosophy – an intellectual scavenger (v. 18). The word of the cross was to them foolish (I Cor. 1:18), and in their pseudo-wisdom they knew not God (I Cor. 1:20-21). Hence Paul would not consent to use their verbal “wisdom” in his apologetic, lest the cross of Christ be made void (I Cor. 1: 17).[19]

If Paul did not compromise the gospel in his discussions with these pagan philosophers over the nature of religion, then why do some Christian scholars maintain that it is permissible to compromise in the area of law, politics, economics, and education to develop an ethical system without regard to the Bible?

Decentralized Social Order

Reconstructionists believe in a “minimal state.” The purpose of getting involved in politics, as Reconstructionists see it, is to reduce the power of the State. Reconstructionists are not calling on the State to mandate prayer and Bible reading in the public (government) schools, as most fundamentalists advocate. Neither do we advocate teaching “Creation Science.”[20] It is the non-Reconstructionists who petition the State for greater influence of the Christian worldview areas over which the Bible gives the state no jurisdiction. Reconstructionists do not believe that the State has the God-given authority to educate our children.

Because of our belief in a minimal State, taxes would be lowered for every citizen. This would encourage savings, reduce interest rates, and spur investment in high-risk technological ventures for the long-term betterment of the citizenry. Caring for the poor, as outlined by a book first published by American Vision in 1985 (Bringing in the Sheaves), is not the domain of the State. In fact, George Grant sees the State as a hindrance when it develops policies designed to “help the poor.” Of course, Reconstructionists are not alone in this assessment.[21]

Reconstructionists believe in the political process. We also believe in gradual, pervasive transformation of human institutions in the wake of worldwide conversion to orthodox Christianity. In the Reconstructionists’ worldview, civil government at the top will change when government at the bottom changes: from self-government to civil governments at all levels. I’ve developed this concept in numerous books and articles. In fact, my first book, God and Government: A Biblical and Historical Study (1982), begins, not with politics and civil government, but with self-government, family government, church government, and various strata of civil government.[22] The same emphasis can be found in my Ruler of the Nations (1986). In The Reduction of Christianity I wrote the following:

Politics is the “quick fix” approach to cultural transformation. “The next presidential election will turn the tide. A Change in the Supreme Court will bring our nation back to righteousness. If we could only get more conservatives elected to office.” None of this will do it. Only a long-term effort to change all facets of society will bring about significant and lasting transformation. This means changing the hearts and minds of millions of people.[23]

1. J. Rushdoony’s works express a similar theme.[24] The Reconstructionist view of social change, in the words of John Witherspoon, will result in “dominion by consent.”[25]

Those who accuse Christian Reconstruction as advocating change through political processes are critiqued by me in a number of places. A cursory reading of The Reduction of Christianity will lead any reader to conclude that Reconstructionists believe just the opposite of what these critics assert that we say.

The Pyramid Society is a culture in which a majority of the people spend most of their time transforming the civil sphere of government to the near exclusion of themselves, their families, churches, schools, businesses, and local civil governments. By changing the powers at the top, we are led to believe that there will be a trickle-down effect of cultural transformation that will blossom into a better society. The problems that a nation faces, as this approach sees it, are solely political. Change the State, and all of society will change with it. This has been the vision of pagan empires since the building of the tower of Babel.[26]

The belief in a centralized political order that critics insist Christian Reconstructionists defend is described by me as “paganism.” Instead of a Pyramid Society, Reconstructionists advocate a decentralized social order.

The Bible outlines a decentralized social order where power is diffused and the potential for corruption and tyranny are minimized. Freedom is enhanced because of the diluted strength of the one by the maintenance of the many.[27]

Gary North emphasizes a similar theme in the following quotation:

The biblical social order is utterly hostile to the pyramid society. The biblical social order is characterized by the following features. First, it is made up of multiple institutional arrangements, each with its own legitimate, limited, and derivative sovereignty under God’s universal law. Second, each institution possesses a hierarchical chain of command, but these chains of command are essentially appeals courts – “bottom-up” institutions – with the primary duty of responsible action placed on people occupying the lower rungs of authority. Third, no single institution has absolute and final authority in any instance; appeal can be made to other sovereign agents of godly judgment. Since no society can attain perfection, there will be instances of injustice, but the social goal is harmony under biblical law, in terms of an orthodox creed. God will judge all men perfectly. The State need not seek perfect justice, nor should citizens be taxed at the astronomical rates necessary to sustain the quest for perfect justice.[28]

So then, the portrayal of Christian Reconstruction as wanting to establish a centralized political order is incorrect. We teach just the opposite. As I’ve shown, one does not need to search for very long to find these views expressed in our writings. They are prominent emphases.

[1] Charles Colson, “The Kingdom of God and Human Kingdoms,” 1tansforming Our World: A Call to Action, 00. James M. Boice (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988), pp. 154-55.

[2] Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), p. 113.

[3] Ibid., p. 449.

[4] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1959), I, pp. 72-76.

[5] Richard A Fowler and H. Wayne House, Civilization in Crisis: A Christian Response to Homosexuality, Feminism, Euthanasia, and Abortion, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1983] 1988), p. 131. Norman Geisler dismisses Old Testament law because, offering one reason, “only nine of the Ten Commandments are restated in any form in the New Testament. The command to worship on Saturday is not repeated for obvious reasons: Jesus rose, appeared to his disciples, ascended into heaven, and sent the Holy Spirit on Sunday.” Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 203.

There is no “command to worship on Saturday” found in the fourth commandment, only to cease from doing “any work” (Exodus 20:10). This is why Jesus said that the Sabbath was “made for man,” thus, upholding the sanctity of the seventh day for man to cease from his labor (Mark 2:27-28). It would seem that a restatement of “only nine of the Ten Commandments … in the New Testament” supports the Reconstructionists’ claims more than it does Geisler’s. Anyway, who says a law must be repeated in the New Testament before it becomes obligatory for Christians to obey? Does Geisler realize that Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 are repeated in the New Testament (Mark 7:10), but Leviticus 18:23 and Deuteronomy 27:21 (laws prohibiting bestiality) are not? See Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., “Must God Stutter?,” Dispensationalism in 1ransition (May 1990).

[6] According to dispensationalists, the “rapture” occurs at Revelation 4:1. After the church is gone, God once again deals with His earthly people, Israel. Jewish time begins at this point.

[7] Geisler, Christian Ethics, p. 202.

[8] Greg L. Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 132.

[9] The term postmillennialism has reference to the timing of Jesus’ return. Jesus will return after (post) the thousand year period of Revelation 20 which is a symbolic period of the reign of Christ. Premillennialists believe that Jesus will return before (pre) the thousand years to set up an earthly kingdom. The amillennialist, like the postmillennialist believes that the thousand year period is symbolic and that Jesus will return after the thousand years are ended. Unlike the postmillennialist but like the premillennialist, the amillennialist does not see a period of gospel prosperity prior to Jesus’ return. Thus, the prefix a tells us that there is no “millennium.»

[10] Charles C. Ryrie, The Living End (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1976), p. 21.

[11] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970), p. 145.

[12] 12. Hal Lindsey, “The Great Cosmic Countdown,” Eternity (January 1977), p. 21. Consider what happens to fish if the bowl is not cleaned. They die!

[13] Ted Peters, Futures: Human and Divine (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1978), pp. 28, 29.

[14] Cited in “Is Christ or Satan Ruler of This World?,” Christianity Today (March 5, 1990), p. 43.

[15] Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure’ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), p. 123.

[16] Ibid., p. 124.

[17] Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), The Prescription Against Heretics, VII.

[18] Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” Ashland Theological Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No.1 (Spring 1980), p. 15.

[19] Ibid., pp. 14-15.

[20] Norman L. Geisler, an ardent critic of Christian Reconstruction, supports the teaching of “Creation Science” in government schools. Geisler, Creator in the Courtroom: The Controversial Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1982). Isn’t this mandating that the State involve itself in religion?

[21] 21. See the books by non-Christians such as Charles Murray, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, and by Christian author E. Calvin Beisner: Prosperity and Poverty: The Compassionate Use of Resources in a World of Scarcity (Crossway Books, 1988).

[22] The three-volume God and Government series has been republished by Wolgemuth & Hyatt (1990).

[23] Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1988), p. 297.

[24] Rushdoony, Law and Liberty (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, [1971] 1986) and Rushdoony, The Politics of Guilt and Pity (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, [1970] 1978).

[25] “Dominion, it is plain from all that has been said, can be acquired only one way, viz. by consent. There are two other ways commonly mentioned, both of which are defective, inheritance and conquest.” Quoted in The Journal of Presbyterian History: Presbyterian and the American Revolution: A Documentary Account, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Winter 1974), p. 356.

[26] Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1988), p. 305.

[27] Ibid., p. 306.

[28] Gary North, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion Versus Power Religion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), pp. 211-12.