One of the objections frequentlY

urged against Christian

Reconstructionism is that its agenda
does not align with the New
Testament. The objector asserts tliat
many of the concerns emphasized
by Christian Reconstructionism are
not found upon the pages of the
N.T. Now this is a very serious
objection as Christian Recon-
stnlctionists, as Reformed
Christians, are totally committed to
the Reformation principle of Sola
Scriptura. Thus, with the
Westminster Confession of Faith,
they affirm that the Scriprures
contain "The whole counsel of God,
concerning aU things necessary for
His own glory, man's salvation, faith
and life ... n (Chap. 1. Sect. VI.). It is
for this reason and upon this basis
alone that Reconstructionists make
a self-conscious effon to align all
their thinking and doing, albeit
imperfectly, with the whole Word
of God.
The Objection
the value of the O.T. Law, including
the judicial law. He believes that the
jUdicial law apply to all nations
when properly interpreted. Mr.
Edwards citeS Deuteronomy 4:58
which shows that the Law was to be
a testimony to the nations, because
oflts clear righteousness and equIty.
Mr. Edwards even shows how the
laws apply to specificiSsues, ecology,
health and safety'. Mr. Edwards
concludes,
"This is Theonomy - showing
how relevant Old Testament Law is
today. There is nothing new in this;
evangelical Christians have been
applying the Old Testament in this
Way for ceuturies. Admittedly, they
did not give it the name 'Theonomy',
but that's what wehave been doing ....
Testament, but it is not to be too
high on the agenda of . the local
church orin the life of the Christian,
Significantly, when Paul wrote to
the Christians in Romans 13 about
the duty of governments and those
governed, he made no reference to
Old Testament law. You might
expect Paul to take this opportunity
.to set out his agenda for
Reconstruction, butin I Corinthians
5: 12 he asks the
Corinthians: "What business is it oj
mine to judget/IDseoutside the Church?"
Although Christians may . be
politlciansand Christiansm'ay
remind politicians of their
obligations, politics is not on the
church's program.'"
Before we deal with the question
of the agenda of the NT, a number of
errors made by Mr. Edwards need
to be dealt with.
Romans 13
Regarding Romans 13 Mr.
Edwards asks why Paul did not refer
to the aT law when specifying the
duty of governments. However a
close examination of Romans 13
It isencouraglng (and rare) to shows Mr. EdwardS to be in error.
find a writer who is prepared to First of all, Paul affinns that all
make such positive statements goverriments are instituted by God
concerning Theonomy. However (13:2), and thus to rebel against
Edwards then rurns to "Christian' that authority is tantamount to
Reconstruction" - which he rebelling against God's authority.
distinguishes from Theonomy, and However, ifthemaglstrateactsupon
The objection goes on to point which he, in principle, finds God'sauthority,isnottheimplication
out that anri-abortion campaigns, unacceptable. Edwards writes, that he ought to apply God's law as
Christian SchoolslHome schools, a delegated authority under God?
"When you read the New
political activism, etc. are not to be Could we conceive that Paul might
Testament you do not find this idea
found on the pages of the N.t. as . be suggesting that the ma!7i<trate is
of reconstructing the nations ,,-
objectives laid down by either our not bound to apply God's law as
according to God's laws on the
Lord or His Apostles for the Church f revealed in Scriprure? Next, Paul
agenda 0 the apostles ..... Nowhere
in all ages. speaks of doing "right" and doing
in the New Testament are we told
Not Under Law.1 "wrong" with the exhonau' on, "Then
either that there will come a time
An example of this kind of when nations will accept God's laws do what is right... .. (13:3). Again,
objection is found in Brian Edward's orthat we should start the program what is this standard of right that
booklet, Not Under Law
l
. Mr. of Reconstruction now. That does the magtstrate ought to be applying?
Edwards shows himself to be not mean that we can't point What is this standard of "right"
sympathetic to Theonomy2. He sees magistrates or politicians to the Old that the governed are to be adhering
18 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon July, 1995
to if it is not the Law of God? Did
Paul believe there was some other
standard acceptable to God? If so,
where does he tell us what it is? How
does it coordinate with the Law of
God? Can God have another
standard? Is God therefore a pan-
time pluralist after aU? Finally, verse
4 tells us that the Magistrate bears
the sword for punishing certain
"wrong". If the definition of "wrong"
is not circumvented by the Law of
God, then what is to keep the
magistrate from applying the sword
according to any standard he
chooses? What is to prevent tyranny?
The point is tbat Paul's whole
presentation on the legitimate role
of the magistrate throughout
presu pposes the validity and
applicability of the Law of God!
What else could he have meant?
I Corinthians 5:12
Edwards also goes to I
Corinthians 5: 12 where it appears
that Paul modestly limits his
judgement within the confines of
the church. The context of I
Corinthians 5 is churcb discipline,
and the expelling of the unrepentant,
ungodly member (see:w1-11). All
the apostle is affirming is that his
judgement, under God, of the
ungodly sinning member extends
only to those witbin the church. We
don't excommunicate or try non-
members! Church autholity, as is
all delegated authority, is limited. In
the case of the t;hurch it is limited to
those who are its members. Also, in
the previous verses 9-11 Paul was at
pains to distinguish separation from
an ungodly professing brother from
an ungodly person who is not a
profeSSing believer. The latter are
not to be cut am Again we see that
this verse cannot be used to say that
it is not for us to judge the world by
godly standards! If Edwards really
meant that, then he could not preach
against any sin exercised by anyone
outside of the church congregation!
Politics
ReconstlUctionists do not believe
tbat the transformation of society
will take place through political
cbange! If anything, ReconstlUc-
tionists emphasize a limited state
and a reduced government, as their
Wlitings consistently demonstrate.
No reconstlUctionist (at least not
the main representatives of the
position) places politiCS at the top of
the list of priorities: the emphasis
falls upon Church, family and the
individual, and only then politiCS!
Mr. Edwards repeats again an old
misunderstanding. However,
because most evangelicals say
virrually nothing on the subject,
when someone does say something
they are inevitably dubbed
"politically oliented"! Regarding
Reconstructionism, "political-
centeredness" is in the eye of the
beholder!
The Agenda
The real scope of the objection
and its presuppositions and
implications need to be revealed.
The question assumes that the
current, culturallyregulatedagenda
of modern evangelicalism is the true
and genuine agenda of the NT
church. The fact is that many people
who voice this kind of objection fail
to apply the same criteria to their
own practices, the evangelicalstatus
quo! While they point out that there
is no specific mention in the NT of
movements to change Roman Law
or to outlaw abortion in the first
century, they fail to note that there
is also no explicit mention in the NT
of the standard program that most
Evangelical Churches pursue! If we
search the pages of the NT we find
no mention, at least not explicitly,
of Sunday Schools, Women's
meetings, Mums and Toddlers
Clubs, Youth Clubs, and so the list
could go on and on! In otherwords,
most of what most churches do is
not explicitly commanded,
described or found in the NT! At
this point the objector might adjust
his posture, something like this: "But
we do not look for expliCit
commands, as such, rather it is the
principles which we are seeking to
apply! However, at this paint, the
objector has adjusted his position
considerably. He has effectively
shifted the argument onto a different
basis. The question now becomes:
So what are the principles we are
seeking to apply? And what is the
extent of the task we have been
divinely assigned?
Misunderstandings
The second misunderstanding
that requires to be swept away
concerns the NT as a "blueprint".
This question needs to be clarified
before it can be properly elucidated.
Sometimes the related objection is
raised, "But the NT church was a
persecuted minority, poor and
downtrodden. How does this square
with the concept of dominion and
the historical triumph of the Faith?"
The presuppositions behind this
question are faulty and need to be
exposed. It needs to be understood
that the situation of the NT is not
normative. The NT describes what
the church did in a panicular
situation, Le. the first century. That
situation happens to have been one
of persecution. This teaches us how
we should react in times of
persecution. However, it is a logical
fallacy to derive from this that the
church must always be persecuted!
Clearly, persecution and ttialsare to
be expected because of the nature of
the hostility of the world to the
Faith. But that is a different point. If
we believe in the sufficiency of
Scripture then we must understand
that the Word of God speaks to all
July, 1995 t- THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t 19
situations, not simply that of the
first century Church!
Agreement
We have established that the real
basis for Christian Action, of
whatever kind, must actually be
derived from the principles of the
NT appliedin our culture and in our
situation. Moreover, as whole-Bible
Reformed Christians we would want
to expand the principle to the totality
of God's inscripturated Revelation.
This is the teaching of Paul to
Timothy in II Timothy 3:16,
All SCripture is God-
Genesis 1 :28, the Cultural Mandate,
God said,
God blessed them and said to them,
"Be fruitful and increase in number;fill
the earth and subdue it. Rule over the
fish of the sea and the birds of the air
and over every living thing that moves
on the ground .
This was man's original calling
under God as he came perfect from
the hand of His Creator. Kelley
explains the implications of this
Cultural Mandate,
the nature of our interaction with
the "world". The calling of me people
of God, the church of Christ, is to be
salt and light in a putrefying and
dark world. Alfred Eldersheim in
his monumentalStudy, The Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah draws
attention to the fact that these verses
really form a postscript or epilogue
to verses 1-12, the .Beatitudes. He
parallels this to the prologue to the
giving of the Lawin Exodus 19:3-6,
and especially verses 5-6a,
"Nawifyouobey Mefully and keep
breathed and is Useful for
teaching, . rebuking,
correcting and training in
righteousness, so that the
man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for
UWhen the people of
God manifest the new
nature they possess in .
my covenant, then out of all
nations you will b.e my
treasured possession.
Although the whole earth is
tlrine, you will be for me a
kingdomofpriests andaholy
nation. "
. every good work.
What would
SCripture have meant to
Paul's first century
audience? Primarily it
Christ, then the implica-
tions are vast for the
world and for life."
These verses (Matt.
5:13-16) are the result of
the "Beatitudes" of verses
1-12. When the people of
God manifest the new
would have meant the Old
Testament Scripture. Patrick
Fairbairn commenting on the
attributes that are applied to
Scripture in this passage affirms,
"All this, be it obsetved, is affirmed
of the Old Testament Scriptures,
even after the fuller light of the
Gospel had come. They have such
uses still to fulfill in the Church of
Christ. 0" Our comprehension of the
principles of Sola Sc;riptura must be
oriented toward the whole of
Scripture, including the aT.
Therefore, if we are to answer the
queStion: what is the agenda for the
Church today? we must mine our
answer from the whole of SCripture ,
not from the NT alone!
Old Testament Background
The agenda for human activity
had already been revealed to man
from the very beginning of time. In
"From the start their lives, and
their children's, and their
children'schildren they were to be
dedicated to the productive
dominion and replenishment of the
earth. They were to have prosperity
by a proper and systematic use of
the earth and its resources. Here we
might add: all the earth was to be
brought under their sway.
Unquestionable benefits would
accrue from this. The task would
not be completed at once; it was
long-term and progressive.'"
It is against the backdrop of this
original calling from God that we
must now tum to the New Testament
and ask again the question: what is
the NT agenda? Where is there any
evidence that it has changed?
The New Testament Agenda
Matthew 5:13-16
These verses specifically address
20 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon Jnly, 1995
nature they possess tn Christ, then
the implications are vast for the
world and for life. In the same way
when God's Old Covenant people
lived according to God's perfeetLaw
they would be a force in the world
for righteousness (Ex. 19:3-6). The
influence we are to have is described
by the use of two illustrations:
1. SaIL v.13. You are the salt of the
earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness,
how can it be made salty again? !tis no
longer good for anything, except to be
thrown out and trampled by men.
Salt most probably has referente
to the preservative qualities df a
righteous people in a fallen and
corrupt world. Moreover, the Lord
Messiah indicates to His people that
they are the fundamental preserving
influence in the world. Without their
penetration the whole world rots!
Next, the Lord' shows that if the
formative, preserving influence in
the world loses its preserving
qualities then it remains only fit to
be discarded. Similarly, if the people
of God cease to exerdse a preserving,
salty ministry in every area oflife in
this world, then they will become
irrelevant and will be discarded!
Hendriksen notes that the function
of salt, and thereby the function of
the covenant people in this world is
necessarily one of involvement. He
writes, "Worldly-mindedness and
seculallzation is here condemned,
but also so aloofness and
isolationism".' In other words, the
church is not to be shaped by the
world, but neither is the church to
withdraw into its ownself, and thus
become powerless! The implication
of the "salt" analogy is that where
any area oflife, where any sphere of
activity in this world, becomes
rotten, it is because the sole source
of preservation has been neglected.
This means that the influence of the
covenant people of God is essential
to righteousness in any area oflife
and thought.
Next, preservation necessarily
implies ethics. Thus it is approptiate
that our Lordshould move to uphold
the one ethical standard ofthe Word
of God in the following section,
verses 17-21. This is impottant as
the thrust of the Sermon on the
Mount is to expose the false
righteousness (ethical standard) of
the Pharisees, and to uphold the
perfect Law of God (vv 17-21). Thus
Hendllksen notes that the salt from
the Dead Sea area became "stale or
alkaline" to taste. Such was the
tasteless and stale religion of the
Pharisees who had effectively
replaced the Law of God with their
own autonomous laws and
standards. Thus an ethic that is not
rooted in the Word of God, the Law
ofJehovah, is doomed to stetility.
The preserving standard of
tighteousness is proven to be the
Law of God, with its comprehensive
application in every area oflife and
thought.
2. Light. v.l 4. "You are the light of
the world. A city on a hill cannot be
hidden. Neither do people light a lamp
and put it under a bowl. Instead they
put it on a stand, and it gives light to
everyone in the house. In the same
way, let your light shine before men,
that they may see your good deeds and
praise your father in heaven."
The positive influence of the New
Covenant people of God in the world
is illustrated by "light". "Light" is
used of the knowledge of God (Ps.
36:9) and thus of the benefits and
consequences of that knowledge (Ps.
97:ll; Is. 9:1-7). Then also, our
Lord desctibes Himself in terms of
light inJohn 8:12, "I am the Light of
the World ... " The full impact ofthis
statement and others like it is often
missed because of our tendency to
interpret the Bible in pietistic and
"limited" sense, i.e. applying the
Word exclusively to "spiritual
matters". When the Lord announces
Himself to be "lheLightofthe World",
He declares Himself to be the sole,
unique Source of true Light and life
in a fallen world, dead in the
darkness of its sin.
Thus when the people of Messiah
are termed by their Lord, "the light of
the world" the same implications
stand. The church of Chtist has
become too modest in its self-
understanding in terms of the calling
it has from God. It too often sees this
calling only in telms of ecclesiastical
matters and the individual salvation
of men, and not the world-
penetrating function that the Lord
gave it while he was on earth!
This has very clear implications
foIthe understanding of our agenda.
Our agenda is that we are salt and
light in this world, and under ChllSt
our Lord, we are the only source of
the same! Thus if there is to be
preservation (salt) and light in any
area oflife in this world, it will only
be as regenerate men and women
apply the whole Word of God in
and to the whole oflife! Therein lies
our hope!
The altemative, the one that aims to
limit the scope of our calling, thus
denying its comprehensive nature,
must also limit the meaning of "salt"
and "light", and thus limit them
when our Lord places no such
limitations upon them. Effectively,
the pietist must say that if most of
life "rots" and lies in "darkness" then
that is good and right for it is not the
calling of the people of God to
transform these areas under their
Lord. For those that think this way,
they must necessarily live with the
implication that not "everything"
need be put under His feet after all!
Matthew 28:18-20
Everyone would agree that one
passage that illuminates the nature
of the NT agenda is the Great
Commission. Matthew 28:18-20
reads,
"All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. Therefore
go and make diSCiples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spilit, teaching them to obey everything
I have commanded you. And surely 1
am with you always, to the very end of
the age."
The key point to understand is
that the Great Commission is not
given in a void. It is given against the
background of the whole OT Word
of God. Jesus, with the total authotity
with which He is endowed, as the
Risen Lord of lords and King of
kings, commands his people to
disciple the nations.lO By this is
meant nations as nations. Moreover,
once men and women are brought
to faith and obedience in Chtist
July, 1995 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t 21
they are to be taught to obey
"everything I have commanded
you ... " Notice the import of what is
being said here: those discipled are
to be introduced into the whole
Word of God, that is the whole
counsel of God. This is the same all-
sufficient Word we find desctibed
in 2 Timothy 3: 16 discussed above.
In other words, the extent of the
Great Commission in its scope is
coterminous with that of the Cultural
Mandate of Genesis 1:26-28. Hence
when Paul the apostle wntes to
churches he instructs them in all
their ethical relations: of family,
work and civil rule (See: parent"
child Eph. 6: 1-4; Slave-Master Eph.
6:5-9; also Peter in I Peter 2:13-25
discusses our relation to the State!
Civil Magistrate.). When we add to
this the teaching of the OT, which is
also the Word of Christ (I Peter
l:ll), many other areas are dealt
with. Gary Demar provides an
outline of these areas,
"Your world view should be as
comprehensive as the Bible. When
the Bible "speaks', it is your duty to
study and act upon the Bible's
commands ... A quick survey of the
Bible will reveal its comprehensive
subject matter: The Bible speaks
about history (Matt. 24; Heb. 13:8),
economics (Leviticus 25:35-38;
Deuteronomy 8:18), education
(Deuteronomy 6:4-9), political
science (Romans 13: 1-7),
administration (Exodus 18:13-27),
the military (Deuteronomy 20),
leadership (Prov. 28:2, 29:8), social
relarionsrups(Luke 10:30-37, I Cor.
13,Col. 3:14), social problems
(Isaiah 1:1-23, Ezekiel 16:49,50;
James 2:15-16), marriage (Genesis
2:23,24; Matt. 19:5), family
relationships (Ephesians 5:22-6:4),
property (Exodus 20:15),
jurisprudence (Exodus 20:23:9).1'
mind. Therefore this is the scope of
the NT agenda as recorded in the
Great Commission. What are we
saying? We are saying that the NT
agenda is as broad as life itself. We
move to discuss another passage
that reinforces this fact.
H Corinthians 10:1-7.
This section of Scripture is
important because it indicates that
God has called His people to all-out
war with humanism in every shape
and form! In verses 3 and 4a, "For
though we live in the world, we do not
wage war ... " Paul employs a play on
words. The word translated "world",
which is literally "flesh", can have
one of two meanings depending
upon the context. "Flesh" can refer
to human flesh, in other words the
physical nature, the body. On the
other hand it can also mean the
corrupt nature, that is human nature
as "fallen, governed by sinful desires
and inclinations. While we live in
the flesh (I.e. the world as a place),
we do not war as the world (the
ethically fallen, carnal domain) does.
Paul's point is that the methods
employed must be consistent with
the new nature that is onrs in Christ.
This means that the principles
behind our methodology are
radically different from the
prevailing philosophy of this ''world''
as fallen and in rebellion against the
Lord. Thus the temptation to fight
the world using its own principles is
to be resisted as it is incompatible
with that to which we have been
called. Therefore, whether it .is
through ungodly entertainment or
pagan philosophy or the sword-all
ungodlymethodsmust be shunned.
Paul sees the "world" as the
battlefield! This is the realm of total
conflict. It needs to be recognized
that this image has been largely lost
to the modem church. While we
This is the "everything I have understand the individual's personal
commanded you" that Jesus had in conflicts with temptation, there the
22 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon July, 1995
"battle cry" tends to stop! We no
longer see the war with sin and
death as one to be fought on every
front. The reason? PacifiSr'n has bit
the church! The idea ohotal war has
. become diStasteful! Accommodation
is "in"! The church has signed a
peace treaty with the world on every
front, except the private, internal
life of the believer! It is as if the
church had "promised" to keep out
of certain areas!
Next, Paul Introduces the
offensive langnage of dominion and
confrontation. It ought to be clearly
understood that this is offensive,
not defensive language! The
kingdom of God is pictured as on
the advance, taking
strongholds ... (v4b)! This war is to
be fought on the level of arguments,
ideas and thoughts, literally:
thought, cogitation or conception.
Why? Because basic beliefs
determine what a person is/does!
For example, Proverbs 23:7, 'Taras
he thinks within himself, so he is .. "
This is the stronghold of unbelief,
not in political structures, or power
as such! That's where we have to
aim! Tlje role of the people of God is
to demolish (tear down)
strongholds, that is their
philosophies, religions and
perspectives. Next, this warfare has
to be fought on every front! (v5a) -
against every pretension that sets
itself up against the knowledge of
God. Look at the scope of the battle!
The whole of life, not only the
narrowly religious! Why? Because
every non -Christian perspective is
erroneous and corrupt! Not just
religious ones! Why is this
important? Because all of these false
perspectives have anti-Christian
foundations set against the
knowledge of God! There is no area
oflife or thought that can be cOllnted
as being neutral and therefore
harmless. In practice men will use
every area of knowledge against God,
whether it be science, alt, politics,
or education! To limit the agenda
for the kingdom of Christ to cenain
areas oflife is to implicitly surrender
those areas to God's enemies! The
message of the Holy SpiIit here is
that God has called you to reduce all
the areas to the obedience of Christ!
(v5b) -and we take captive evelY
thought to make it obedient to
Christ. In the warfare captives are
taken! The people of God working
in every area oflife and thought are
to take every thought in every sphere
oflife captive in obedience to Chtist!
This is the authentic NT agenda!
The Voice of our Forefathers
What many believers are left
completely unaware of today is that
our Reformed forefathers also
believed in the broad-based agenda
of a Christian World and Life view.
For example, in the last century
Reformed theologian A. A. Hodge
wrote,
" ... the kingdom of God on earth
is not confined to the mere
ecclesiastical sphere, but it aims at
absolute universality and extends
its supreme reign over every
depanment of human life, it follows
that it is the duty of every loyal
subject to endeavor to bring all
human society, social and political,
as well as ecclesiastical, into
obedience to its laws of
righteousness! 12
Geerhardus Vos, Princeton
RefOlmed theologian of the turn of
this century wrote,
"Undoubtedly, the kingship of
God, as His recognized and applied
supremacy, is intended to pervade
and control the whole oflifein all its
forms and existence ... There is the
sphere of science, a sphere of an, a
sphere of the family, and of the
state, a sphere of commerce and
industry. Whenever one of these
spheres comes under the controlling
influence of the principle of divine
supremacy and glory, and this
outwardly reveals itself, there we
can truly say that the kingdom of
God has become manifest. "13
Finally, the great Reformed
apologist, Dr. Cornelius Van Til
complained of the "narrow" view of
the faith when he wrote,
"There are many who, believing
the Bible from cover to cover, also
believe in creation. They are even
quite ready to defend the creation
idea against the evolution idea. Yet
their fight is often in the interest of
sotetiology only. They know that
salvation through Christ
presupposes creation by God. But
they see no need of fighting for the
creation concept in order to assure
a foundation for a genuine Christian
culture. Since they have no idea for
the meaning of the covenant, their
mterest in maintaining the biblical
ideaofcreationisunbiblicallynarrow."
Conclusion
In short, the agenda of the New
Testament, and thus of the whole
Bible is God's comprehensive
program for mankind. This
enterprise was issued to man from
the beginning and was re-stated by
our Lord Himself in the Great
Commission. Thustheaccusationthat
the Reconstmctionist Agenda and the
NT agenda are at odds is proven to be
mistaken. The agenda for the Chlistian
and for the Church is to be derived
from the whole Bible. The pietistic
agenda is a laterintroduction, one that
seeks to limit the power and influence
of God and His people to withiIl the
confines of the hemt and the church.
In reality, ourtaskisthus grander than
we thought! n
I Day One Publications, 1994
2 ibid p. 12-14
3 ibid p. 13
4 p. 14. Mr. Edwards does have some
reservations, which turn out to be
misapplied. On p. 1 ~ 1 6 Edwards implies
that Theonomists do not take sufficient
account of certain discontinuities between
the OT and NT. However, when he comes to
specifics he cites unclean/clean meats (Dent.
14), and Urim and Thumnin (Numbers 27).
He shows that according to ActslO:9-15
this law had a purpose unique to Israel and
which is no longer binding upon the NT
people of God. The point is that most
Theonomists (excepting perhaps Dr. RJ.
Rushdoony) do not hold that the clean!
unclean distinctions are binding under the
New Covenant. Moreover, even when we
look at Rushdoony's view we see that he
takes account of the NT revelation in his
view of the clean/unclean laws (for example
,in the institutes of Biblical Law. vaLl P&"R
1973. pp297fD. Thus on p. 301 of the
Institutes Rushdoony writes concerning
Colossians 2: 16-17, II the dietary laws are
not binding upon us, but they do provide us
with a principle of operatioh. The apostles
as they moved into the Gentile world, did
not allow diet to be a barrier between them
and the Gentiles. If they were served pork or
shrimp they ate it. On their own, they
maintained the kosher rules as Godls rules
of health and life. St. Paul rebuked St. Peter
to his face when he 'Withdrew from the
Gentiles, with whom he had been eating,
because of fear of criticism on the part of
some of the Judaizers (Gal. 2:9-IS). With
reference to our salvation, the laws of diet
have no Significance, although Phariseism
gave it such a significance (Gal. 2: 15). With
reference to our health, the rules of diet are
still valid rules. U Thus Edwardls criticism
turns out to be no criticism at all! For most
Theonomists agree with him anyway!
S pp. 14-IS
6 PastotalEpistles. p. 381. Klock&Klock
Ed.
7Michael Kelley: On Stone or Sand: The
Ethics of Christianity, Capitalism and
Socialism. p. S6 Pleroma Books. 1993
8 Vol I. p. 529
9 Commentary on Matthew. p, 284.
Banner of Truth.
10 For a discussion of what it means to
"disciple the nations" see Kenneth L.
GentryJr. : The Greatness of the Great
Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a
Fallen World. ICE. 1990. esp. pp. SO-S4.
II God and Government: Vol. 2. Issues
in Biblical Perspective. p. 25. Wolgemuth &:
Hyatt Publ. Inc.
12 Evangelical Theology. p. 283. T.
Nelson and Sons. 1890
13 The Kingdom and the Church. pp.
87-88, Presbyterian and Reformed PubL
Co.
July, 1995 l' THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon ;. 23