-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - The Reduction of Christianity: A
Review Article - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/3
told that it will be dangerous to do so,
lest, when the
son
should know that all
was securely
his,
he would treat him un
kindly. What severer reflection could he
cast upon the son? And what mournful
evidence it would be of the son's entire
selfishness, and want of love to his
father, to hear him say, that i his father
would fix the patrimony securely in
his
hands, he would not care how he treated
him Just such is the evidence that the
professed Christian gives of his love to
God, who says that i he once felt sure
of heaven, he would not care how he
lived. I admit that it would be danger
ous to make heaven sure to such.
Whether it would be dangerous or not,
for a father thus to settle the patrimony
upon his son, would depend altogether
on the nature
of
the son's feelings
towards
him.
If they were altogether
selfish, it would be dangerous. But
if
the son truly loved his father, it would
increase his filial attachment to know
that his father had done so much for
him. The more he would give the son,
the more the son would love him.
So,
i a Christian have true love to God, we
need not fear
to
tell him how much God
has done for
him.
The more he sees
of
the love of God, the more his own heart
will be warmed with the heavenly
flame, and he will desire the more to be
conformed to his image. I think it will
be admitted, that it is the experience of
every Christian, that the brighter and
frrmer his hopes are of heaven, the
more he desires to be made meet for
it;
and jus t in proportion
as
faith is to him
the certain "evidence (or confidence) of
things not seen, he presses with eager
ness "to the mark, for the prize of the
high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
The doctrine of perseverance, then, to
a true Christian, is one of his greatest
incentives to growth in grace; and every
one upon whom it has a contrary effect,
has much reason to doubt the reality of
his religion. His love to God cannot be
sincere. But
as
our conversation has
been sufficiently protracted at present,
we will defer the Bible argument on the
subject to another time.
[To be continued]
The Reduction o hristianity
A review article
by
Kenneth
L. Gentry,
Jr.
The Reduction
of
Christian
ity: Dave Hunt s Theology of
Cultural Surrender, by Gary DeMar
and Peter Leithart. Published jointly by
The American Vision, Atlanta, GA and
Dominion Press, Ft. Worth, TX, 1988.
403 pp.
Two of the current best-selling Chris
tian books on the market are dispensa
tionalist Dave Hunt's
The Seduction o
Christianity (1985) and Beyond Seduc-
tion: A Return
to
Biblical Christianity
(1987). As DeMar and Leithart note in
their
Reduction
o
Christianity,
Hunt
"has brought to light a real problem by
exposing the demonic side
of
the New
Age Movement . . . . . The New Age
Movement needs to be confronted and
battled. Mr. Hunt has provided much
valuable ammunition to help Christians
deal with New Age seduction" (p.
xxxiii). Unfortunately, DeMar and Leit
hart continue, Hunt "has discerned a
problem, but has no solution. In fact,
one of the thrusts
of
his books is that
there is really no solution. He sees no
way to combat a growing cultural
malaise because he is operating with a
reduced
gospel and a
teduced
Christian
ity. Hunt has no comprehensive Chris
tian view
of
life to offer"
ibid.).
This last observation is well-taken in
that Hunt's books not only confront
New Age theology, but also
attempt
(and we must emphasize "attempt") a
frontal assault on "Dominion Theo
logy" as well. And in perfect illustra
tion
of
Paul's lament, Hunt demon
strates that he
has
a "zeal of God, but
not according to knowledge" (Rom.
10:4). Thus, he illustrates why "my
people are destroyed for lack of know-
Kenneth L.
Gentry, Jr. Is
pastor of the
Reedy River
Presbyterian
Church (PCA)
In
Greenville, South
Carolina.
ledge" (Hos. 4:6). DeMar and Leithart's
work is a response to the woefully in
adequate analyses and faulty assertions
in Hunt's book regarding Dominion
Theology. In light
of
Hunt's recent
growing influence, The Reduction o
Christianity is both important and time
ly.
As DeMar and Leithart point out,
Hunt (along with Wilkerson, Lindsey,
Swaggart, and other dispensationalists)
perceive Dominion Theology to be not
only dangerous but heretical. DeMar
and Leithart note that these popular
writers (we do not say scholars or theo
logians) believe that "Christians who
support social and political involve
ment with any chance of long-term
success are leading people astray" (p.
1 .
The inevitability
of
social collapse
and the necessity of cultural retreat have
been elevated to creedal status among
dispensationalists; any desire for cul
tural holiness along biblical lines is
anathema to this system. As a matter of
fact, the whole idea of seeking the
application
of
Christian and biblical
principles in society is ro be avoided at
all costs. One dispensationalist theolo
gian, Norm Geisler, argues that the
premillennialist view
of
government
must rest on natural law, rather than
God's Law (writing in
Moody Monthly,
October, 1985, p. 130; see also Reduc-
tion, pp. 89-90).
Undoubtedly the most absurd and pa
tently false assertion in Hunt's books -
an assertion that prompted the writing
of The Reduction o Christianity - is
that Dominion Theology, a
l
Rush
doony, Morecraft, North and Bahnsen,
is an ally of the New Age Movement
and prepares Christians for its adoption
As DeMar and Leithart point out, this
is not only an incredibly inaccurate
analysis of the matter, but it overlooks
the fact that one of the first Christian
warnings against the New Age Move
ment was Gary North's 1976 book
The Counsel of Cbalcedon, AprU-May, 988
Page
9
-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - The Reduction of Christianity: A
Review Article - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/3
None Dare Call
t
Witchcraft.
In one important chapter in Reduc
tion,
the authors define significant
tenns, such as "dominion theology,"
"kingdom theology," and "Christian
reconstruction" (Chapter 2). This chap
ter will prove immensely helpful to
clarifying the debate, and, therefore,
should be carefully read by opponents
of
reconstruction thought. One of the
real problems with Hunt's books is that
h has not defmed his terms. As DeMar
and Leithart point out, in an interview
with Hunt on "Contact America" Hunt
was asked to define "Christian recon
structionism." His answer? "I haven't
defined that term" (p. 19) I am per
sonally convinced that the bulk of the
popular opposition against reconstruc
tionist thought is due to a failure to
accurately grasp the significance of its
tenns and arguments; this annoying
problem presents a straw man in popu
lar discussion. Also defined in this chap
ter
are the three major eschatological
systems (pp. 38-42). In addition, the
authors here provide a brief historical
analysis of the roots of reconstruction
thought, showing it to be the heritage
of the Puritans, American Calvinists,
and Abraham Kuyper. Reconstruction
~ o u g h t
per se
is not new, and. cannot
be a part
of
the "New Age Movement,"
contrary to Hunt.
Interestingly; DeMar and Leithart
point out that in one Hunt associate's
newsletter, the question is asked: "What
is pur view of the Kingdom of God?"
Then the entire conte;Kt of the writer's
answer is given, prompting the re
sponse of DeMar and Leithart: "This is
the entire section. Yet, nowhere are we
told exactly what is nieant by the Gng
dom God. All that we find is
an
ern L
phasis on the importance of king
dom'' (p. 172). This
is
a failure to de
fin:e tenns with a vengeance
h a p t ~ r
4 is an essential chapter for
those wlio have been taken in by Hunt's
improper analyses of reconstructionism,
a8
well as being important for Hunt
himself in order to help him clarify the
matter. In this chapter the authors estab
lish the four foundational presupposi
tions ofNew Age concepts. These foun
dations are: (1) Monism and pantheism,
(2) the divinization of humanity, (3)
higher consciousness, and (4) reincarna
tion and karma (p. 68). Having percep
tively penetrated to these essences of
New Age theology - something that
Hunt did not do - DeMar and Leithart
point out what every orthodox recon
structionist knows: the views
of
Rush
doony, North, Bahnsen, et
al.,
are
resolutely set against each and every
one
of
these concepts. Chapters 5-7 care
fully demonstrate the polarity of recon
structionist thought with New Age theo
logy.
This book, written by two contributing edi
tors to Tlie Counsel -of Chalcedon, is avail
able,
free, for a
$25.00'
donation to the
minis
try of this magazine.
n order
to
set forth one of the basic
errors
of
Hunt, Chapters 8-11 discuss
the biblical notion of the kingdom.
These chapters could well be published
as a book in themselves, so needful is a
proper conception
of
the kingdom to
day. DeMar and Leithart point out an
incredible position of Hunt, a position
that is astounding in that
it
not only
reduces Christianity, but God. Hunt has
written: "In fact, dominion--taking do
minion and setting up the .kingdom of
Christ--is
an
impossibility, ;
even
for
God. The millennia reign
of
Christ, far
from being the kingdom, is actually the
final proof of the incorrigible nature of
the human heart, because Christ Him
self can't do what these people say they
are going to do (p. 157).
Sq
much for "with God all things are
possible " Out the window with Psalm
115:3; Isaiah 46:9,10; Daniel 2:20;
4:35; etc. This statement alone .demon-
strates the absurdity of Hunt's sitting in
judgment upon dominion theology; he
has his
own
massive theological pro
blem that not even standard, run-of-the-
mill, dispensationalism accepts
Chapter 9
of
the present work pro
vides a masterful refutation of Hunt's
"Heavenly Kingdom" concept. In the
final analysis
of
Hunt's hyper-spiritual
view, the authors ask: "Ultimately the
issue is, what
does
it
mean to be
a citi
zen
of
heaven? Does it mean that
we
abandon the earthly battles that sur
round us? Does it mean we leave the
earth to the devil? Does it mean we
don't have any dominion on earth? (p.
187).
In Chapter
15
the authors expose an
issue in the debate that I strongly be
lieve to
be
a fundamental matter. The
position of DeMar and Leithart - and
Calvinistic dominion theology - is:
"There is no true justification without
sanctification. Christ is our justifica
tion and our sanctification. To tear
these
two aspects
of salvation asunder
is to tear Christ asunder" (p. 289). It is
terribly important to consider ~ i s very
"spiritual" matter, for it gives rise to
the "this worldly" views
of
reconstruc
tionism. n my own spiritual journey
the issue of the Lordship
of
Christ in
salvation
was
the very issue which jetti
soned me from the dispensational sys
tem and paved the w;ty for my adoption
of a reconstructionist perspective.
n an
85 page paper entitled
The Great
Op-
tion: A Study
of
the Lordship Con-
troversy,''
which
was
prepared
at
Grace
Theological Seminary in May, 1975, I
analyzedthepredominatedispensational
ist view that claimed salvation may be
gained by belief in Christ as Savior
divorced from commitment to Christ
as
Lord (as ,exhibited in; especially, Ryrie,
Balancing the Christian, Life,
[Moody,
1969]).
O.T.
Allis noted much earlier
that the unconditional covenant concept
of dispensationalism is intimately re
lated to the divorce between sanctifi
cation and justification in the system
(Allis, Prophecy and the Church,
pp.
42-43). ,Properly speaking, dispensation:
alism is 110t merely concerned with one
of the loci of theology, i.e. eschatolo
gy. Rather, dispensationalism is itself
Page
3
The Counsel of Chalcedon, April-May, 1988
-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - The Reduction of Christianity: A
Review Article - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/3
an
entire, self-contained theological sys
tem. And on this matter we see its in
trinsic relation
to
soteriology.
From the observation cited above,
DeMar and Leithart move to penetrating
questions: "We must now ask a funda
mental question: Does the justified, re
generated, and sanctified sinner affect
his society? That is, does sanctification
spill over into society
as
Christians
work out the implications
of
their salva
tion? Are we responsible to reform our
lives? Are we responsible
to
reform our
families? Are we responsible
to
reform
our children's education? Should we
work
to
reform our church
if
it
is
not
following its God-directed mission?
As
a Christian, should I work to reform a
business that I have control over? What
i
I run for a political office? Should I
work
to
bring righteousness to bear on
all the issues
of
the day Where do
we stop the process? Where do we say
'no'
to
reformation? Where do we draw
the line on sanctification's effect on our
world?
(pp. 289-290).
The
Reduction
o
Christianity is an
excellent rebuttal
to
a popular, but ill
conceived, assault on reconstructionist
thought. I highly recommend its pur
chase and study. In fact, I would recom
mend that rather than ordering it by
mail, the reader ask for it at his local
bookstore. Have the bookstore order
copies to set on their shelves beside
Hunt's work. I might add that I was
particularly appreciative of the spirit of
the work. DeMar and Leithart bent over
backwards to treat Hunt respectfully.
Though I wholeheartedly endorse the
work, there are a few observations I
would like to make that, in my
opinion, could serve
to
strengthen the
work in some minor areas.
On page 207 Herman Hoyt's article
on the nature
of
the kingdom (in
Clouse's
The Meaning o the Millen-
nium: Four Views)
is
cited and summar
ized
thus:
"The major differences be
tween Hoyt's position and ours are 1)
the question
of
timing, and 2) whether
or not Christ will be physically present
during the millennium." I would have
added a third distinctive: The exclusive
ly Jewish nature
of
the kingdom. The
dispensationalist system greatly errs in
seeking the re-establishing
of an
Old
Testament kingdom that sets the re
demptive-historical advance
of
God's
kingdom back to a pre-cross nature,
complete with sacrifices, a Promised
Land, and Jewish domination, and con
trary to Ephesians 2: 12ff; Galatians
3:26ff; and Hebrews. As Hoyt notes
of
the Jewish role in the millennia} king
dom: "The redeemed living nation
of
Israel, regenerated and regathered to the
land, will be head over all the nations
of
earth. . . . So he exalts them above
the Gentile nations. . On the low
est level there are the saved, living,
Gentile nations" (in Clouse, p. 81).
That Christ's blood-bought Gentile peo
ple would be reduced to servility to His
other ( ) blood-bought people (Israel)
borders on blasphemy. This seems
to
me
to
be even more fundamental a dis
tinctive than the other two, although
they are important, as well.
I admit much disappointment with
much
of
Chapter 12 of the work:
"From the Church Fathers to the
Reformation: The Theology
of
the
Kingdom." The purpose
of
this chapter
is "to note some major figures from
church history who taught an optimis
tic view
of
the kingdom's future on
earth" (p. 229). In this chapter, early
premillennialists are cited--such as
Irenaeus--to demonstrate this view. In
that Hunt's view
is
itself a peculiar
aberration
of
a peculiar aberration (dis
pensationalism), in its denial
of
any
earthly victory for God's kingdom, the
time spent in this chapter could have
been better spent in a slightly different
direction. The point
of
Christian recon
structionism that is a main bone of
contention in the wider debate today, is
not that it teaches the victory
of
God's
kingdom on earth (most standard dis
pensationalists teach that there will be
almost 1000 years
of
victory), but that
it teaches the victory
of
God's kingdom
on earth during and continuous with our
present era. I would like to have seen
this chapter emphasize the anti-pre
millennia elements in early Church his
tory, particularly the optimism of
Athanasius (who is treated on pp. 231-
233).
Finally, it would have been helpful
i f
the authors had employed James B.
Jordan's article
A
Survey
of
Southern
Presbyterian Millennia Views Before
1930 (in The Journal o Christian
Reconstruction, 3:2, p. 122ff) in Chap
ter
14:
"The Zenith and Decline
of
Opti
mism." In this historical chapter a num
ber
of
orthodox postmillennial theolo
gians is cited; but Jordan's article lists a
great deal more
of
them from the impor
tant Southern Presbyterian tradition.
Addendum:
Moments after writing this review I
received in the mail a tape I had ordered
from Falwell's Liberty Baptist College.
The tape is a "sermon" (with sparse
reference to Scripture) by Norm Geisler
against reconstructionism (dated Febru
ary 3, 1988). This has led me to add a
few sentences to this review article.
Dave Hunt's error seems due to a lack
of
theological training and philosophi
cal ability. Like Scofield before him, he
is laboring outside
of
his field
of
train
ing and expertise.
He
is simply co
nfused.
But
in Geisler's case it is diffi
cult to account for his tirade--it was
nothing more--against Christian recon
struction. Geisler is a certified scholar,
or at least he has certified academic de
grees. Geisler's entire 20 minute "ser
mon" was filled with one misconstrual
of
reconstructionism after another. He
labeled it one
of
the two most d n g e r ~
ous heresies of our time, next to secular
humanism.
f
interested in the tape, the
reader might write to Liberty Baptist
College, Lynchburg, VA 24506, and
ask for the February 3, 1988, message
against reconstructionism by Norm
Geisler. 0
pecial
rice
Judy Rogers' two tapes
Why Can t I See God?
&
Watkin
Wise
now available for $5.00 each,
plus, the pro-life song by 9 year-old
Jenny Rogers, entitled Little Brother,
is available for $2.00.
(Please add $1.25 postage &
handling for each tape)
Make checks to Judy Rogers,
P.O. Box 888442,
Dunwoody, GA 30338
The Counsel
o
Chalccdon, April-May,
988
Page
