Institutes of Biblical Law Volume 1

The Institutes of Biblical Law #1

by Rousas John Rushdoony

Rousas John (R. J.) Rushdoony (1916-2001) was a well-known American scholar, writer, and author of over thirty books. He held B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of California and received his theological training at the Pacific School of Religion. An ordained minister, he worked as a missionary among Paiute and Shoshone Indians as well as a pastor to two California churches. He founded the Chalcedon Foundation, an educational organization devoted to research, publishing, and cogent communication of a distinctively Christian scholarship to the world-at-large. His writing in the Chalcedon Report and his numerous books spawned a generation of believers active in reconstructing the world to the glory of Jesus Christ. Until his death, he resided in Vallecito, California, where he engaged in research, lecturing, and assisting others in developing programs to put the Christian Faith into action.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Law, Christian, Nonfiction, Politics, Cultural

Hardcover

First published June 1, 1973

About the author

Rousas John Rushdoony was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of both Christian Reconstructionism and the modern homeschool movement. His prolific writings have exerted considerable influence on the Christian right.

Reviews

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

The law in the Old Testament is often treated as an embarrassing thing by Christians and the church. There are those that look down upon it, and it is easy to be thankful one is not a Jew under the obligations of the Old Testament law. Secularists often point to things like the condemnation of cloths made with two materials, no sex with a menstruating wife, laws against homosexuality, and on and on. Too often Christians join in the ridicule and dismiss the goodness of God’s law.

Along comes R.J. Rushdoony who argues that the Old Testament law is not only good, but it is still in force today for Christians. Shock! Contempt! Disdain! Folly! The chorus of boos has been instantaneous and unceasing since the release of The Institutes of Biblical Law.

But to dismiss Rushdoony out of hand is to imperil the voice of the church, faithfulness to Scripture, and the order of society. Rushdoony does argue for permanence of Old Testament law and its enforcement today. The book is largely a commentary on the Ten Commandments and the related statutes in the Old Testament. He also studies the New Testament applications of Old Testament law.

The book is strikingly broad in scope, persuasive, and bold. Rushdoony knows the Scriptures and has clearly done his research. His unfolding of the biblical law is masterful and helpful. He rightly rebukes those that dismiss the goodness of law and those that dismiss the force of the law today.

The Old Testament law was a good thing, and to believe otherwise is to reject the God of the law.
Rushdoony asserts that there are three options: anarchy, legalism, and biblical law. Antinomians favor anarchy in principle, though they may abhor the designation. Legalists, such as the Pharisees, make their own law. Statists are the modern day legalists. They create their own law which must be totalitarian in nature, otherwise it has no power. Power is absolute or nonexistent. The final option is biblical law. Biblical law brings true freedom because it puts man in his proper state as under the authority of God, but above that of nature.

Rushdoony rejects natural law as a compromise position. It is better than anarchy or legalism, but will eventually give way to one or the other. It is not a fixed position.

The book is not wholly concerned with civil law, as one might expect. Rushdoony argues that all law—civil, ecclesiastical, and family law is law under the authority of God. So he spends time examining the family in the context of the commandments as well as the church. There is a chapter on elders and church government. One of the most helpful portions of the book in my mind is on marriage and the roles of man and wife in the context of marriage.

I began the book very sympathetic to Rushdoony’s position, though reluctant to accept his argument that the Old Testament law continues in force today in a mostly unchanged way. I am now persuaded that biblical law is the only true law, but I believe that Rushdoony is wrong in maintaining that the Old Testament law is left unchanged today.

Rushdoony too often musters the support of advocates of biblical law without recognizing that he is putting words into their mouths. He quotes many people in favor of biblical law throughout history, but doesn’t seem to recognize that their positions may be nuanced in ways that would actually disagree with his position. What I mean by this, is that Rushdoony argues that you either favor his articulation of biblical law or you are antinomian. There is no middle ground to be found. Either the Old Testament law is in force today in his flattened, hyper-covenantal way, or you are an antinomian.

I reject Rushdoony’s dichotomy. The Bible does not require, nor does it teach such polarities. Rushdoony argues that Christ’s fulfilling the law in no way terminates the Mosaic covenant. Instead, he argues that Gentiles are now folded into that covenant and must continue the covenantal obligations. This is a flattening of Scripture and a misunderstanding of Christ’s ministry.

Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law because Israel, nor any man, could not. The law is superceded in that it is now complete. We are dead to law and live by the Spirit. But where Rushdoony would say this is antinomianism, I argue it is covenant fulfillment. Christians are not required to fulfill the covenant obligations from the Mosaic covenant, but are to live under the force of New Covenant obligations. The obligations are similar, but different because of Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Testament law, his death, burial, and resurrection.

Tom Ascol, in two very helpful blog posts demonstrates that the Ten Commandments were enforced prior to their delivery to Moses, and they are still in force today:

http://tomascol.com/the-ten-commandme...

http://tomascol.com/the-ten-commandme...

Rushdoony makes the same claim, arguing that God told Adam his law. Yet the Bible does not actually say this. Still, God judged man according to the same law he later articulated to Moses. There are massive implications here and Rushdoony makes the assumption that God delivered this law to Adam. Maybe he did—but maybe Adam understood these laws because he understood God’s character? Maybe it is a form of natural law?

God is eternal and his law is derived and reflective of his character. On this all Christians should be able to agree. God judged early man by the same standard he delivered to Moses, and still judges man today by the same standard. The difference is that in the Mosaic covenant he delivered a specific law to a specific people, at a specific time. The laws found in the Mosaic covenant are more detailed with extensive case law for broad application that taught the character of God in manifold ways.

These laws were designed to set apart Israel from the nations around it and to act as a “guardian until Christ came” (Gal. 3:24). Israel had to live by faith, trusting that by their obedience to law, they would be justified. This was an act of faith—in the same way Christians today are justified. We are told to live by faith—believing that Christ’s death and resurrection brings the same declaration of justification.

So while God’s law is still in force today, it is not in force in the hyper-covenantal manner that Rushdoony articulates. God’s law cannot change because he does not change. What changed is the progressive revelation to man of God’s character and his eternal plan for the redemption of man through the death and resurrection of His Christ.

So rather than simply applying Old Testament law to the New Testament era in a flattened way, we must understand the law in light of Christ’s fulfillment of the law and the New Testament Scriptures. Yes, this leaves certain questions and it is difficult to actually search the Scriptures and apply it to us today. But how is this significantly different from what Israel had to do? Israel had case law that they had to understand and apply. We do the same thing today.

“The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.” (Psalm 19:7-9 ESV)

God gave a wonderful gift to Israel when he delivered his law. He gave them an explicit picture of his character and his standards. God’s greater gift was Christ, who fulfilled the law when man could not. The standard is left, but there is forgiveness because of Christ. Let us look to Christ, and to his law because they are both given by the same God.

Rushdoony is right that by surrendering biblical law, we are left with anarchy or statism. Natural law is not viable. Leaving the law to reason is dangerous in that law is left to “the wise” and Christ came to humble the wise. Let us instead apply the Word of God to all of life. But let us not ignore Christ’s myriad accomplishments including his fulfillment of the law.

John Frame is right when he says, “Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law is a big book, with great strengths and great weaknesses.” And we’ll have to start taking Rushdoony seriously. If not, we will continue to wander in the desert of statist law.

Don’t miss John Frame’s excellent review:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/the-in...

[Catherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Warning to Evangeligoopies: this is not the book you're looking for. Go back to your Max Lucado, Joel Osteen and Daily Bread devotionals for your self-affirmation and your warm fuzzies. 'Cause you won't find it here. Certified 100% goop-free reading.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent.

[Peter Bringe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a seminal book on understanding biblical law, its way of life, and applying it to civilization. Rushdoony's writing is unique and insightful. I don't always agree with his positions, but even in those places he is beneficial to read. You do have to pay careful attention to his line of thought, as it isn't always conventional. Also, it is pretty amazing how well-read Rushdoony is, which gives him a very practical edge on applying biblical law.

"The goal of atonement, of redemption, is the rule of God over a kingdom wholly subject to the law of the covenant, and joyfully so....Without the dimension of law, life is denied the meaning and purpose of re-birth." (p. 73)

[Ian Hodge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law follows his earlier books outlining the influence of Greek and neoplatonic thought into modern culture, and therefore modern Christianity. Rushdoony saw clearly two choices: man's law or God's law. He recognized that non-biblical thought had misdirected everyone's attention from the unified covenants of the Bible. This book is an attempt to explain God's Law (Torah).

[Steve Hemmeke · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was quite taken aback to begin reading the introduction to the Institutes of Biblical Law and find Calvin’s view of the law dubbed “heretical nonsense” (9). Rushdoony pulls no punches.

Surveying the 10 commandments for 650 pages, and then turning to the use of the law throughout Scripture for another 200, Rushdoony is an insightful cultural critic and decent exegete, but his theological view of the law within the entire scope of Scripture is off kilter.

There is a wealth of information on the Ten Commandments, applied throughout Scripture and today. He helpfully explains the principle behind obscure and bizarre (sounding to moderns) laws. The danger of doing getting so specific is inferring too much from the law, and Rushdoony falls into this plenty often, I think. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment.” This leads to transvestites, but starts with confusing gender roles. So, men shouldn’t do “woman’s work” (437), for example. It’s good to apply every Word of God specifically, and in every legitimate way possible, but we may not infer too much from a text. Scripture must interpret Scripture. In this example, we note the Proverbs 31 woman makes forays into “man’s work,” but it isn’t her primary activity. A man can help his wife with the dishes without violating Scripture!

Theologically, everything leads back to the paramount law for Rushdoony, whether it is grace, communion, baptism, etc. An example: “The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the renewal of the covenant so that the sacrament itself re-establishes the law" (7). That's just a strange way to put things. Love and covenant relationship is the point, more than the law. The sacraments re-affirm the ongoing relationship IN SPITE of our law breaking. They are sacraments of the covenant of grace. This phrase gives me a queer feeling that for Rushdoony the law is the end all and be all of religion. This often feels like Judaizing, and contrary to Paul’s letters and the book of Hebrews, to which he seldom refers. It feels like it, but it is not. His view of grace cancelling the punishments of the law appears to be orthodox elsewhere, though he places much more emphasis on the use of the law in society. He hammers away at Romans 8:4, that the righteous requirement of the law is meant to be fulfilled in us, and this is needed in our day. He just does it in a way that makes you think the law is the end-all and be-all of Christianity, which it isn’t.

He denies any place for common grace: that the unregenerate can come to some wisdom in governing men and nations. A society is either founded on the Law-Word of God and faithful, or it is looking to the wisdom of man and it is apostate. This is certainly clear, but too either-or. What if states are free to apply the “general equity” of God’s law, as Westminster and Calvin taught? He is quick to throw out the charge of antinomianism, and the church HAS fallen into sin by claiming to be under grace. But Rushdoony charges the mainstream Reformed position that the state is not held to enforce the whole of Biblical law as antinomian.

Rushdoony is very influential in my circles. He gives you a clear place to stand (or a way to fight) in a morally degenerating culture: the law. As the church finds herself increasingly in a “bread and circuses” culture, she is more susceptible to over-responding into the Donatist and ascetic heresies. I’m not calling Rushdoony a Donatist or heretic in any other way. But he does make some grandiose claims for how the law can preserve and save a society. I would like to interact positively with his views, especially asking which laws are binding on individuals and on the state today (without the charge of antinomianism being applied for even asking the question), while toning down the “silver bullet” expectations that just going back to the law will solve our problems. The law is a real piece of the solution, as is the Church, and especially the Spirit working repentance and grace in the heart.

There is too much for a short review. Insightful exegesis is mixed with off balance theology. This continues in the appendices by Gary North. John Frame sums it up best: “Yes, we must not substitute love for law; but we had better not substitute law for love either. Yes, love may be defined in terms of law; but the requirement of the law is also summarized and defined in the love-commandment…. A bit more “sympathy” with people and a bit less preoccupation with legal rights would greatly improve his treatment of these matters…. Rushdoony has been so preoccupied with the question of the authority of the law that he has missed some very weighty elements of biblical teaching…. he tends to set himself off so sharply from other Reformed thinkers that he is not in a very good position to benefit from their counsel. Nor are they in a good position to benefit from his.”


See here for my previous thoughts on Rushdoony
http://hemmeke.blogspot.com/search?q=...

See here for John Frame’s excellent and more indepth review of this book.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/the-in...

[Josiah Russell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I may not necessarily agree with every point made in this book but I really enjoy reading Rushdoony’s work and think the modern church is really doing itself a disservice by neglecting it.
I also found Gary North’s small essay and critique at the end on ‘strict sabbatarianism’ very thought provoking.
Overall it is quite a large volume but well worth the time to read. Definitely recommend.

[Douglas Hayes · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most significant books I have ever read. I've made all my children read it, and I've done book studies through it twice.

Rushdoony at his best!

[Nathan Albright · Rating 3 out of 5]

My feelings about Calvinism are not very hidden.  I'm pretty open about them, and the thoughts tend towards the negative [1].  This book, at 850 pages, is a good reason as to why this is the case.  Few books are as frustrating as this one is, with a great deal of wisdom and insight on the level of broad theory and approach and such terrible interpretation of scripture and history on the specific level.  Few books combine such a pitiless and remorseless logic with such a nauseating lack of self-awareness.  This is a book all about condemning sinners of various stripes--and there are many--yet it manages at every turn to condemn the author and those who think like him, if that crowd was reflective enough to see it and take heed.  The author, and especially Gary North, who writes some of the supporting material at the end of this massive book, are the worst kind of antinomians in existence--first they try to overawe the reader with rhetorical blasts about supposedly having a so much more consistent and high-minded view of the law than everyone else, before seeking to wiggle out through fallacious reasoning from obedience to God's laws, ending up being as disobedient as ordinary sinners but far more strident and harsh.  

In terms of its contents, this book makes for a fairly good representative of the work of Christian reconstructionists in terms of its size and difficulty.  Most of the book consists of the author giving a discussion about the ten commandments and tying them to the author's own political and economic agendas which are themselves not biblical.  In reading this book, one gets a lot more information about how the author feels about culture and politics than about the Bible, and where the Bible is discussed, the general rule of thumb to approach this book is that where the author is discussing broad overall themes and approaches it is quite good but when the author is discussing specific applications of biblical law then the approach is usually misguided.  A few examples should suffice.  The author, when talking about lying, chooses as his example the historical fact that six million or so Jews died in the Holocaust as being a lie by virtue of being an exaggeration, making a doubly unsatisfactory point in lying through Holocaust denial and minimization while simultaneously falsely accusing someone else of lying.  The author's open admiration for the John Birch Society and the author's conflation of coveting and stealing so as to deny the aspect of covetousness speaking to the heart are similarly poor efforts.  Gary North's openly avowed antinomian approach to the Sabbath is one of the worst examples of biblical exegesis that can be found in any book pretending to be Christian, and all the more galling in light of the elevated claims for having a high degree of regard for God's laws that can be found here.

So, what does one get out of this book?  Why would someone take the time to read 850 pages of densely argued and intellectually dishonest work?  I can see at least two reasons for reading this book and others like it.  First, this book offers some useful rhetorical arguments for obeying God's law in the broad stroke, and offers some worthwhile criticism of many of the tendencies of both church and state in these corrupt days that are worthy of appreciation, however unworthy the author is at making those points given his own hypocrisy and blindness.  Even more to the point, though, this book is an object lesson in how unpleasant the self-righteous are.  In ridiculing and attacking the Pharisees, the author points at least as many fingers at himself and his associates as he points at those legalistic blind guides.  The way that the author beclowns himself through being blind to his own sins and faults while being unmerciful towards the sins and faults of others is a tendency that no would-be critic is immune to, and seeing how badly this book fares as an explanation of how to apply God's timeless laws in contemporary society while also being loving and gracious to others is a reminder to every reader that without the grace of God, we could be Calvinists too.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

[Jason Sixsmith · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s some great exposition of Scripture here and Rushdoony offers some of the best social commentary as the modern Church (and society) is mired in antinomianism. I’d recommend this book as wise council for sanctification even though I don’t fully agree with the author’s dichotomy of God’s Law vs Natural Law.

John Frame’s review of this work is helpful.

https://frame-poythress.org/the-insti...
—
We used to enforce blasphemy laws, rooted in Scripture, in early America. Early American Christians understood that civil law could not be separated from Biblical law because the Biblical doctrine of law includes all law - civil, ecclesiastical, societal, familial, and all other forms of law, and that a social order that despises God’s law is marked for judgment.

Over time egalitarian heretics convinced America that tolerance was a virtue in order to remove such laws, as they expanded the definition of free speech.
But law in every culture is religious in origin. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture.
When our increasingly secular humanist culture began ignoring blasphemy in the late 19th century and ultimately declared blasphemy laws unconstitutional in 1952, because no society exists without a religious foundation or law system which codifies the morality of its religion, it actually began replacing Christian blasphemy laws with “hate speech” largely defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL.

The modern American Church has been largely impotent because it fails to see that Biblical faith requires and creates a rival government to the humanistic state by way of God’s civil law. (Of course salvation, our regeneration, is the essential starting point of the Christian life, but if it is made the sum total thereof, it is in effect denied.)

The Western Church has increasingly adopted this antinomian/closeted faith as it has surrendered our language and our society to the secular humanists; instead of calling things by their biblical names the modern preacher employs the language of psychology when addressing matters of the soul - speaking in therapeutic terms to soften the conviction of sins (violations of God’s law), and so they trade the Great Physicians surgical scalpel for secular tools that cannot heal. When they speak of missions, advocates of church growth use language of marketing and consumption, and churches are encouraged to refashion the Gospel to make it more competitive in a climate in which the entertainment industry sets the cultural pace. Christians enter the political arena using what the secular humanists insist is “neutral language” because they believe appeals to man must come at the expense of theology. Their greatest shame, embarrassment, and anger are reserved for the faithful Christian who understands that every law system can only maintain its existence by hostility to every other law system… and to alien religious foundations, or else it commits suicide.

The increasing breakdown of law and order must first be attributed to the churches and their persistent antinomianism, which once had wisdom on its tongue but now increasingly thinks that keeping its mouth shut is proper decorum.

h/t
RJ Rushdoony, Institutes
Peter Leitheart, Against Christianity

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

RJR does an excellent job contrasting Biblical law with humanistic law. He also opens up the decalogue beyond what most would have ever considered. He does this by bringing in specific case laws and then applying them to contemporary situations. In doing this, RJR honors the Westminster Divine who wrote that the law passed away with Israel, except for where the general equity applies. Apparently there is lots of general equity. A couple of shortcomings keep it from being 5-star. One is his tendency to find a nuanced definition or interpretation and building a case on that. Another is his unwillingness to admit that Jesus Himself and the vision to Peter revealed a passing-away of the dietary laws. For RJR to state that Peters vision did not annul dietary laws is to hold a position beyond that which Scripture permits. Still, much more good and applicable than not.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

YAY I AM DONE! *does happy dance* The Institute of Bibical Law is truly a facinating read, it stretched my thoughts and opinions to a remarkable extent, and I have a better grasp of the Bible because of it.
It was, though, long and I often struggled to finish it. While adjetives like "facinating" or "fantastic" might be a bit more enthusastic then the book deserves, it certainly is an educational read that the you can't help but learn from.

[Jeremy Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

R. J. Rushdoony is a modern day Moses. This book is the foundational book for all his other many writings.

As Rushdoony has said before, "Christ does not save men in order to make them moral idiots."

Rushdoony desires for the world to have true revival, and revival comes when men are called out of their lawless living, back into obedience to the law of God. We do not obey God so that we may be saved, we obey the law of God because we have been saved.

Read Rushdoony

[Rkeddins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on understanding God's law and how it applies to society and the believer. This book has greatly developed my understanding of biblical law. It is so important in understanding both covenants that I've used it as a family study.

[Winnie Thornton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boy, this was a long time ago. All I know is that I liked it.

[Felipe Sabino · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente! Fantástico!

[Douglas Ramsburg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my favorite book besides the Bible. Rushdoony shows how God's law should be applied to modern day society like now one I have ever read!

[Father Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rushdoony does it for me.

[Frank Brito · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent!

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Foundational. Every high school student should read this.

[Jonah · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great work.

[Kevin Hadley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A masterwork.

[Gwen Saunders · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book ever written on Biblical Law.

[Joshua Horn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read most of vol. 1 of Institutes of Biblical law during our church's study on the ten commandments. I think John Frame's lengthy review from 1976 is really good, and I'll just link to it here rather than trying to restate everything it says:

https://frame-poythress.org/the-insti...

Before reading this book I was already convinced of "theonomy," so I didn't really need Rushdoony's conviction on that side. As far as the major issues I saw with the book, it seemed quite disorganized, and I disagreed with a good number of his specific interpretations, most dramatically in the 4th and 9th commandments, which in my humble opinion he completely misses the point of.

Dispite those, and other issues that Frame addresses, I think this book would be great for every Christian to read. During the Reformation, only limited progress was made in applying God's law to government, and the church is much in need of further reformation in these areas. Rushdoony's work, although not the end-all-be-all, is valuable as an attempt to apply God's word to modern civil society.

[Brie Donning · Rating 5 out of 5]

A heavy book, controversial at points, definitely made me think. I've got a clearer understanding of Bibcal law and how it could be applied, along with history of how it has been applied, how it has been attacked, and how it still is applied.
Especially interesting were the chapter.on the 7th Commandment, dealing with the roles of men and women, and an essay in the appendices on bribery and the heresies of humanism, moralism, and legalism. Legalism is actually like magic, and not the innocent fantasy kind.

I highly recommend this book, even read of a period of several years.

[Aurora Grace · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rushdoony's most comprehensive and important work. Dominionism progressed from Kuyper to Machen to Van Til, and from Van Til to Rushdoony and Francis Schaeffer. In this book, Rushdoony tries to establish dominionism, opposes interracial marriage, and flirts with holocaust denial. He advocates the murder of anyone found to have violated the laws of the Old Testament and supports the systematic suppression of anything except his own view of Christian faith. While he does not want the church to rule the state, he does advocate for a theocratic state based on medieval feudalism.

[Mark Bennon · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 star

This was a long technical read but it was not slow. Rushdoony is a great writer and he has a gift at getting to the heart of a matter and staying there. The law has been so maligned or ignored in the Evangelical church that this book was at times treading ground my feet have not travelled. I would strongly recommend this to anyone.

I didn't align with Rushdoony on all topics but those instances were few and far between.

[Isaac · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rushdoony should be part of your reading as you study the 10 commandments. Thomas Watson should be read first though! Reads like reflective notes on the law rather than strict exegesis, many important insights, but frequently goes wondering from the text. A number of his thoughts need to be more carefully reasoned from the text of scripture IMHO. Many important thoughts that the church needs to hear also.

[Ned · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book

Christians and churches must awaken to the authority of God's law and reign in every sphere of life if we are to be faithful to our calling. I pray for strong and courageous Christians who will unapologetically assert Christ's authority over every domain of life. Stop it with the namby pamby antinomian preaching.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

What can I say that would do this volume justice? This book is not for the faint of heart evangelicals. I have read it, now being the third book on Biblical Law I have read, I think more study is yet to be had; reading once is only opening the door to the dark underworld of Protestantism.