The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction

by Gary DeMar

What is "Christian Reconstruction" and is it biblical? These are the questions raised and answered by Gary DeMar. The occasion for this book was a debate in 1988 between two Reconstructionists (Gary North and Gary DeMar) and two anti-Reconstructionists (Tommy Ice and Dave Hunt). In The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction, Gary DeMar presents what Christian Reconstruction is, and the answers the questions raised by Tommy Ice concerning postmillennialism and by Dave Hunt concerning biblical law.

284 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 1988

About the author

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. In 2007, he earned his Ph.D. in Christian Intellectual History from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandson. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 3 out of 5]

A CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONIST VIEW OF THE DEBATE

Gary DeMar is the president of American Vision, and a popular writer on eschatology, Christian Reconstruction, and Americanism. This 1988 book is DeMar's (somewhat one-sided, naturally) summary and response to the April 14, 1988 debate between Reconstructionists Gary North and Gary Demar, and opponents Thomas ("Tom" or "Tommy") Ice and Dave Hunt.

He deals with the objection, "Those who hear the debate tapes may come away wondering why Dr. North and I did not deal with all the numerous eschatological points raised by Hunt and Ice. The answer is simple: We came to debate Christian Reconstruction, of which eschatology is one part... our presentation ... covered the main distinctives of Christian Reconstruction, while Ice and Hunt overemphasized the single distinctive of postmillennialism." (Pg. 76)

He argues, "the dispensationalist ... must separate the 70th from the 69th week. Whatever the interpretation is, it comes on the heels of the 69th week. It's a past event from our perspective. We do not need to look for a future fulfillment." (Pg. 128) He asserts, "The text tells us that God 'will overthrow the chariots and their riders...' (Haggai 2:22). This is a description of pre-modern armies... some might conclude that chariots and swords are nothing more than a description of implements of war for any age. But doesn't this severely damage the 'literal hermeneutic' espoused by dispensationalists?" (Pg. 136)

He rejects Hunt/Ice arguing that national Israel is symbolized by the fig tree: "where is the biblical evidence for this? There is no biblical evidence. Even Hal Lindsey admits this when he writes, 'The figure of speech "fig tree" has been a HISTORIC symbol of national Israel.' It may be an historic symbol, but it's not a BIBLICAL symbol. Lindsey doesn't even prove how it's an historic symbol." (Pg. 143)

This book will be of considerable interest to Christian Reconstructionists, Postmillennialists, and perhaps even some Partial or Full Preterists.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quick read, neither good or bad. Other than Jim Jordan's appendix, nothing to write home about.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a book version of a debate between Gary DeMar and Gary North as the Reconstructionists and Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice as the dispensational critics of Christian Reconstruction. The first half of the book is a discussion of the Christian Reconstruction, followed by a summary of the debate itself.

Hunt and Ice attacked DeMar and North primarily as postmillenialists, so the book is mislabeled, as the debate was originally about Christian Reconstruction, but Hunt and Ice turned it into a debate between postmillenialists and premillenial dispensationalism. This, unfortunately, made the book very redundant, considering the extensive writing the reconstructionists have done on postmillenialism.

There is much good material here, it just doesn't cover much new ground. It is quite amazing at how incapable Hunt and Ice were of understanding and actually critiquing reconstructionism. They seem to have almost no grasp at all of the issues of the debate and seemed wholly intent on articulating their views on eschatology over anything else.

There's some good material here, it is just better presented in other books.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the plus side of good.

[Felipe Sabino]

Muito bom!