Act Two, Scene Four: If the Bible Is the Standard, Are Faith and Repentance Required for Citizenship?

Published on by D. G. Hart

I haven’t been keeping up with Dr. Kloosterman’s serialized review of VanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. The series is reminiscent of the way that George Eliot and Charles Dickens wrote novels – you put together enough stories and episodes over a half-year in a magazine and you finally have one Home Depot of a novel. By going chapter by chapter, Kloosterman was pointing toward a review of novel-sized proportions. (It surely has its fictional elements.)

The last I noticed, when he came to VanDrunen’s chapter on Kuyper, Kloosterman indicated that he might need to back off lest the length of the series seem like a personal vendetta (ya think?):

First, institutional friends and defenders of NL2K are mistakenly characterizing this extended review as a personal attack or worse, an institutional polemic, neither of which has ever been the case. I have been writing this review as a Reformed theologian and ethicist who for several years has been vigorously and publicly disagreeing with the project and analysis being promoted by NL2K representatives, during which time I have never written as an institutional representative. Until now I had failed to realize that, as one respondent has put it, in criticizing Dr. VanDrunen’s views I would be perceived to be criticizing his school. Are we to conclude, then, that his NL2K project is that of an entire seminary? Moreover, the refusal of these friends and defenders to engage the substance of my observations in this review, which have been supported by contextual citations, numerous source references, and sustained argument, seems to suggest that there is more interest in securing turf than in seeking truth.

So it seemed in this fifth installment that Kloosterman was going to wrap up this review. Well, lo and behold, I now see that he has two reviews of the Kuyper chapter alone, and has since written three installments on the neo-Calvinist section of VanDurnen’s book (it is, of course, all Dutch all the time with Dr. K).

So here we go back to his first response to VanDrunen on Kuyper. Kloosterman boils down his entire objection to 2k in one simple point:

The very point of debate involves our use of and appeal to Scripture in public moral discourse, the authority of Scripture and the rule of Jesus Christ over Christian living in the world, involving issues like education, sexual ethics, marriage, euthanasia, and the like. We have just seen how Kuyper insisted on the need for, and priority of, Scripture for rightly interpreting and applying the natural law concretely.

So this is it — may we appeal to Scripture in public debates or not? Is the Bible the standard for public life or not? For Kloosterman it must be Scripture before natural law. Otherwise, sinful human beings will misinterpret natural law. Scripture is the only sure foundation.

I know I have said this before, but I do wonder if Dr. K. has actually considered where his logic leads him.

First, only the regenerate can interpret the Bible correctly because they have been illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Second, only the regenerate have the capacity to interpret natural law correctly.

Third, unbelieving citizens have no possibility of participating in public life because they are unregenerate and cannot interpret the Bible correctly. Scripture cannot be a standard for them.

Fourth, unbelievers may not hold public office for the same reasons as the third point.

Fifth, Dr. K. is advocating a theocracy even though he doesn’t know it. He has no place in his scheme for unbelievers. If the Bible is the standard, the only people who submit to and read the Bible faithfully are those upon whom the Holy Spirit has worked.

So in his effort to bring the Bible back to the public square, Dr. K. has just vacated the square of all who cannot submit to Scripture.

Now, this is one possible solution to our predicament as Dr. K. understands it. All Christians can gather together in one nation (the Netherlands), or several Christian nations (the United States, Canada, and Scotland), and unbelievers can scatter to their nations. But haven’t we been here before? And isn’t that really the theocratic arrangement of the Old Testament?

Or we can affirm that every person has the capacity, though flawed, to perceive the moral law that God has written on the human heart and that is writ large in the book of nature. This morality is not sufficient for salvation. And it won’t see justice roll down like a river, maybe only like a faucet leak. But it is sufficient for the magistrates whom God has ordained to do their jobs in pursuing a measure of justice and establishing social order.

But if Dr. K. wants the Bible to be the standard without a Christian Taliban in power, how is it possible for non-believers to submit to the standard of Scripture for righteousness? That standard, the last I checked the creeds of the Reformed churches, includes saving faith and repentance for people to have any hope of complying with God’s law.

The only way, then, that divinely revealed law could be used as a standard for the United States, which included Christians and non-believers, might be for Dr. K. to revise what Scripture requires as its standard for goodness. Maybe he has in mind merely outward conformity to the norms of Scripture, but not a love of God with all one’s heart, soul, strength, and mind. But that would mean that Dr. K. had adopted an Arminian standard for public life. In which case his standard is no longer biblical.

Amazing the contortions we go through when we try to make the Bible speak to what we think is most important.

160 thoughts on “Act Two, Scene Four: If the Bible Is the Standard, Are Faith and Repentance Required for Citizenship?”

  3. FYI, might help you think a little more clearly about “theocracy”….hope so.

    John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
    Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
    Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
    Recovering Republican
    JLof@aol.com

    THE MEANING OF THEOCRACY

    By Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

    Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.

    In Biblical law, the only civil tax was the head or poll tax, the same for all males twenty years of age and older (Ex. 30:11-16). This tax provided an atonement or covering for people, i.e. the covering of civil protection by the State as a ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-4). This very limited tax was continued by the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem, and from 768-900 AD helped make the Jewish princedom of Narbonne (in France) and other areas a very important and powerful realm (see Arthur J. Zuckerman: ” A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France 768-900” (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1965, 1972). This tax was limited to half a sheckel of silver per man.

    All other functions of government were financed by the tithe. Health, education, welfare, worship, etc., were all provided for by tithes and offerings. Of this tithe, one tenth (i.e. one percent of one’s income) went to the priests for worship. Perhaps an equal amount went for music, and for the care of the sanctuary. The tithe was God’s tax, to provide for basic government in God’s way. The second and the third tithes provided for welfare, and for the family’s rest and rejoicing before the Lord (see E.A. Powell and R.J. Rushdoony: “Tithing and Dominion” (Ross House Books, P.O. Box 67 Vallecito, CA 95251).

    What we today fail to see, and must recapture, is the fact that the basic governmentis the self-governing of covenant man; then the family is the central governing institutionof Scripture. The school is a governmental agency, and so too is the church. Our vocation also governs us, and our society. Civil government must be one form of government among many, and a minor one. Paganism (and Baal worship in all its forms) made the State and its rulers into a god or gods walking on earth, and gave them total over-rule in all spheres. The prophets denounced all such idolatry, and the apostles held, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

    From the days of the Caesars to the heads of the democratic states and Marxist empires, the ungodly have seen what Christians too often fail to see, namely, that Biblical faith requires and creates a rival government to the humanistic State. Defective faith seeks to reduce Biblical faith to a man-centered minimum, salvation. Now salvation, our re-generation, is the absolutely essential starting point of the Christian life, but, if it is made the sum total thereof, it is in effect denied. Salvation is then made into a man-centered and egotistical thing, when it is in fact God-centered and requires the death, not the enthronement, of our sinful and self-centered ego. We are saved for God’s purposes, saved to serve, not in time only, but eternally (Rev. 22:3). To be saved is to be working members of that realm.

    In a theocracy, therefore, God and His law rule. The State ceases to be the over-lord and ruler of man. God’s tax, the tithe, is used by Godly men to create schools, hospitals, welfare agencies, counselors and more. It provides, as it did in Scripture, for music and more. All the basic social financing, other than the head tax of Ex. 30:11-16 was provided for by tithes and offerings or gifts. An offering or gift was that which was given above and over a tithe.

    Since none of the tithe agencies have any coercive power to collect funds, none can exist beyond their useful service to God and man. For the modern State, uselessness and corruption are no problem; they do not limit its power to collect more taxes. Indeed, the State increases its taxing power because it is more corrupt and more useless, because its growing bureaucracy demands it.

    California State Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson has repeatedly called attention to the fact that, once elected, public officials respond only under pressure to their voters but more to their peer group and their superiors. Lacking faith, they are governed by power.

    People may complain about the unresponsiveness of their elected officials, and their subservience to their peers and superiors, but nothing will alter this fact other than a change in the faith of the electorate and the elected. Men will respond to and obey the dominant power in their lives, faith, and perspective. If that dominant power or god in their lives is the State, they will react to it. If, however, it is the triune God of Scripture who rules them, then men will respond to and obey His law-word. Men will obey their gods.

    One of the more important books of this country was Albert Jay Nock’s “Our Enemy, The State”(Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho, 1935). Without agreeing with Nock in all things, it is necessary to agree with him that the modern State is man’s new church and saving institution. The state, however, is an antisocial institution, determined to suppress and destroy all the historic and religiously grounded powers of society. With F.D. Roosevelt and “The New Deal,” the goal of the Statists became openly “the complete extinction of social power through absorption by the State” (p.21). This will continue in its suicidal course, until there is not enough social power left to finance the State’s plans (as became the case in Rome). The State’s intervention into every realm is financed by the productivity of the non-Statist and economic sector: “Intervention retards production; then the resulting stringency and inconvenience enable further intervention, which in turn still further retards production; and this process goes on until, as in Rome, in the third century, production ceases entirely, and the source of payment dries up” (p.151f). It is true that crime needs suppression, but, instead of suppressing crime, the State safeguards its own monopoly of crime.”

    We can add that the solution to crime and injustice is not more power to the state, but God’s law and a regenerate man. The best safeguard against crime is godly men and a godly society. Furthermore, God’s law, in dealing with crime, requires restitution and with habitual criminals, the death penalty. (See R.J. Rushdoony: “Institutes of Biblical Law”).

    One more important point from Nock: he called attention to the fact that “social power” once took care of all emergencies, relieves, and disasters. When the Johnstown flood occurred all relief and aid was the result of a great outpouring of “private” giving. “Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. (p.6)

    This was once the only way such crises were met. Can it happen again? The fact is that it is happening again. Today, between 20-30% of all school children K-12 are in non-state-ist schools, and the percentage is likely to pass 50% by 1990 if Christians defend their schools from state-ist interventionism. More and more Christians are recognizing their duties for the care of their parents; churches are again assuming, in many cases, the care of elderly members. Homes for the elderly people, and also for delinquent children are being established. (One of the more famous of these, under the leadership of Lester Roloff, was under attack by the State, which refused to recognize sin as the basic problem with delinquents, and regeneration and sanctification as the answer.) Christians are moving into the areas of radio and television, not only to preach salvation but to apply Scripture to political, economic and other issues.

    Moreover, everywhere Christians are asking themselves the question, “What must I do, now that I am saved?” Answers take a variety of forms: textbook publishing for Christian Schools; periodicals and more. The need to revive and extend Christian hospitals is being recognized and much, much more.

    Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that when Christ was born, the government was to be on His shoulders, and that “Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end.” By means of their tithing and actions, believers are in increasing numbers submitting to Christ’s government and re-ordering life and society in terms of it.

    The essence of humanism, from Francis stateto the present, has been this creed: to be human, man must be in control (Jeremy Rifkin with Ted Howard: “The Emerging Order”, p. 27.). This is an indirect way of saying that man is not man unless the government of all things is upon his shoulders, unless he is himself God. It is the expression of the tempter’s program of revolt against God (Gen. 3:5). John Locke developed this faith by insisting that Christianity thus could not be the basis of public activity, but only a private faith. The foundation of the State and of public life was for Locke, in reason.

    But, reason, separated from Christian faith and presupposition, became man’s will, or better, man’s will in radical independence from God. The State then began to claim one area of life after another as public domain and hence under the State as reason incarnate. One of the first things claimed by Locke’s philosophy and “reason” was man himself! Man, instead of being a sinner, was, at least in the human and public realm, morally neutral; he was a blank piece of paper, and what he became was a product of education and experience. It thus was held necessary for the state, the incarnate voice of “reason,” to control education in order to product the desired kind of man.

    The State claimed the public realm. The public realm had belonged, in terms of Christian faith, to God, like all things else, and to a free society under God. The church was scarcely dislodged from its claims over the public realm when the state came in to claim it with even more total powers.

    But this was not all. The state enlarged the public realm by new definitions, so that steadily, one sphere after another fell into the hands of the state. Education was claimed, and control over economics, a control which is now destroying money and decreasing social and economic productivity. The arts and sciences are subsidized and controlled, and are begging for more. Marriage and the family are controlled; a White House Conference on the Family viewed the family as a public and hence, Statist realm, one the state must invade and control.

    Ancient Rome regarded religion itself as a public domain and hence licensed and controlled it. (The very word “liturgy,” Greek in origin, means public service. Religion is indeed a public concern, more so than the state, but not thereby a matter for state-ist control.) Rome, like all ancient pagan states, equated the public domain with the state’s domain, and it saw all things as aspects of the state’s domain.

    For any one institution to see itself as the public domain is totalitarianism. All things public and private are in the religious domain and under God. No institution, neither church nor state, can equate itself with God, and claim control of the public (or private) domain. Every sphere of life is interdependent with other spheres and alike under God. No more than mathematics has the “right” to control biology do church or state have the “right” to control one another, or anything beyond their severely limited sphere of government.

    There are thus a variety of spheres of government under God. There spheres are limited, interdependent and under God’s sovereign government and law-word. They cannot legitimately exceed their sphere. The legitimate financial powers of all are limited. The state has a small head tax. The tithe finances all other spheres.

    The tithe, it must be emphasized, is to the Lord, not to the church, a difference some churchmen choose to miss or overlook. This robs the individual believer of all right to complain about things; by the godly use of his tithe, he can create new agencies, churches, schools, and institutions to further God’s Kingdom in every area of life and thought. Holiness comes not by our abilities to whine and bewail the things that are, but by our faithful use of the tithe and the power God gives us to remake all things according to His Word.

    Tithing and godly action, these are the keys to dominion. We are called to dominion (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:1-17; Joshua 1:1-9; Matt. 28:18020; etc.). The creation mandate is our covenant mandate; restoration into the covenant through Christ’s atonement restores us into the mandate to exercise dominion and gives us the power to effect it.

    Aspects of that mandate can be exercised through institutions, and sometimes must be, but the mandate can never be surrendered to them. The mandate precedes all instructions, and it is to man personally as man (Gen. 1:28). This is the heart of theocracy as the Bible sets it forth. Dictionaries to the contrary, theocracy is not a government by the state, but a government over every institution by God and His Law, and through the activities of the free man in Christ to bring ever area of life and thought under Christ’s Kingship.

    Like

  4. Pingback: Act Two, Scene Four: If the Bible Is the Standard, Are Faith and Repentance Required for Citizenship? via Old Life Blog « Pilgrimage to Geneva

  5. I’d just like to reiterate: DGH — thank you for totally on point, very much needed, and most biblically based perspecitve for we who are in Christ Jesus.

    Like

  6. Dr. Hart,

    May I ask a question? I know this is awfully simplistic, but is the general problem: Kuyper shifted the emphasis in orthodoxy enough that his theology started producing a social gospel and lacked the corrective that 2k would have given it to stay within orthodoxy’s boundaries? If I understand correctly, that was the problem (sort of) with the Barmen Declaration and why Hermann Sasse objected to it? Or am I off in La-La land again? I would appreciate it if you would correct my understanding.

    Like

  7. Dr. Hart,

    I’m sorry to trouble you, but I am trying to understand the gist of things and trying to connect dots (another one of those pain-in-the-neck amateur lovers of history). If I remember rightly, Kuyper was one of the theologians whose work produced the social gospel. Skip to pre-WWII and one of Sasse’s objections to Barmen was the overreach of the church on the state (eg: another instance the social gospel and 2k confusion?). It’s bugging me = can’t check my memory because I no longer have my Sasse books (gave them to a seminarian). Skip to our present time and your argument is the continuing saga of dealing with a social gospel and 2k confusion?

    Like

  8. Lily, as I understand it, we need to keep Kuyper’s background in the state church, from which he eventually separated in the 1890s. But the position of the church in relation to the state as part of Dutch Christian society was still very much in his outlook. He did revise significantly the older understanding of the magistrate and worked out a theory that accommodated the religious diversity of the NL. He was willing to work with Roman Catholics and argue for the validity of their churches and schools. But he still had an ideal of the Christian origins of the Netherlands and wanted to recover the glories of that older Reformation pattern. I do believe that it leads to a kind of social gospel. It may be orthodox. But if it gets the kingdoms wrong, it wobbles and easily breaks down, which the church that Kuyper founded did.

    Like

  9. Many thanks, Dr. Hart, I appreciate your answer. The way historians know all of the twists, turns, and nuances that are so important can be mind-boggling for me. The great majority of these things are over my head, but I’m still fascinated by it all and want to learn about it.

    I think Sasse having an objection on 2k grounds must be a figment of my imagination. I’ve searched online and can find nothing that even alludes to it. While I was searching, I ran across a segment of his work that seemed to be a good summary of what you and your compatriots are doing in service to the church. If you’ve never seen it, you may appreciate his perspective on role of lies – excerpt:

    “Among the lies which destroy the church there is one we have not yet mentioned. Alongside the pious and dogmatic lies, there stands an especially dangerous form of lie which can be called the institutional lie. By this we mean a lie which works itself out in the institutions of the church, in her government and her organization. It is so dangerous because it legalizes the other lies in the church and makes them impossible to remove.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20031122043305/www.crisisinthelcms.org/sasseonlies.htm

    Like

  10. Yikes! That did not translate well. I’m trying to thank you for defending the church and offer appreciation for how difficult the work is. Sigh… will I ever learn to write well?

    Like

  11. Is Lofton ignored because that is part of the discipline for the reconstructionist theological errors in Reformed confessionalist circles? Their behaviour is in strict accordance to the Law of God which they think they are obeying better than you or I. That was always something that intimidated and drew me when I was reading their literature in copious amounts during the 80’s. I always experienced my lack the more I read of the Law of God and wondered how they seemed to be pulling it off so well. Either they were faking it or had a much stronger and sanctified will than I had. They rarely even talked of the Gospel and the Law and Gospel were not distinct entities and opposing ideas in their theology. This tension and seeming contradiction was never an issue the reconstructionists tried to deal with in their theology. Or, they ended up dealing with by erring on the side of the Law of God. I found there to be much talk about punishment and little room for forgiveness in how they interpreted the scriptures. I still have trouble reconciling the ideas of punishment (or discipline) for sin and forgiveness for sin. And how the consequences for and of our sins are dealt with. We all are on death row for our sin and sins. How we deal with this is a matter where theological traditions veer from each other. And a great divide it is.

    Like

  12. Their progress in sanctification (conformance and obedience to the Law of God) did not seem to be centered in Word and Sacrament either. They did concentrate on teaching the Word properly but were sorely lacking in their interpretations. Does this nullify the power of the Gospel? But their power seemed to come from their seeming obedience to the Law and they sought to use this moral power in their battles with the anti-Christian state. Their dominion theology has a certain attraction to it but I guess the question is are they really building the Kingdom of God when they emphasize the Law and not the Gospel?

    Like

  13. I was watching Law Abiding Citizen this afternoon and could see reconstructionism gone bad (believing God and not the corrupt anti-Christian state) in the gruesomely well thought out strategic plan of bringing the corrupt temple of the state to its knees. Done by an individual whose rights of justice, due to the murder of his wife and child, were unjustly handled by the state.

    Like

  14. Hi John,

    Much of what you are describing reminds me of the Mormons. Some of them really put us to shame with their squeaky clean lives of obedience and devotion to church and family. Their church is amazingly well-equipped in the care of it’s members and charitable endeavours. How is the group you are describing different than the Mormons?

    Like

  15. Hey John,

    When I was rummaging around online today, I ran across a 1995 anniversary edition by Logia on Hermann Sasse. I’m in the midst of reading it and thought you might enjoy it too? It’s has articles by Ron Feuerhahn, Norm Nagel, Matt Harrison, Robert Prues, and more. It’s in a pdf format so it can be saved and/or printed easily if you are interested. Would love to hear your feedback, if you decide to read it.

    Click to access 04-4%20Sasse.pdf

    Like

  16. There are many differences but some similarites too. The reconstructionists are a reformed offshoot that interpreted Kuyper and VanTil in a way that made them cultural warriors and think they are building the Kingdom of God through their cultural battles with the state. They are libertarian in their political thought and seek to establish the ideas of Austrian Economics in the state. They emphasize the Law of God in their battles with the state. They are in battle mode with the state 24/7. You should read David Van Drunens Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms and his Living in God’s Two Kingdoms to get a better understanding of why the R2K people think they went wrong.

    The Mormons are less orthodox than the reconstructionists and I think more pietistic and charismatic. They are big on the subjectivist “burning in the bossom” as a motivator towards holiness and their conception of the Kingdom of God is bizarre to say the least. The Mormons think they earn their rewards in heaven through their obedience in this life. They have lots of detailed instructions to the faithful in the Mormon Church in how to transform your life in the doctrine of apotheosis. It is similar to gnostic ideas of finding power to transform yourself through inward practices and discipline.

    That is a pretty generalized description that I did off the top of my head and probably not that helpful.

    Like

  17. Also, Scott Clark, in his book Recovering the Reformed Confession had a critique of some of the reconstructionist thinking in it. Many in the Reformed community started to critique them heavily in the late 80’s and early 90’s spearheaded by the folks at Modern Refomation magazine and Westminster Seminary California.

    Like

  18. Hi John,

    Bizarre. Sounds like the reconstructionists have one heck of a messed up eschatology and sounds like their gospel has been drowned out by the law until it’s become merely lip service. Nasty stuff. I’m glad the guys in the white hats went after them! Nice points about the Mormons.

    I’d love to read Van Drunen’s work but I have a limited budget so there are many things that have to wait. I really blew my budget when I purchased a kindle, but I’m enjoying some of Luther’s work that was free. The only thing I don’t like about the kindle is that I can no longer give books to other people – it almost seems sinful. 😉

    Like

  19. John you said Mormons are “less orthodox” than reconstructionists. That’s like saying Mormons are less orthodox than Bavinck or Berkhof. Rushdoony always followed Berkhof’s Systematic Theology and Greg Bahnsen was a graduate of WTS, and accepted its Reformed theology, and was a teacher at RTS. Mormons are heretics, so there’s no continuity between them and reconstructions.

    Darryl, so the church can’t make a proclamation that cannibilism should not be indulged in? You want the church to be THAT otherworldly?

    Like

  21. Vern, even false religionists like Mormons naturally know not to cannibalize. But since the gospel is so unnatural doesn’t seem prudent to stick to proclaiming that instead of what everybody already knows?

    Like

  23. Lily,

    Thanks for sending that copy of Logia on the work of Sasse. I have not read any of Sasse and will indulge myself in the upcoming days. I noticed that Martin Nolan is a contributer to the journal. He is related to the pastor of the Church that I go to here in the Chicago area. Anyways, thanks again- I will treasure it, bookmark it and read it thoroughly. That sounds almost idolotrous.

    Like

  24. Lily,

    I am confused and miffed as to how you are using the word “kindle.” When I think of kindle I am thinking kindling wood or some such thing related to igniting something. Or, would you rather not get into it. It may be a personal matter. I’m trying to be funny but some people do not find me that humorous.

    Like

  25. Lily,

    If, as a Kindle owner, you wish to give books away, it’s actually real easy and as an added bonus, you can earn more brownie points for your heaven-ward journey. Just buy them a Kindle as well. Then, they get all the same books you buy!!

    Like

  26. John – you are very welcome! Thanks for the interesting connection between your pastor and Martin Noland. I hold Dr. Noland in high regard for his defense of confessional Lutheranism and the price he paid for it under K’s presidency.

    Re: I will treasure it, bookmark it and read it thoroughly. That sounds almost idolotrous

    Too funny – good theology does seem to have that effect! I think you are in for a treat with Sasse. He’s not only considered a premier Lutheran theologian, but amazingly astute or perhaps the best word is prescient when it comes to identifying the state of the churches and navigating land mines. Knowing his history increased my appreciation for the importance of theology and the defense of orthodoxy. The Logia articles outlining Sasse’s history and the price he paid for his defense of confessional Lutheran orthodoxy in some ways reminds me of the price Dr. Hart has paid for his defense of confessional Reformed orthodoxy. One thing to keep in mind that may be helpful, Sasse’s criticisms of the Reformed in his works are mainly directed at the Barthian Reformed school of thought – at any rate, I didn’t understand his criticisms until I realized that.

    Re: Kindle

    You’re right – the durn contraption does make it impossible to use a horrid book as kindling for the fireplace! Are there e-fires for e-books? 😉

    Like

  27. Thanks, Bruce, I appreciate the tip. Since I cannot afford to be so generous as to purchase others a kindle – do you know if e-books be shared at a reduced price between kindle owners?

    Like

  28. P.S. John, when reading Sasse, it may also be helpful to remember that like many Lutherans, he places all non-Lutheran protestants into one category: Reformed. Kinda makes sense when one remembers that there is no such critter as Lutheran Baptists and other such anomalies. Nevertheless, I wish more Lutherans would make distinctions. 😉

    Like

  29. Vern,

    You’re right, that probably was not a careful way to distinquish Reconstructionists and Mormons. It was a “off the top of my head” kind of remark. Rushdoony was always very gracious to me in my dealings with him. Probably because, unfortunately, I used to send him and his ministry a fair amount of money when I was duped by them. I wish I could get it back now. I could use some extra cash during this time of financial hardship.

    Like

  31. I realize any attempt to try and clarify the re-constructionist position and attempt to defend Dr. Rushdoony will be met with ridicule, sarcasm, snarkiness, and outlandish statements by some so it would be unfruitful to do so.

    Like

  32. Ben,

    If I made any outlandish statements I am all ears and will apologize if you explain to me how I am being outlandish. The reconstructionists were heavily critiqued and found to be in error. I had to admit I was tending towards their errors and I quite listening to them and supporting them. I was also in error when I was attending charismatic and non-denominational churches. It is difficult to admit that you might be in theological error when you have spent so much time trying to understand a particular theology. But it is better to eat some crow than continue on in the errors. It is part of that continual repentance that God graciously provides in his means of grace and in the Gospel.

    Like

  33. Vern,

    If Rushdoony had always followed Berkhof, why is there any controversy over him? Though I’m no Rushdoony scholar (is there such a thing?), a brief fling was enough to find a denial of the Covenant of Works at the end of Thy Kingdom Come that could not have contradicted Berkhof’s affirmation of the same any more had it been an explicit rebuttal.

    The priority given to the CoW in the OPC’s Justification report indicates that the church doesn’t consider its denial a trivial matter, even while dissenting slightly from Bavinck’s formulation in a footnote and distinguishing it from the worse error. If anything, the denunciations of theonomy / reconstructionism have become more precise and forceful since the days of “Theonomy: A Reformed Critique,” no embrace itself.

    Like

  34. The heck with the reconstructionists, I just saw Michael Mann on HBO. He’s coming out with a new series on the network- Luck; about horseracing. Looks pretty good to me and with a redemptive theme to boot.

    Like

  35. Guys/gals, it’s okay to criticize reconstructionism. I’ve done so myself. But let’s not be stupid about it. Rushdoony and co., were every bit as orthodox as anyone in the Reformed world when it came to the gospel and all the other important loci of theology. Much more so than the Federal Vision I might add. The other day I listened to a sermon by Greg Bahnsen in which he blasts those who leave the Reformed faith for Roman Catholicism. I also know that Bahnsen was also very critical of the Tyler church, the headwaters of the Federal Vision.

    So criticize their social-political ethics by all means, but please none of these comparisons with Mormonism. You only show a great deal of shameful ignorance when you do that.

    Like

  36. Hmmm…. well, it sure seems that if there is no problem with calling the social-political ethics man-made then the comparison to Mormonism still has value – ya thank? 🙂

    Like

  37. Vern,

    Call me shamefully ignorant all you want- I recanted on my statement saying it was an “off the top of my head” remark and not very carefully thought out. And as Lily stated there may be a case that can be made of the similarity in their social-political ethics- at least in their aim and purpose of involvement with the state. I do not think Mormons adhere to libertanianism and Austrian economics, In fact, I have heard many Mormons being critical of Rush Limbaugh who I think leans in a libertarian direction.

    I would beg to differ that they got the Gospel right (the imputation of Christ’s righteousness among other things) and their doctrine of sanctification veered from the reformed confessions. So, I am not sure why you think they followed Berkof faithfully in their theological thinking.

    Like

  39. Vern,

    I don’t believe the comparison to Mormons is at all useful. But “every bit as orthodox as anyone in the Reformed world when it came to the gospel and all the other important loci of theology” is a review of reconstructionism as nuanced and cautious as Gary North’s “Bambi vs. Godzilla” foreword to “By This Standard”. And even he failed Rushdoony’s ecclesiology in his “Baptized Patriarchialism”, which counts as a locus of theology, at least at Old Life.

    Like

  40. Well… if anyone can show my why the distinctives that make reconstructionism – reconstructionism are not man-made, I’d be happy to withdraw the comparison.

    Like

  41. John, can you provide documentation that Rushdoony & Bahnsen veered from the gospel? Specifically with respect to imputation and sanctification? Have you all actually read Rushdoony or Bahnsen? Or are you getting them second hand?

    Like

  42. Lily, it’s not that those distinctives are divine, but simply that the Reconstructionists are wrong in ways that does not deny the Gospel and require that we fully cut them out of broader Christian discussions. I think Vern is more concerned that John’s statement that, “The Mormons are less orthodox than the reconstructionists and I think more pietistic and charismatic,” implicitly gives Mormons a seat at the (What are we discussing? Oh yeah.) Christian “natural law” table. In other words, whatever ecumenical mandate NT imposes on Christians would extend from you to the Reconstructionist, but not from you to the Mormons.

    Like

  43. I’m bowing out of this debate- it is not worth going any farther with it and wasting my time trying to come up with documentation about reconstructionist theology in regards to the Gospel and sanctification. I did read Rushdoony between 1980 and 1990 and then went to Calvin College from 1990 to 1994 where I was introduced to cultural transformational Calvinism and Michael Horton and the folks at Modern Reformation magazine at the same time. It was then that I started reading Luther too and finally became convinced to become a Lutheran after many years of comparing and contrasting the many divergent views of Calvinism with Lutheranism. You cannot tell me that the reconstructionists theology of the Gospel (justification) and sanctification are the same as Horton and the folks at Westminster Seminary California. They both obviously have a different take on Berkof and the Reformed confessions. One group emphasizes the Law and the other the Gospel. The reconstructionists mix the Law and the Gospel- the folks at Westminster know how how to distinquish and separate the two. Enough said for me.

    Like

  44. Also, the folks at Westminster and Lutherans know how to separate the Kingdoms where the Kuyperians, Van Tilians, Dooyweerdians, Barthians, Platingians, etc., etc. want to combine the Two Kingdoms into one. The details of how this have occured have been debated ad infinitum on this site and I am not sure how many have budged from their positions. It is becoming a big waste of time for me now. I will stick now with my Lutheran Confessions and dig into them deeper with my Pastor and try to get my theology free from these confusing and divergent debates that keep going on endlessly. Plus I keep struggling with my sin and want to concentrate on mortification and vivication. This stuff is killing me. Bye Bye now!!!

    Like

  45. Hi Joseph,

    I appreciate your reply – I looked up Rushdoony and reconstructionism – the distinctives are clearly antithetical to the gospel. There’s nothing new about this theology – it’s the same old man-made construct of dominion theology and obedience to the law cleverly cloaked in different garb. This is far more serious than an argument about natural law – it’s a matter of “who is Christ and what is the message of the gospel.” It’s garbage like this that hinders the gospel and makes people think Christianity is about moralism instead of the free gift of the salvation.

    The Bible contains many warnings about teachers of the law. There is a saying that if it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck – it’s a duck. Likewise, if it uses the sword of the law to dominate others, if it barks and growls law at everything it sees, if it howls at the gospel – it’s a wolf.

    Like

  46. Hey John,

    May you be greatly blessed digging into the confessions. Pastor Weedon has a nice reminder on his blog for our readings during Holy Week that you might want to check out:

    “Why did we read about BOTH the triumphal entry and the Passion and death of our Lord in the Palm Sunday liturgy. First, remember that the observance of “this happening” on “the same day” is a rather late convention in the Church’s liturgical life. The foundational mystery is celebrated each and every Lord’s Day: Christ crucified is raised from the dead. Even on Palm Sunday that remains the focus. And come Holy Week the Church delights to hear the Passion story told from each Evangelist’s perspective. Palm Sunday belongs to Matthew; Monday we begin some of John’s story (actually continued from the processional Gospel on Palm Sunday); Tuesday is Mark’s and Wednesday is Luke’s. Come Thursday we go back to John and hear of some events on Maundy Thursday. Friday is given over wholly to John’s Passion. So rather than thinking of it as a progression from this to that, in the Western liturgy we hear the whole story as it is told all four times during Holy Week, so that nothing of what Scripture gives us about our Lord’s passion, death, and burial is lost.”

    Like

  47. Lily,

    Was John Calvin “antithetical” to the Gospel when he praised the law executing adulterers? How about when he, in his commentary on 1 Tim 2:2, calls for the State to ensure the proper worship of God and “promote religion”?

    “On the other hand, princes, and all who hold the office of magistracy, are here reminded of their duty. It is not enough, if, by giving to every one what is due, they restrain all acts of violence, and maintain peace; but they must likewise endeavor to promote religion, and to regulate morals by wholesome discipline. The exhortation of David (Psalm 2:12) to “kiss the Son,” and the prophecy of Isaiah, that they shall be nursing — fathers of the Church, (Isaiah 49:23,) are not without meaning; and, therefore, they have no right to flatter themselves, if they neglect to lend their assistance to maintain the worship of God.”

    Like

  48. Benjamin,

    I’m hearing a lot of confusion about law/gospel distinctions and the two kingdoms.

    Re: Calvin praised executing adulterers

    Calvin’s confusion of the distinctions in law and gospel and confusion of the two kingdoms in Geneva is well known. None of the Reformers were perfect. The interpretation of 2 Tim 2 to prescribe a death penalty is another example of confusion. The vocation of civil magistrate is not an office in the church. The 2 Tim 2 prescription is petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving unto God not taking the sword of the law into the hands of the church. The church’s role is not to dominate a culture or save a culture, but to offer the message of the gospel to all men. We are NOT at war with the state. We ARE at war with the principalities and powers that want to destroy the message of the gospel.

    The problem with reconstrutionism is that it hinders, replaces, and/or destroys the message of the gospel with a different gospel. If the reconstructionist’s are right, then we have deny Christ and the gospel, and reinstate the theocracy and animal sacrifices of Israel. You can’t have both.

    Like

  49. Calvin’s praise of the execution adulterers can be found in his commentary on the woman caught in adultery in John 8 (which of course for CT advocates is easy to dismiss).

    It is interesting and instructive that the Lutheran here proves yet again that R2K theology is consistent with Lutheranism and not Calvinism.

    I’d be interested to hear exactly how “reconstructionism” (which is a different animal from Theonomy and not something I advance) “have to deny the Gospel”.

    I would also be interested in hearing how the judicial and ceremonial laws (especially regarding animal sacrifice) are so united as to require each other, especially since the Tripartite division of the Law (Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial) is central to Reformed theology and no Reformed writer I can think of at present would make that argument.

    Like

  50. Lily,

    Our Church has been following that pattern that you described on Sunday and will continue with it all this week. Great service on Sunday morning. I am planning on going Monday, Wednesday and Friday to the noon services because I work from 2:00Pm until 11:00Pm. The Tuesday and Thursday services are at 7:00PM.

    The theonomists are a pleasant lot and a group who one would obviously not turn to if struggling with sin in one’s life. No wonder the Lutherans broke severely from the dominion theology Calvinists. I know the historical and theological reasons were more complicated than that but I am pretty sure I would have (and do) stayed (stay) a stones throw away from all of the theonomists. Unbelievable!!!!

    Like

  51. Benjamin,

    The two kingdoms is not Lutheran, it is a universal catholic church teaching that began with Augustine, not Luther. I am sorry that you do use your confessions to judge your teacher’s teachings. Even Calvin was not perfect. We do not hold Luther’s teachings as the supreme interpretation of scripture. Our Book of Concord judges all of our teacher’s teachings and we are happy to admit when Luther went off the rails. it would be good if Calvinists could do the same with Calvin.

    Benjamin, the difficulty with understanding why reconstruction is wrong is when one has failed to learn of Christ. This is not learned overnight and requires camping on Christ and never moving from that position. The crucified Christ who was resurrected for us is a living reality not a past historical event. To understand what Christ did and how he fulfilled the OT for us takes more than a lifetime. I can’t do your homework for you, but I will give you some passages to focus on: Look at all of the passages where Christ deals with the teachers of the law. Look at all of Saint Paul’s epistles. Paul was a supreme teacher of the law prior to his conversion and he is well-equipped to demolish the teachers of the law. He is poetry in motion exalting Christ and demolishing teachers of the law. When you begin to understand these things, you will understand why and how reconstructionism denies Christ and the gospel. Pax.

    Like

  52. It may be that the theonomists will take over the culture- they are plotting heavily to run some candidates in the upcoming elections. Maybe they will set up an Old Testament like Theocracy after the model Rushdoony imagined and kill off everyone who does not submit to the Law of God in thought, word and deed. With some good technology in place they might come up with a police state that outdoes Orwell’s 1984. I wonder what it is like to go to a theonomist Church and what type of people frequent those places.

    Like

  54. John,

    It’s wonderful that your schedule does not conflict with all of the services. May you be richly blessed this week.

    Re: The theonomists are a pleasant lot and a group who one would obviously not turn to if struggling with sin in one’s life. No wonder the Lutherans broke severely from the dominion theology Calvinists.

    No wonder, indeed.

    Like

  55. Lily,

    So when Paul says the Law is righteous and holy and good is he denying the Gospel?

    When Paul applies the Law righteously in 1 Tim 5:18 is he in danger of denying the Gospel?

    John,

    I am interested in hearing who these candidates are that the “theonomists” are running in the next election. I would also like to hear of, with citations, where Rushdoony advocated wholesale slaughter of thought crimes.

    If you would like to know what it is like to go to a theonomist church I’d recommend contacting the folks at Chalcedon Presbyterian Church. http://www.chalcedon.org/

    Like

  56. Benjamin, why do you ask such foolish questions? Have you not learned that the distinctions between law and gospel are not Lutheran either?

    Like

  57. I’m probably not gone for good but I do have to get ready for work for today- besides I like Zrim, Darryl, Nate, Lily, Michael Mann, TurrotoFan and many others on this site too much to leave it. Life is difficult when you run into others who obviously do not agree with you and have their own scriptural interpretations which drive you bananna’s. Life goes on!!!

    Like

  58. Lily, some Calvinists do indeed admit when their namesake was wrong. Here is Kuyper disagreeing with Calvin, our (pre-revised) Confessions and our Reformed theologians:

    We oppose this Confession out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed.

    We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics.

    It is our conviction: 1) that the examples which are found in the Old Testament are of no force for us because the infallible indication of what was or was not heretical which was present at that time is now lacking.

    2) That the Lord and the Apostles never called upon the help of the magistrate to kill with the sword the one who deviated from the truth. Even in connection with such horrible heretics as defiled the congregation in Corinth, Paul mentions nothing of this idea. And it cannot be concluded from any particular word in the New Testament, that in the days when particular revelation should cease, that the rooting out of heretics with the sword is the obligation of magistrates.

    3) That our fathers have not developed this monstrous proposition out of principle, but have taken it over from Romish practice.

    4) That the acceptance and carrying out of this principle almost always has returned upon the heads of non-heretics and not the truth but heresy has been honored by the magistrate.

    5) That this proposition opposes the Spirit and the Christian faith.

    6) That this proposition supposed that the magistrate is in a position to judge the difference between truth and heresy, an office of grace which, as appears from the history of eighteen centuries, is not granted by the Holy Spirit, but is withheld.

    We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.

    http://sb.rfpa.org/index.cfm?mode=narrow&volume=62&issue=457&article=4393&book=0&search=&page=1&chapter=0&text_search=0

    Like

  59. Ben,

    I appreciate your graciousness-I realize I am speaking in generalities and have not gotten to the specifics that you desire and I doubt if I can do better than Zrim and Darryl have tried to do with you. Besides, I think I have angered or embarrassed Darryl and Zrim and they have decided to ignore me lately. It is probably better off if I fly away and stick with my own fellow Lutherans for awhile. I really do not want to spend a lot of time dialoging back and forth, researching and coming up with thoughful and accurate responses, and then finding it does no good anyways.

    Like

  60. Many thanks, Zrim – cool resource! I wasn’t confused on the fact that the Reformed you represent do not hold Calvin infallible. I apologize for giving that impression. Please continue to call me on anything I say that is not right or could be misconstrued. Again, thanks.

    Like

  61. Oops, Benjamin,

    I did make an error with Augustine – it begins with Christ teaching the difference between his kingdom and man’s kingdom. But… my answer still stays the same. Learn of Christ and camp on him.

    Like

  62. Ben, Paul also wrote the law is not of faith. Plus, Calvin knew how to distinguish among the conscience and the laws claims upon it (absolved with forgiveness found in Christ, the third use of the law (and the afflictions of sin that cling even to good works and so make the gospel all the more necessary), and external conformity to the law which has nothing to do with conscience. In those distinctions you will find grounds for affirming 2k, rejecting theonomy, and recognizing the forgiveness of sins as the place where Christ rules as redeemer.

    Like

  64. Thanks Darryl- how do you handle these guys?- they are beginning to drive me bonkers. I guess the upside is you begin to see patterns in their thinking which makes it easier to deal with the more you see it.

    Like

  65. That was a great post by Zrim too- I will have to copy and paste that one for future use and reference. I wonder how John T is faring over at Kevin DeYoung’s blog. Nate had a good argument going with him before I went to work where there was a machine breakdown so I had to call it a day. When it rains it pours- ugh!!!

    Like

  66. Lily & John Yeazel, I wonder if either of you thinks that the law of God functions as our rule of life and that Spirit-wrought obedience to the law should be offered as a response of gratitude to God because of the grace we have been given in Christ (though never as the cause of that grace)? Should we live godly lives (i.e., obey the moral aspects of the law) because we have been made God’s sons/daughters through adoption? Or, in your mind, would this kind of talk be a confusion of Law and Gospel?

    Like

  67. Thanks John Y.,

    I appreciated your comments over there. My wife has informed me that I came across a little strong, and that “if I want” (her words) I can express my regret publicly. But, since I’m too proud, I’ll just say that she was misreading my tone, which I intended as irenic. 🙂 It was a bit like talking to a Seventh-Day Adventist. I was beginning to have flashbacks.

    Like

  68. Hi Joseph,

    I pondered how to answer your questions because they seem to imply that Lutherans are antinomians because of our distinction between law and gospel. The best way I know how to answer your questions is to offer you a link to what we believe, teach, and confess – The Book of Concord. It has indexes with links that should be able to answer anything you would like to know:

    http://bookofconcord.org/whatisalutheran.php

    Like

  70. Nice work John. Make slanderous comments about Rushdoony, Bahnsen, et al. and then move on. Lily, you are as I intimated shamefully ignorant about Rushdoony and Bahnsen, so perhaps you should bow out before you make more absurd comments about reconstructionism.

    Like

  72. Joseph,

    I will let Lily answer for Lily but my take on the question is that we all know what the Law commands us to do because it is implanted in our being by God. However, in our fallen state we cloud and suppress this Law because we do not like its demands but are constantly reminded of it by authorities that God has ordained around us. We therefore usually comply to authorities wishes for fear of meeting with their wrath and punishment. However, if we can get away with not obeying the authorites we most certainly will in our fallen state and therefore anyone with any sense, so that anarchy will not to break out, will uphold institutions ordained by God. Both Luther and Calvin were very clear about this. When we are regenerated and believe the Gospel through the gift of faith and repentance (if our parents faithfully baptized us as infants, catechized us, and then we partook of the supper regularly after proper catechizing we would be hearing the Law and Gospel from a very early age and taught obedience to the ordained authorities that be) we are given the desire to want to obey God but notice that it is not as easy to obey the Law as the desire to want to do it. We become conflicted inside and most of us were not raised in homes where parents faithfully followed through on their parental duties encouraged and overseen by the local Church. So, problems of disobedience to the Law begin to be a greater and greater problem in people’s lives but we get good at telling ourselves and others that we do not have a problem and often get away with it. We can suppress the demands of the Law in some very creative ways. Do you see where I am going with this? Our only remedy is the proper preaching of the Law and the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments. We are rebels at heart and only conform to the Law when we have to. Even in our regenerate state we have a great pull towards disobedience to the Law. Only as the Holy Spirit draws us to the Law, the Gospel and the Sacraments can we begin to take baby steps in obeying the Law out of the freedom God has given us in Christ. Some were trained properly, some have a tougher go at it and fight all the way until God works the obedience that pleases Him in us (sometime through very difficult and harsh lessons we have to learn). We learn to trust the work of the Law, the Gospel and the Sacraments and come to know that we cannot do it within our own resources, quiet times or daily devotions. So, yes the goal of the grace given to us is obedience out of gratitude. Anyone with any awareness of the sin that still clings to us will run to the Gospel and realize how easy it is to go astray.

    There is my rather convoluted answer to a simple question. But humans are complex because of the sin problem and we often want to make the solution more Law instead of ministering the Gospel through the means of grace God ordained in the Church. We then learn obedience through the things that we suffer and learn to turn to the Gospel because we have learned that our souls need God’s redemptive solution. Only the Holy Spirit can convince of that. And it is often a rough and rocky road to learn this. It is best to admit you’re a rebel and seek God’s solution not to put on a pious act as if obedience to the Law is a simple and easy thing.

    Like

  73. Vern,

    On the serious side, now that I’ve recovered from laughter, it’s not slanderous or absurd to call a thing what it is.

    Like

  74. What up Vern? I am still around. I listened to the reconstructionists for a long period of time and as I stated there were numerous books written critiquing the errors of reconstructionism. I guess you think they follow Berkof. I really do not want to argue with you Vern and take the time to look up how Rushdoony veered from Berkof. Others have already chirped in about that. Perhaps you have even read some of the critiques. If I slandered Rushdoony and made outrageous remarks my reply would be that the reconstructionists have made much more outlandish remarks. I used to listen to Rushdoony’s Easy Chair tapes on a regular basis for probably 5 or 6 years. Why are you wanting to defend Reconstructionists anyways you are a Dooyewaardian aren’t you? I should not have asked I really do not want to go there either.

    Like

  75. John, I’m neither a Dooyeweerdian nor a reconstructionist. I just believe that in criticizing others, one must be as honest and as informed as possible about the other’s views. NEVER ONCE did Rush or Greg ever deny the gospel. They may be wrong on some issues, but not on THAT issue.

    Like

  76. Vern,

    I do not believe what I said was absurd. Men may give the gospel with the right hand, but then they quickly take it away with the left hand. What the reconstructionists are trying to build is not the kingdom of God, but a kingdom of man to suit their religious tastes. It presents moralism to the world not the gospel. It makes a mockery of what the kingdom of God truly is and makes a mockery of God’s mercy for us by putting other men under the full brunt of the law without the refuge of Christ for their failures. Remember the parable about the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18)? There are so many things wrong with it, I could go on ad infinitum. Does it deny Christ and the gospel? Yes, in more ways than one. If you stop and think about it, I’m sure you can see them.

    Like

  77. John Y, thanks. One follow-up: in you view, does the law of God in your heart say (and for simplification, assumed you could read that law perfectly) the same thing as the moral aspects of the law of God in the Scriptures?

    Like

  78. Dr. Hart,

    It is amazing how one can deny John Calvin was a theocrat given his words in his commentary on 1 Tim 2:2, Psalm 2, and Isaiah 49 (among others). I mean what else does he need to say?

    He advocates the Civil State bow the knee to Christ and rule by His Law, requires the Civil State to “promote true religion”, and calls the State to even provide monetarily for the well-being of Ministers of the Word. Not to even mention his call for the State to enforce true worship (there is that pesky need to enforce the 1st Table).

    Like

  79. Lily, thanks for the links. I read through Walther’s law/gospel theses that mention the law, but nothing in there seemed to answer my question. Further, I’d want some qualification on thesis #7 (just to clarify its scope so as not to imply a denial of the “third use of the law”).

    Like

  81. Vern

    First of all, I do not recall once Rushdoony defining the Gospel or the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone on the account of Christ alone. And the Gospel was not the emphasis, the Law always was. I also want to say that reconstuctionist soteriology veered toward the Galatian heresy heavily but I cannot give you specifics at this time. A sentence I remember from the Institutes of Biblical Law was that sanctification was through obedience to the Law. That is as far as I want to go with this because I would have to reference some of his books which I have away in storage at this time and cannot access them.

    Like

  82. Darryl, this is not a challenge to 2K or a version of natural law (both of which I’m tentatively on board with) being in the WS and Scriptures, but what did you mean by: “external conformity to the law…has nothing to do with conscience”?

    Like

  83. Hi Joseph,

    It’s best to read all 39 theses, if you would like to begin to understand what is being taught. It is also good to remember that Lutherans do not deny the 3rd use of the law, but we do approach it differently.

    Like

  84. Joseph,

    I would say that the Law God implants in our consciousness is clouded and confused because of our sin but it somehow gets through to us even as we seek to suppress it. And one would assume, since it is God’s Law, that it would line up and be the same thing as the moral law revealed to us in the scriptures. So, what is your point?

    Like

  86. John Y, that sounds good to me. No big point here, I was just trying to figure out where Lutherans are at on what the Reformed term the “third use of the law.” Your second to last sentence helps. My questions were sort of motivated by my noticing that the only people on here that really want to consign the Reconstructionists to the bad place were the few Lutherans that are posting. Lily even has them denying the Gospel. I have never heard that from any in Reformed circles. Thanks for humoring me.

    Like

  87. John…

    Rushdoony in his own words.

    “The declaration of all Scripture is that atonement and justification are the sovereign acts of God through the work of Jesus Christ. Atonement therefore is essentially not a subjective experience but an objective fact. The primary point of reference in atonement is not the sinner’s experience but God’s order, God’s self-propitiation. Christ pays the price to God as the representative sinner, so that the reconciliation and atonement are divinely initiated. Christ, by His incarnation as very man of very man, acts as man’s representative in the transaction. The atonement of the elect is thus vicarious, in that it is not their work but God’s work.”

    from “Politics of Guilt and Pity”, pg. 7-8

    “Men cannot seek justification socially by law and works of law, and long retain a concept of individual salvation through justification by faith alone.” pg. 299

    “Paul’s gospel or good news is ‘the power of God unto salvation.’ The omnipotence of God, His absolute power, is operative in His revelation of His righteousness. His law stands; His court requires atonement, and Christ renders it for the elect people.”

    from “Systematic Theology” pg. 626

    “God, as Creator and governor of all things, is the absolute lord or sovereign over all. His judgments are total and final because He alone is God, and all final reckonings are in His hands. This is the premise of Christian confession. We confess to God because He alone can grant us full absolution and forgiveness through Christ, and He alone can renew us and create a clean heart in us.”

    from “The Cure of Souls: Recovering the Biblical Doctrine of Confession” pg. 39-40

    It is becoming more and more obvious you have never actually read Rushdoony.

    Like

  89. Joseph,

    I checked the link and it showed all 39 theses – so I’m not sure what happened?

    It’s not unusual for the gospel to be denied by the use of the law. Paul addressed this kind of thing in Galatians. “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” It doesn’t take a PhD to recognize the dynamics in reconstructionism. It isn’t necessary to read Rushdoony’s books anymore than one needs to read Joel Osteen’s books to spot what’s wrong. Unfortunately, there will always be people who are fooled by these kinds of men who will howl I’m ignorant or have a hissy fit in defense of their idol, but that’s the breaks – you suppose?

    Like

  90. Hmm… perhaps that’s the beauty of confessional orthodoxy – you can smell a counterfeit a mile away. 😉

    Like

  91. Alright Ben, granted he wrote those things but you cannot tell me that the emphasis in his writings was the Gospel and not the Law. And you are not addressing the many critiques that were written against the theonomists. I read both Institutes of Biblical Law, his book on the State, a commentary on the Kingdom of God from the book of Daniel, his systematic theology booklet and many Journals of Christian Reconstruction he and his cronies edited and put together. I read a lot of the Austrian economics stuff and Rushdoony’s book on inflation or whatever. I then studied Business and Economics at Calvin College and became good friends with some of the economic professors there who were not too keen on a lot of the reconstructionists writing on economics. I also received the monthly papers he put out- I cannot remember there name. I also read a few of David Chilton’s books and some of Gary North’s stuff. And I think I read some of Otto Scott’s works. I also listened to Scott, Lofton and Rushdoony wax on and on listening to those Easy Chair tapes.

    I never read a long paper or piece of writing on the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone on the account of Christ alone. I do not recall anything of the Gospel in his major work- The Institutes of Biblical Law. That massive two volume work of Good News to the sinner struggling with his sin. There was not much let up on Law, Law and more Law. Give me a break Ben- reading Horton’s Putting Amazing Back into Grace was like a breath of fresh air after 19 years of seeking to surrender my will in Evangelical and Charismatic Churches and then getting crushed with the Law over and and over again with the reconstructionists. I finally made the not to tough decision to follow the writings of the Modern Reformation folks, a lot of R.C. Sproul and finally Luther and the Lutherans who I found a home with. I tried to find some reformed churches and went to many in the Lake County, Indiana area where Dr. K was very influential but never liked the Churches too much. Mid- America seminary in Dyer, Indiana produced most of the Pastors in that area. Do I need to say more?

    Like

  92. Systematic Theology booklet? He wrote a massive 2-volume Systematics. But I digress…

    Those quotations came from 3 random books I pulled off the shelf. I am sure I could find the Gospel presented clearly in all of his published works, but that would hardly be the point.

    Like

  93. Ben, Calvin was not a theocrat. The magistrates ran Geneva and hired the pastors. Geneva was not a Taliban.

    Don’t be so amazed. VanDrunen and I both concede differences between Calvin and our version of 2k (but modern day theocrats won’t acknowledge their own infidelity in not rebelling against the current liberal democratic regime). What you have completely ignored is the matter of conscience and how the gospel and law treat the conscience differently, or how the church and state regard conscience. If you see those aspects of Calvin, you have the makings for 2k. If you don’t, you get a view of the law and the state that causes serious problems for the gospel (as the Lutherans keep reminding us).

    Like

  94. Ben, how many times have I said I disagree with Calvin? When will you acknowledge that you disagree with all modern Reformed and Presbyterian churches on the magistrate?

    Like

  95. Joseph H., it means that my unregenerate neighbor may obey the law and that he does so for all the wrong reasons. As a gospel believing person I want my neighbor to see his inconsistency. As an order loving Christian, I want my neighbor to obey the law even for wrong reasons.

    Like

  96. He did write a booklet on the importance of systematics; I never read the massive 2 volume systematics. There is a lot more to the doctrine of justification (the Gospel) than your short quotes from Rushdoony reveal. What was his view of grace, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, regeneration, repentance and faith, assurance, etc. etc? The Catholic’s have a Gospel, the evangelicals have a Gospel, the Word/Faith movement has a Gospel, the emergent’s have a Gospel. Is the Gospel that Rushdoony believed in and wrote about the same as Paul’s, Luther’s and Calvin’s? A lot of the critics of the reconstructionists did not believe so. And it is difficult to find a clear exposition of the doctrine of justification in their writings. If you can find one, I will recant and repent. At any rate, I know their views of the of the Old Testament and their applicability to modern culture came under the most critical scrutiny, and the doctrine of sanctification they espoused was also highly criticized.

    Like

  97. This discussion of whether Rushdoony believed the gospel is getting ridiculous. No documentation is ever provided to show that Rushdoony or Bahnsen denied the gospel. All we get is autobiography from those making the claim, not actual documentation. And when documentation is provided to show the absurdity of the claim that reconstructionists deny the gospel, all we get is renewed claims without any more evidence that was originally given.

    I suppose this lack of scholarly integrity is par for the course at institutions like so-called “Calvin” College…..

    Like

  98. Re: He wrote a massive 2-volume Systematics

    Writing a book isn’t evidence of truth – there is enough bad theology on the shelves to choke more than several herds of elephants. Reconstructionist dogma has been judged by the best of the Reformed theologians and found wanting. That should give anyone pause and reconsideration of this group.

    On the obvious side, it’s not difficult to see that this group is led by a bunch of spoilt American Boomers who want to turn back the clock and shape civil and political life in the US to their tastes. If they were serious about the kingdom of God, they would have great concern for their fellow citizens and would make the 1st table of the law primary and preach the gospel in all of it’s sweetness so that men could hear and be saved. But that is not the case. They have made the 2nd table of the law primary and bludgeon their neighbors with the law. This group seeks to dominate their neighbors via the law instead of seeking the salvation of their neighbors via the gospel. Big difference. It’s easy to see why it is antithetical to Christ and the gospel.

    And, yes, the blindness to what should be obvious to anyone with eyes is ridiculous!

    Like

  99. Vern,

    I already explained why I cannot document- all of the books I have from reconstructionist authors are in storage right now. I wish I could access them. I would love to try to find a clearly written exposition of the doctrine of justification from a reconstructionist theologian- especially Rushdoony. Maybe I will try to go to where they are stored and pull some of them out. I am intrigued now by the proposition.

    As for Calvin College, going through the Business and Economics program there was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life. The numerous Accounting and Economics classes I took were extremely challenging and difficult. The Accounting tests are known there to be
    some of the hardest in the country. They always ranked very high in producing students who passed the CPA exam the first time they took it. If I remember right, they ranked first in the country one year.

    They came under a lot of scrutiny by conservative Christians in the late 80’s and early 90’s when Capitalism and free-market economics were a big issue- especially from the Austrian and University of Chicago schools. Clinton listened to a lot of the economic ideas espoused by professors at Calvin. Now I just opened up another can of worms. The economy seemed to do pretty well under his tenure although I realize you cannot give him all the credit for that. And the conservatives were howling throughout his campaign that interest rates would skyrocket and the economy would tank if he got elected.

    I say let’s give the Austrian school a chance in the next national election and see what they can do with the mess that we have right now.

    Like

  100. Well… Vern and Ben? Do you have an answer or are you still gnashing your pharisaical teeth at Christ and his gospel?

    Anyone need a humor break? Check out Shakespeare’s Abbot and Costello:

    Like

  103. “On the obvious side, it’s not difficult to see that this group is led by a bunch of spoilt American Boomers who want to turn back the clock and shape civil and political life in the US to their tastes.”

    Do you know anything about these men’s backgrounds?

    Especially Rushdoony’s?

    Like

  105. Here’s a lovely commentary on Rushdooney:

    Carl R. Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary wrote in 2009 regarding the passage and Rushdoony’s Holocaust denial:

    His sources are atrocious, secondhand, and unverified; that he held this position speaks volumes about this appalling incompetence as a historian, and one can only speculate as to why he held the position from a moral perspective… He deals with the matter under the issue of the ninth commandment and, ironically breaches it himself in his presentation of the matter.

    Like

  106. Gotta luv North’s honesty:

    So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

    —”The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right”, The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, pp. 24–25.

    Like

  108. So I take it you are now willing to recant that Rushdoony was a “spoilt American Boomer”?

    Thanks by the way for verifying something most Reconstructionists I know took Rushdoony to task for a while ago. Hard to believe he was fallible as a human.

    Like

  109. No, Rushdoony is not a boomer, but Bahsen was and North is a Boomer.

    Why are you not willing to answer the charge that reconstructionism is antithetical to Christ and his gospel?

    Like

  110. In order to get past the gnat straining – let’s add these Boomers to the incomplete list:

    Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
    Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr
    David Chilton
    Gary DeMar

    Are you ready to deal with the real question, yet?

    Like

  111. May I ask a question of anyone here willing to answer it?

    I’m reading some of the articles at Rushdoony’s Chalcedon website seeing some very strange things. I’m wondering if this Rushdoony summation of Reconstructionism sounds like anything a Reformed scholar would endorse?

    Excerpt:

    I once asked Dr. Rushdoony if he could sum up Christian Reconstruction. His response surprised me. He said, “Christian Reconstruction is the reading of Scripture with the understanding that every word in it is a command word of God telling us how we should live.”

    Source: http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/engendered-differences

    Like

  113. Ben, that would sound like a reasonable explanation if it wasn’t for that fact that that it isn’t what it’s saying – notice: “every word in it is a command word telling us how we should live.” That’s contrary scripture and if it is a summation of reconstructionism – it makes sense why the articles I’m reading makes it sounds like a cult.

    Like

  115. Rushdoony did not deny the holocaust. He made some point about exaggerated numbers, showing that some people aren’t moved by suffering if it’s only in the hundreds or thousands. It has to be in the millions to get anyone’s attention.

    It was a good point, even if he was wrong about the numbers. When I last looked into the subject, scholars had looked at the census of Jews living in Germany prior to WW2, then looked at it afterward. The drop off in numbers is in the millions and is chilling.

    The Armenian holocaust occurred after WW1, when the Ottoman Empire massacred over a million Armenians. These were Rushdoony’s people. He knew very well that such events occurred in history. In making his point, he was certainly wrong in diminishing the number of Jews who were murdered by the Nazis. However, he could no more deny the Jewish holocaust than he could deny the Armenian holocaust. Perhaps he was a little jealous that the Jews were getting all the attention and the Armenians were being ignored, and he therefore felt the need to “equalize” the numbers a bit.

    In any case, holocaust was a reality for Rushdoony, more than it is for most of us. The numbers were not what mattered to Rushdoony, but rather than evil of man as he seeks to be his own law.

    Like

  116. No, Ben, I did not sign up for login. I read what was available on the website and googled the site with single words like: salvation, Christ, faith, grace. What I read was worse than what I saw at a distance. I am truly sorry that you have become entangled with this group. I do not believe you will be able to see that my charge is true and I am sincerely heart-broken for the path you have taken.

    Like

  120. So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

    What in the world can this possibly mean? Last I checked there exists scads of liberty and independence for Christian schools. But ironically none such exists for those in the PRC. Funny how some Reformed talk about education and intellectual health the way Baptists talk about beer and bodily health.

    Like

  122. Re: Reconstructionism

    I haven’t seem a cult like this for years. I don’t care how anyone tries to whitewash it – it is not recognizable as anything Reformed that I’m familiar with.

    Like

  123. Funny how some Reformed talk about education and intellectual health the way Baptists talk about beer and bodily health.

    Lily, it seems Zrim just implied that Reconstructionists (or at least North) could be Reformed.

    Like

  124. Zrim brings up an important point in that quote from North. Often, when you read reconstructionist literature you gape in wonder trying to determine what the heck they are talking about. The categories they speak in always relate things to the culture and bringing and using the Law of God in order to take dominion through it. It is man using the Law as a cooperative tool that God uses to bring his purposes to pass in the culture. This idea is foreign to how the reformers understood the Law. And Rushdoony was very conscious in what he was doing and using the Law for. He also knew he was in opposition to the Reformers (especially Calvin and Luther). The following is a quote I found on page 9 of the Institutes of Biblical Law volume 1:

    “The purpose of God in requiring Adam to exercise dominion over the earth remains His continuing covenant word: man created in God’s image and commanded to subdue the earth and exercise dominion over it in God’s name; is recalled to this task and privilege by his redemption and regeneration. The law is therefore the law for Christian man and Christian society. Nothing is more deadly or more derelict than the notion that the Christian is at liberty with respect to the kind of law he can have. Calvin, whose classical humanism gained ascendancy at this point, said of the laws of states, of civil governments:

    ‘I will briefly remark, however, by the way, what laws it (the state) may piously use before God, and be rightly governed by among men. And even this I would have preferred passing over in silence, if I did not know that it is a point on which many persons run into dangerous errors. For some deny that a state is well constituted which neglects the polity of Moses, and is governed by the common law of nations. The dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish.’

    Rushdoony continues after the Calvin quote: “Such ideas, common in Calvinist and Lutheran circles, and in virtually all churches, are still heretical nonsense. Calvin favored ‘the common law of nations.’ But the common law of nations in his day was Biblical law, although extensively denatured by Roman law. And this ‘common law of nations’ was convincingly evidencing a new religion, humanism. Calvin wanted the establishment of the Christian religion; he could not have it, nor could it last long in Geneva, without Biblical law.”

    He then goes on to explain that if you do not use biblical law in the nations you end up with moral and legal relativism in the nations.

    The last two paragraphs in this section titled The Law as Revelation and Treaty are very telling:

    “Roman Catholic scholars offer natural law. The origins of this concept are in Roman law and religion. For the Bible, there is no law in nature, because nature is fallen and cannot be normative. Moreover, the source of law is not nature but God. There is no law in nature but a law over nature, God’s law.

    Neither positive law nor natural law can reflect more than the sin and apostasy of man: revealed law is the need and privilege of Christian society. It is the only means whereby man can fulfill his creation mandate of exercising dominion under God. Apart from revealed law, man cannot claim to be under God but only in rebellion against God.”

    As one can tell from this quote Two Kingdom theology is diametrically opposed to everything said here.

    I also found my Theonomy A Reformed Critique book and in this book is an essay by John Muether, Darryl’s collegue. It is a brilliant essay and I was chuckling all the way through it. I will try to be brief but there is a lot worth quoting. In a footnote he quotes George Grant (an excellent public speaker but infected with the reconstructionist bug) expressing the theonomic craving of dominion: “It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest.”

    Talk about outrageous and outlandish statements- that is pretty outlandish. One more and I will done for awhile: I think I will save it for another post. This one is too long already.

    Like

  125. The Gospel in reconstructionist theology is always related to bringing dominion theology into the culture. They talk of regeneration, atonement, justification, grace. etc., but that is always related to being given the ability to bring the Law into the culture. That is part of dominion theology soteriology. They have a Gospel and even Gospel terminology but it is a Gospel that is foreign in context to what the reformers understood as the Gospel. I wish I remember how to set that argument up in a deductive syllogism with proper premises and conclusion but I would probably muck it up.

    Like

  127. John,

    Re: They have a Gospel and even Gospel terminology but it is a Gospel that is foreign in context to what the reformers understood as the Gospel.

    I grateful you escaped this group and it’s hideously twisted scripture.

    Like

  128. Vern,

    Kuyper was not as extreme, outlandish or outrageous as the reconstructionists. And his Gospel was coherent. You sometimes wonder what Rushdoony was smokin or drinkin when he was writin.

    Like

  129. I think John and Lily need to spend more time reading and studying. They obviously have a bee in their bonnets on Rushdoony, and no amount of counter-evidence is going to break the adamantine chains of their ignornace on the subject.

    Like

  130. Vern, but surely you’ve read Galatians. The Judaizers affirmed Christ and even the gospel. But they added a version of the law to the gospel that resulted in anathema. I read Lily and John’s comments in that light. Rushdoony could say one thing and undermine it the next minute with his theonomy.

    Like

  131. Here are a few more quotes from Muether (this essay was published back in 1990): “Theonomy shares with contemporary evangelicalism a biblicist hermeneutic that depreciates the role of general revelation (that sounds like someone I know-my addition) and insists on using the Bible as though it were a textbook for all of life. This is a mind-set characteristic of contemporary evangelicalism, and it is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Fundamentalists use the Bible as a textbook on geology, finding evidence of a literal six-day creation and a ten-thousand-year-old earth. Evangelical social activists like
    Ronald Sider see the Bible as a textbook on economics, claiming, for example, that in the Old Testament Jubilee we find instruction on economic redistribution. Theonomic literature displays the same sort of hermeneutic. Dominion Press of Fort Worth, Texas, has published a multivolume series called “Biblical Blueprints.”……These “blueprints” offer specific biblical prooftexts for many contemporary issues. Why, for example, should the United States return to the gold standard? Because careful and prudent economic analysis suggests it will produce a healthier economy? No, because Deuteronomy 25:15 says that you shall have just weights and measures.”

    I remember my econ professors at Calvin latching on that “just weight and measures” idea and having a field day with it. They thought it ridiculous and outrageous and greatly lacking in scholarly integrity. Vern are you listening? And I know that was not your objection to my posts.

    And another Muether quote: “Like most political conservatives, theonomists believe in a very limited federal government. Colson claims that theonomy would achieve exactly the opposite from what it hopes: rather than a greatly diminished federal government, ‘the imposition of biblical law on secular society would result in a much bigger government. Bringing the Kingdom of God by human means would require massive government, a massive army to restrain evil and bring about utopia.’ The history of the twentieth century ought to be enough to dissuade Christians from the illusions of politics. All too often massive political programs aimed at addressing social inequities, no matter how noble their intentions, have turned totalitarian. But more importantly, the modern idea that politics is everything ought to be rejected because it is idolatry. Against this temptation the Catholic philosopher James Schall wisely reminds us: ”The ultimate effect of Christianity upon politics is a limiting one, one that frees man by removing from politics what politics cannot deliver. In this way, politics is left to be politics and not a false religion.’

    In the essay Muether ties the attraction of Theonomy with dominant ideas that have a hold on American culture: 1) America as a Christian nation; 2) Millenarianism in American culture; 3) America in decline; 4) Dominion Theology and the Charismatic Movement; 5) Theonomy as a Democratic Movement; 6) The Biblicism of Theonomy; 7) The Illusion of Technique; 8) The Political Illusion and 9) Utopianism. All of these things make Theonomy attractive to Americans.

    Most theonomists (not all) have a very low view of the Church, locate the building of the Kingdom of God in the culture, not in the Church (therefore they do not put much stock in the preaching of the Law and the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments) but seek to motivate its congregants to be cultural warriors by bringing the law of God into the culture in all their endeavors. This is a completely different vision than the Reformers had who used the means of grace in building the Kingdom of God through the preaching of the Gospel- the emphasis being on Word and Sacrament not the Law of God. The Law of God prepares us the hear the Gospel. I see nothing in the New Testament that requires Christians to take dominion, the sword or the Law into the culture. It is a fig-newton of the reconstructionists imaginations and they drink deeply of that spirit.

    Like

  133. Joseph, yes, and the favor returned by the theocrats and theonomists would be appreciated. I can live with saying they are Reformed but that their theocracy/theonomy is getting in the way of their otherwise good confession. It would be great if they dropped the “R” in 2k.

    Like

  134. Vern, if it’s a “stupid claim” made by North does this also indict the more puzzling claims made by CVT re education in “Foundations of Christian Education” (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1990). Remember, the Rushies and Northies wanted to force a crown on CVT. He adamantly refused, but with ideas like these one does wonder what the fuss was all about:

    “Non-Christians believe that the personality of the child can develop best if it is not placed face to face with God. Christian believe that the child’s personality cannot develop at all unless it is placed face to face with God. Non-Christian education puts the child in a vacuum. In this vacuum the child is expected to grow. The result is that the child dies. Christian education alone really nurtures personality because it alone gives the child air and food.”

    “Non-Christians believe that authority hurts the growth of the child. Christians believe that without authority a child cannot live at all.”

    “No educational content that cannot be set into a definitely Christian-theistic pattern and be conducive to the development of covenant personality has any right to appear in our schools.”

    “What sense is there in spending money for teaching arithmetic in a Christian school rather than in a so-called neutral school unless you are basically convinced that no space-time fact can be talked about taught unless seen in its relationship to God? When speaking thus of the absolute antithesis that underlies the education policies of our schools, it is not too much to say that if any subject could be taught elsewhere than in a Christian school, there would be no reason for having Christian schools.”

    “The only reason why we are justified in having Christian schools is that we are convinced that outside of a Christian-theistic atmosphere there can be no more than an empty process of one abstraction teaching abstractness to other abstractions.”

    “No teaching of any sort is possible except in Christian schools.”

    “The ground for the necessity of Christian schools lies in this very thing, that no fact can be known unless it be known in its relationship to God. And once this point is clearly seen, the doubt as to the value of teaching arithmetic in Christian schools falls out of the picture. Of course arithmetic must be taught in a Christian school. It cannot be taught anywhere else.”

    “…if you cannot teach arithmetic to the glory of God, you cannot do it any other way because it cannot be done any other way by anybody.”

    “On the basis of our opponents the position of the teacher is utterly hopeless. He knows that he knows nothing and that in spite of this fact he must teach. He knows that without authority he cannot teach and that there are no authorities to which he can appeal. He has to place the child before an infinite series of possibilities and pretend to be able to say something about the most advisable attitude to take with respect to the possibilities, and at the same time he has to admit that he knows nothing at all about those possibilities. And the result for the child is that he is not furnished with an atmosphere in which he can live and grow.”

    “In contrast with this the Christian teacher knows himself, knows the subject, and knows the child. He has the full assurance of the absolute fruitfulness of his work. He labors in the dawn of everlasting results.”

    But not just CVT. Look at all the Reformed stalwarts “The American Vision” enlists to further the legalistic notion that “Non-Christian education is sin, spiritual child abuse and putting a child or young adult in the God-hating, Christless ‘public schools’ is a form of child-sacrifice. It is soul-murder.”

    http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=840

    Like

  135. Vern, I still do not know what theological perspective you are coming from. I am assuming you have problems with R2K and are from some Reformed or Presbyterian branch that has sympathy with bringing Christ’s throne rights into the culture (like Christ needs help in his providential rulings in the culture). You know us Lutherans react when we detect that the pure Gospel is being infected by the Law. So, what do you expect? You’re name calling has no effect on me. My point, as Darryl pointed out, is that Rushdoony and most of the Reconstructionists wax on and on about the Law and do not really concentrate on defining and proclaiming the Gospel. Just glance through their literature and you will understand what I am talking about. In one book I have, Bahnsen wrote an essay entitled “The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel” and has at best 2 or 3 sentences about the Gospel (which you have to seek diligently for) and the rest was on the law. The book is entitled Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian- Five Views with articles by Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren. That is indicative of how the reconstructionists wrote.

    Like

  136. John, you are making an “emphasis” criticism of Rushdoony, Bahnsen, et al. It’s similar to the criticism that Van Til didn’t believe in presenting evidence for Christianity because he seldom uses traditional evidence in his apologetics. But Van Til’s interest was in the philosophy of apologetics so that’s what he talked about most, and he felt his colleagues at WTS were better at presenting the traditional evidences. It doesn’t mean he didn’t believe in evidences or that they weren’t useful.

    Similarly just because Rushdoony talks a whole lot about law and social-political ethics doesn’t mean he doesn’t also believe in the gospel. In fact in his Politics of Guilt and Pity book, just after talking about Christ’s atonement, he quotes with approval the Westminster Confession of Faith on its teaching on justification (including imputation).

    Emphasis criticism is a common fallacy in argument.

    My own view is neither radical 2k nor reconstructionist 1k. Rather I’m Hodgian 2k, following Charles Hodge’s view. Hodge believed the church should condemn slavery at the time of the American Civil War, whereas his opponent Thornwell thought the church was too spiritual to condemn slavery. Thornwell was the paradigm case of the radical 2k view, so that’s why I regard Darryl, et al., as Thornwellian 2k and myself as a Hodgian 2k.

    Like

  137. Vern,

    So you don’t think the folks in the public square (and the governing authorities) during that time could have come through the light of nature to the conclusion that slavery should be condemned without the preachers in the pulpits voicing their views about public policy matters?

    Re: Emphasis criticism is a common fallacy in argument

    Paul did not seem to think so in the book of Galatians and Walter (the founder of the LCMS in America did not either;

    In the twenty-first place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance in his teaching.

    It is an exceedingly important subject that we are taking up in this our concluding study. For we are told in this thesis that Law and Gospel are confounded and perverted for the hearers of the Word, not only when the Law predominates in the preaching, but also when Law and Gospel, as a rule, are equally balanced and the gospel is not predominant in the preaching. In view of the precious character of this subject I am seized with fear lest I spoil it by my manner of presentation. The longer I have meditated this subject, the more inadequate does the expression that I can give it; so precious is this matter.

    What confuses me about the reconstructionists is that they realize that the power to begin to take steps in obeying the Law only comes after regeneration and belief in the Gospel yet they still preach and teach Law, Law and more Law. I don’t buy your argument Vern.

    Like

  138. I should have put quotes around that Walter statement. I think you can figure out where they should go. And I appreciate you giving me a bit more insight into the views you espouse.

    Like

  140. John, the reason Rushdoony et al, preached and taught law was because they weren’t antinomians….Have you never read the book of James? Given your emphasis fallacy, you’d have to claim that James didn’t believe in the gospel!

    Like

  141. Vern, I’m not an antinomian either. You have to know the context of the book of James and the issues the writer of the book of James was dealing with when he was writing the letter. Sometimes people need to be confronted with the law in order to prepare them (or convict them of their sin) for the Gospel. Have you read the emphasis Paul had in the book of Galatians and in that last post I wrote with the link to the Walter argument? Do you know how to distinguish properly between the law and the gospel? Sometimes people think they know how to but they really don’t- like the reconstructionists. As Walter argues here:

    http://www.lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/lecture-08.html#thesis_four

    Like

  143. Vern,

    You obviously don’t realize this but a Lutheran knows he is staying faithful to his confession of faith when his opponent starts appealing to the book of James. It is the one of the best compliment you can give to a Lutheran.

    Like

  144. Vern,

    Why argue from James? Why not consider the correctives in Galatians, Colossians, Corinthians, Jude, and so forth? Why ignore Christ’s command to learn of him and that the OT is all about him? Is Christ crucified for us to be primary or is the law that shows us the multitudes of ways we are sinners to be primary in his kingdom? If it is the former, our comfort and salvation are ensured; if it is the later, we are all doomed and may as well commit suicide and get it over with.

    Like

  145. You’re right, Dr. Hart. Using James is like giving candy to a Lutheran – we know our Christ crucified card trumps all the Pharisee cards in the deck! 😉

    Like

  147. Daryl, I did not cite James as a defense of theonomy. I used it as an example of what kind of (fallacious) conclusions can be gained by indulging in the “emphasis” fallacy.

    Can’t you guys read with understanding? Do I have to explain every little period and comma?

    Like

  148. Vern, since you tend to speak here in bumper stickers, you may have some ‘splainin’ to do. And what pray tell is the “’emphasis’ fallacy”? If Andy Reed runs an offense that passes the ball more than it should, is it really fallacious to say that the Eagles don’t run enough?

    Like

  149. Lily, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the film “Lars and the Real Girl,” but I’m sure glad Lars was surrounded by Lutherans and not Rushies.

    Like

  150. Zrim,

    I had never heard of this movie. The trailer makes it look like a fun, warm-hearted movie. As for the Rushies – getting the law wrong does seem to have the Grinch effect – making hearts two sizes too small towards their neighbors.

    Like

  152. Vern,

    I looked up if there was such a thing as an empasis fallacy and there is but I believe it speaks to the argument I was making. It is called the fallacy of emphasizing irrelevant factors. Here is how Geisler defines it in his book Come Let Us Reason: “This error is very much like the post hoc fallacy (after this ; therefore because of this-it assumes that a common antecedent factor is the cause; the post hoc fallacy is like assuming the sound of a rooster crowing causes the sun to rise) in that it is confusing a concomitant factor (rather than an antecedent) with the cause. It assumes that a common antecedent factor that happens to be present is the relevant factor when it is not. A cause has to have the ability to produce the effect.”

    Geisler goes on and gives an example that can be applied to what we have been talking about in regards to the Law and the Gospel: “a drunk might start figuring, ‘whether I drink scotch and soda, whiskey and soda, rum and soda, or bourbon and soda, I still get drunk.’ So he gives up soda.”

    So Vern are Law and Gospel irrelevant factors? You do not preach more Law to bring the Kingdom of God about- it is the Gospel that brings the Kingdom. It is the reconstructionists who are emphasizing irrelevant factors (the Law) and then trying to apply it to the culture instead of the Church. Maybe the reconstructionists need to give up on preaching and teaching the Law so much and emphasize the Gospel. A start might be in taking lots of time in defining the Gospel in their writings.

    Do I have to explain every little period and comma Vern?

    Like

  153. The reconstructionists are drunk on the Law and they give up the Gospel in order to stay drunk on the Law. It does a lot of damage to themselves and to others.

    Like

  156. Zrim,

    Thanks Zrim, but I have lots of bad personal history with Recon’s and I tend to get a bit emotive. I think the critiques of their writing and theology stand and I think a lot of Rushdoony’s later writings on the Gospel were in response to some of the critiques. Perhaps some of them have made adjustments in their thinking. When I was reading them back in the 80’s it was 99% Law and 1% Gospel. I digress and keep making that emphasis fallacy. lol!!
    It seems like a whole lot of reputable theologians are making the same mistake.

    Like

  157. lol back at you, Ben. You Recon’s always have a smug and condescending answer to all of us sinners. You won’t turn off the victory mode until you die. It is Christ who won the victory, not the Recon’s. You have heard the critiques over and over again, yet you still show up on the site. What pray tell for?

    Like

  158. Tell me John. The Westminster Shorter Catechism spends about 40% (the Larger 30%) of its space on questions of the Law and less than 10% on the Gospel. Do you find the Westminster Catechisms to be “denying the Gospel”?

    Like

  159. Alright Ben, I will reluctantly recant of the statement “denying the Gospel.” How about doubting that the Gospel is powerful enough to accomplish God’s intended purposes and confusing the distinctions between Law and Gospel. Which, in my mind, is a subtle way of denying the Gospel. And the Westminster Catechism is a Presbyterian and Reformed confession. I bet you won’t find those percentages in the BOC. Us Lutherans have always thought you Calvinists spend way to much time on the Law. In fact, during the midst of Luther’s reformation battles he went through some of the Catholic confessions of faith and greatly reduced the Law and moral reform statements in them and inserted the 10 commandments with about 3-5 pages of commentary on the commandments. In Rush’s Institutes of Biblical Law he waxes on with about 80 pages of commentary per commandment. And I still have not found much about the Gospel in that book.

    I am sure you have heard of Luther’s remark against Erasmus, paraphrased: Erasmus went after their appetites but I went after their doctrine. I do not think Rush was drawn to Luther that much.

    Like

  160. Unquestionably imagine that which you said. Your favourite justification seemed to be at the internet the easiest thing to take note of. I say to you, I certainly get irked even as other people consider issues that they just don’t recognise about. You managed to hit the nail upon the highest and defined out the entire thing with no need side-effects , folks could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.