Genesis to Revelation In Two Sentences

Like a symphony, Scripture is a unified whole that contains multiple diverse themes that are developed and incased in the narratival canonical plotline.

The OT is the story of God, who progressively reestablishes his new creational kingdom out of chaos over a sinful people by his word and Spirit through promise, covenant, and redemption, resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this kingdom and judgment (defeat or exile) for the unfaithful, unto his glory.

The NT heightens and develops the OT score and storyline by giving us Jesus whose life, trials, death for sinners, and especially resurrection by the Spirit have launched the fulfillment of the eschatological already — not yet new — creational reign, bestowed by grace alone through faith alone and resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this new-creational reign and resulting in judgment for the unbelieving unto the triune God’s Glory.

Paraphrase of G.K. Beale
A NT Biblical Theology — pg. 16

Now the question for Dr. Beale would be, “Is the worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this new-creational reign a commission that is exhaustive and totalistic touching every area of life?”

It is hard to imagine a new-creational reign that is limited, muted or stunted in what it re-orders.

George Washington … Deist or Christian?

“Washington’s own religious pronouncements as president were basically unitarian with deistic overtones and in keeping with civil religion beliefs. The Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter’s Church in Philadelphia where Washington often worshipped when the seat of government was located there, went so far as to affirm that the chief executive was a deist and lax in his attention to the Eucharist. To be sure, Washington was not disrespectful toward the church, but according to testimony from both Abercrombie and Rev. William White, the first Episcopal bishop of Pennsylvania, Washington was not a zealous churchgoer nor was he in the habit of partaking of the sacrament. Moreover, he was notorious for not kneeling to pray in public worship. At the church in Philadelphia, he often attended the pulpit service but left before the observance of the Eucharist, usually leaving the more devout Mrs. Washington behind with the other communicants. When Dr. Abercrombie in a sermon scolded those in places of public trust who set bad examples by turning their backs on the sacrament, Washington was so irked that he never appeared at St. Peter’s on Communion Sunday again. This ambivalence towards orthodoxy characterized Washington’s church-going habits and this attitude toward organized religion in general during his years as president. He attended sporadically, listened courteously, but participated little in the life of the local church. He never spoke of any personal belief in Christ but rather reserved his affirmations of faith in the Supreme Ruler of the Nations for his personal letters or civil religion occasions of the government such as the presidential inaugural.”

Pierard & Linder
“Civil Religion & the Presidency”

Letter from R. J. Rushdoony to Cornelius Van Til,

Dear Dr. Van Til,

This is a hasty note in respect to George Washington. What the history books have to say about him and his biographers is no more trusted than what James Daane has to say about you.

George Washington grew up into the 18th century Rationalism. A basically conservative, land loving man, a part of his conservatism was to accept, without great question, the rationalism of his day. However, the events of the war, led to a somewhat altered perspective, and then the French Revolution, during his presidency, altered his outlook markedly. He strongly opposed the French Revolution. He emphatically affirmed infallibility as the bedrock of the Christian faith as against rationalism. Previously a Mason, he supported Rev. Jeddidiah Morse, leading orthodox Calvinist of the day, in his attack on free-masonry and wrote at least two letters to Morse to underscore with his own testimony the validity of Morse’ attack. It is in terms of this that his 1796 quote is to be understood.

I shared the lecture platform, in Houston Texas recently, with Gregg Singer, who rightfully called attention to the strongly Christian thought in the Constitutional convention by men such as Rutledge, Dickinson, John Jay and others. Certainly, Patrick Henry, nominally, like Washington a Anglican represented, as Singer stated the Reformed faith with intensity. Henry was in his day a “Traveling Monk” in the eyes of some, because of his habit of carrying Reformed literature in his saddle bags to distribute to other lawyers. Even on his death bed, Henry witnessed to the faith to his agnostic Doctor.

Such aspects of American history are anathema to our historians, who, from the early 1800’s, when the Unitarians began to write our history, to the present when relativists have taken over, have worked more systematically to re-make the history and the founding fathers after their own image. In those days, it was necessary to affirm infallibility and the trinity to vote, and what many people forget is that the deistic writings of Franklin and Jefferson were not published in their day but privately written. Jefferson’s unbelief was widely suspected, but he avoided public profession of it.

We are too little aware of how Christian the laws were in all the states. As late as 1912, on state constitution still required that one be a Christian to hold citizenship and vote. Only last Summer did the New Jersey Supreme court strike down an old statute, once universal in all the states, denying the right of atheists to be witnesses in a court of law because of their inability to take the oath honestly and because they lacked citizenship.


R. J. Rushdoony

Hat Tip — Mickey Bolwerk

Beware Where You Get Your Truth

“… Our conquerors strain every nerve to preoccupy the ears of all America with the false version of affairs which suits the purposes of their usurpation. With a gigantic sweep of mendacity, the literature aims to falsify or misrepresent everything; the very facts of history, the principles of the former Constitution as admitted in the days of freedom by all Statesmen of all parties; the character and motives of our patriots; the very essential names of rights, virtues, and vices. The whole sway of their commercial and political ascendancy is exerted… Its sheets come up like frogs of Egypt, into our houses, our bed chambers, our very kneading troughs.

Our age presents the strange instance of a numerous party, who think they can circumvent the resistless force of truth by systematically misnaming facts and fallacies, who are deliberately building a whole system of empire on the substitution of light for darkness, and darkness for light, of good for evil and evil for good, calling that master in our government which was servant, that patriotism which was treason, and that treason which was righteous defense.”

R. L Dabney
19th Century Southern Theologian
Discussions – Secular — pg. 21

Dabney was speaking in 1882 but all of this remains so in 2012. To get to the truth you have to cut through the fog of contemporary and historical deceit.

Women & The Home

“There in your homes, is your domain. There you rule w/ the scepter of affection , and not our conquerors. We beseech you, wield that gentle empire in behalf of the principles , the patriotism, the religion, which we inherited from our Mothers. Teach our ruder sex that only by deathless love to these can woman’s dear love be deserved or won. Him who is true to these, crown with thy favor. Let the wretch who betrays them be exiled forever from the paradise of your arms. Then shall we be saved, saved from a degradation fouler than the grave. Be it yours to nurse with more than vestal’s watchfulness, the sacred flame of our virtue, now so smothered. Your task is unobtrusive; it is performed in the privacy of the home, and by the gentle touches of daily love. But it is the noblest work which mortal can preform, for it furnishes the polished stones with which the temple of our liberties must be repaired…. The home and the fireside are the scenes of your industry. But the materials which you shape are the souls of man, which are to compose the fabric of our Church and state. The politician, the professional man, is but the cheap, rude day laborer, who moves and lifts the finished block to its place. You are the true artists, who endue it with fitness and beauty; and therefore yours is the nobler task.”

R. L. Dabney
19th Century Southern Theologian
Discussions, Vol IV — pg. 121-122

Theonomy & Centralization

‎”What they (theonomists) are not right about is that centralized government is inherently evil and can never be used for good.”

Wife of Famous Contemporary Theonomic Preacher

With friends like this theonomy needs no enemies.

The whole premise of Theonomy is God alone is Sovereign.

The whole premise of Centralization is, by definition, that the State is sovereign.

Theonomy advocates universally for Sphere sovereignty because Theonomists believe that no sovereignty should lie exhaustively and absolutely in any one created place such as the State.

Centralized government, by definition, seeks to accrue all created sovereignty to itself.

Honestly, I don’t know how someone could be a Calvinist, let alone a Theonomist who says that