Rushdoony and the Limits of a Limitless Libertarianism.

Was RJR a Libertarian? You read this quote from Roots of Reconstruction and tell me.

The current organizations that represent institutional Reconstructionism are no longer faithfully interpreting Rushdoony having drank the swill that is movement Libertarianism. They are no longer standing for the ideas that RJR championed having drank the Libertarian Kool-aide. They are supporting those who have attacked the Trustee family.

http://www.christendomrestored.com/blog/2012/11/christian-culture-vs-clan-culture/

(See Rebuttal here,)

http://faithandheritage.com/2012/12/a-defense-of-kirk-and-kin-a-response-to-bojidar-marinov-part-1/

They are applying Libertarianism, as opposed to Biblical Law, to Immigration analysis,

http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2014/07/bojidar-marinov-on-immigration-crisis.html

(See Rebuttal here,)

https://ironink.org/2014/07/fisking-american-vision-published-blog-regarding-immigration/

They are explicitly insisting that Rushdoony was a full fledged Libertarian,

Is that Rushdoony’s libertarianism, or someone else’s?

But see below.

Currently those reputed to be representing Rushdoony are interpreting Rushdoony through a movement Libertarian grid and they are fouling the well of Reconstructionism and Theonomy. This is why I encourage everyone to go to the primary source (Rushdoony himself) to get the real Rushdoony. You can easily do this through the services of www.pocketcollege.com.

Don’t read these pretenders to the throne. As the bumper sticker used to say; “Read Rushdoony.”

Here is R. J. Rushdoony on his understanding of the Limits of a limitless Libertarianism.

“Reality, in brief was reduced to a particular institution or discipline of which men were the governors or interpreters.

This same fallacy has marked economics, in that all too many free market advocates under the influence of the philosophy of immanentism, have taken this one sphere of law and absolutized it as the only law. We do agree with classical economics as economics, but not as a religious philosophy. When it is converted into a religious philosophy of immanence, it denies validity to any transcendental law of God and to all other institutions and orders of life unless they pass the test of the free market. Free market economics then becomes totalitarian and absolutist: it becomes idolatry. Some hold that the family and prostitution, and normal and perverted sexuality, must compete on a free market basis. Narcotics and good food are reduced to the same free market test. In brief, anything and everything goes, because there is only one law, the free market. (0ne person contends that there should be no title to property, but only the right of access by everyone who is able to command the power and money to take the property, in other words, a free market to power and violence as well.) Any value derived from any other sphere, or any principled judgment derived from a transcendental order, from God, must compete on a free market basis it is held. This is simply saying that the free market is god, and that it is the absolute and sole value in the universe. It assumes there is no God beyond the market, no other law, no other value, than the free market. Moreover, because the free market has its truth in the economic sphere, they sit back smugly, satisfied that they have the key to life. The Marxists no less than other Totalitarians stress one or two partial “Truths”, which they use to exclude all truth and God, and the same is true of those who reduce the world to matter. The free market religionists are really great enemies of free market economics, in that they pervert an instrument of freedom into a form of totalitarianism. It is not surprising that many free market religionists have in recent years been very congenial to the New Left; both are alike in their strident totalitarianism.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 809-810
1972

The problem we are having with the current channelers of Rushdoony is that they have an Libertarian agenda that disallows them from reading Rushdoony qua Rushdoony. As difficult as it is, it is time to put aside Institutional Reconstructionism and Theonomy and realize that we have to start anew digging different wells … wells that hold water.

Sad though it may see, I’m quite confident that not even Rousas J. Rushdoony himself would cut a check to support Institutional Reconstructionism as it is expressed today.

Republication Ruin #2

I continue with pulling, what I consider to be choice quotes from “Merit & Moses.”

In Part 1, we will seek to show that the TLNF-Klinean version of the doctrine of republication is the result of a modern day debate concerning the doctrine of justification which began at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) in the late 1970s. In our judgment, this debate ultimately resulted in a reactionary pendulum swing against the teaching of Professor Norman Shepherd. Shepherd’s teaching eventually deviated from historic Reformed covenant theology in that the doctrine of the covenant of works was compromised. This ultimately led to a deficient view of the doctrine of justification in which the imputation of the active obedience of Christ was explicitly repudiated. In response to Shepherd, Professor Meredith Kline sought to preserve the church’s teaching on the covenant of works and justification through Christ’s active obedience. However, Kline did this by making several of his own modifications to traditional Reformed theology, especially the doctrine of merit. In the end, we believe both sides have embraced and affirmed concepts that significantly differ from the confessional Reformed tradition.”

Elam, Van Kooten & Bergquist
Merit and Moses; A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication — pg. 3

I note this quote because, for those who have known me and who have followed Iron Ink know that I have been insisting for years now that the error of Federal Vision (Shepherd) and the error of R2K (Kline) are mirror errors. They are to one another what Nestorianism and Monophysitism were to each other. When the debate about Federal Vision was hot and heavy I wrote against the extreme of Federal Vision and when R2K (and now it’s sister doctrine Mosaic Recapitulation) became the ecclesiastical debate du-jour I have been inveighing against them. I take delight in this quote because others are now reinforcing the idea that these two errors are related.

Note that the authors of MM insists that “both sides (Shepherdites and Klineans) have embraced and affirmed concepts that significantly differ from the confessional Reformed tradition.” This is important for the conservative confessional Reformed Church to pay attention to because much of that church is being given the Hobson’s choice that insists that we must choose either Federal Vision or R2K and Mosaic Covenant Republication when in point of fact they are each options that are promissory of unraveling the Reformed faith.

Federal Vision gives us the option of giving up Justification by faith alone for the sake of a sanctification that becomes a kind of covenantal moralism upon which our Justification depends, and this no matter how subtle and convoluted the FV lads are able to mask it. R2k and the Mosaic covenant Republication chaps gives us the option of a Justification that is denuded of sanctification. R2K and the Mosaic covenant Republication view so much wants to protect Justification that it is willing to give up public square sanctification. Federal Vision so much wants a active faith that it wants to make Justification dependent upon faithfulness of the believer (a sanctification category).

They both are errant and finally others are starting to see it.

Republication Ruin #1

I just finished “Merit and Moses,” which is an analysis of the R2K-Klinean Covenant Republication innovation. I am going to post, over the next few days, sundry quotes with some limited analysis.

“In light of the concept of “simple justice,” it is very difficult to see how the Republication Paradigm helps Israel discern the necessity of someone else performing perfect obedience to merit a reward on their behalf. If their imperfect obedience can be constituted as the meritorious ground of reward, where then do we find the ground for the necessity of the absolute perfect obedience of Christ to merit our salvation? By redefining the traditional view of merit, it seems that the Republication Paradigm has actually destroyed a significant portion of the traditional theological basis for the necessity of Christ’s perfect, active obedience.

In the traditional paradigm, the definition of justice and merit absolutely necessitates the perfect obedience of Christ to merit our salvation. In the Republication Paradigm, the definition of justice and merit no longer requires moral perfection. According to this system, Israel is able to truly merit blessing through an obedience that is only relative and imperfect (i. e., sinful). This revised definition of merit no longer absolutely requires perfection to meet the bar of Gods justice, either for Adam, for Israel, or for Christ.”

I post this quote first because it cuts the legs out from under the premise of the need for this Westminster West innovation. A large part of the whole idea of Republication was arrived at because the thought was that by providing innovation on the Mosaic Covenant one could more securely protect Justification. The thought by the Westminster West mavens was that other lesser forms of the Reformed movement were surrendering Justification. The innovators of Klinean covenant recapitulation thought they could rescue Justification from the clutches of their terrible opponents.

And yet we see by the above quote that the whole idea of Christ’s active obedience imputed to us in Justification is called into question by this covenantal innovation. In the words of the Authors of “Merit and Moses,” “Ironically, the republication teaching which was intended to preserve and protect the doctrine of justification, may (when consistently worked out) actually undercut this doctrine by which the church stands or falls.”

The Death of Robin Williams and the Question of the Proper Christian Response

The suicide of Comedian-Actor Robin Williams has provided a rather interesting window into the worldview of various and sundry Christians. I was caught quite surprised over the emotion that Williams death would generate among those who claim the name of Christ. It could be the reason for all that emotion is that Williams has been a poster child for large segments of both the Baby Boomers and Generation X. In losing Williams these large swaths of people are losing a cultural identifier that was woven deeply into their psyche. No one can doubt that Williams, for good and for ill, made a huge impact on the zeitgeist.

In this discussion, I think I can understand both the perspective of those that insist that, as Christians, we should be respectful of the dead and so not speak ill of them as well as the position that observes that Williams should be used as a negative example of the danger of gaining the whole world while losing one’s own soul.

An example of the former disposition can be found in the following quotes provided by sundry Christians,

“We can’t say for certain whether or not he is in peace right now so being respectful and gracious is the right thing to do. RIP”

“Well, we can certainly dissect the lives of anyone who has died, believer and non believer alike at their deaths. But, is it kind and is it necessary to do so? Is it the place of those who knew him so little to make fun or to criticize those who have grief right now? There are unpleasant stories in the past of us all. People right now are desiring to focus on the positive and pleasant memories of Robin Williams and his brilliant wit and comedy. We are all shaped by those around us: family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, those in the political realm and those in the fashion/music/entertainment world. In spite of the negative influences that the Lord allowed to be part of the shaping of who I am today, i hope that when I take my final breath, that others who may not care for me will allow those that do to grieve. My life was not damaged by Robin Williams, though not all that he did was I fond of. It is like eating fish… Spit out the bones when you get a few in your mouth and move on. Enjoy the good things that a person did.At this time, the death of a well loved man, perhaps our testimony as Christians shines brighter by showing respect rather than making a mockery of others and their memories and grief.”

“It honestly just bugs the hell out of me when people say things negatively about people like him when they die. Its not as if he committed genocide and deserved to die.

I feel more terrible that a man who was a thinker and had such a great mind for comedy probably wont be in heaven. You should grieve more for people who don’t have any hope…because they are damned. At least when our fellows in Christ die, they get to move onto the afterlife of peace and tranquility. Not so for unrepentant. Show your quality as Christians by being sympathetic.”

There are texts in Scripture that seem to support this disposition. Proverbs 24:17-18 for example says:

“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; or the Lord will see and be displeased and turn His anger away from him.”

The Proverbs 24 passage echoes other passages. Job, for instance, believes himself righteous because he hasn’t rejoiced in the death of his enemies (Job 31:29). Scripture indicates that when we see the wicked rejoicing over the death of their enemies, we automatically know it isn’t right (Judges 16:25; 2Sa 16:5-6; Psalm 35:13-15; 42:10; Micah 7:8).

Certainly then there is a place for sensitivity and tenderness in an untimely death. We can all admit that there is a certain sadness when the wicked die. After all, there but the grace of God go any of us. We can be sad at the waste of all that talent as the talent was not used for God’s glory. We can be sad at what might have been. Sad for the damage they did to themselves and to those who loved them. We can be saddened over how the enemy kills and destroys image bearers of God.

However, sadness and a pious respect are not the last words on this subject. We must also consider that Scripture repeatedly speaks of joy over the death of the wicked. Proverbs 11:10 says,

“When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; they shout for joy when the wicked die.”

In Psalm 58:10 this idea of God’s people corporately rejoicing in the death of their enemies is recorded,

“The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”

Here we note that God expects His people to rejoice over the death of His and their enemies. And why should we be surprised at that? The wicked are those who oppose the advance of God’s Kingdom. The wicked are those who prefer their triumph over God’s triumph in the land of the living. The wicked prefer their glory being known as opposed to God’s glory being known. The wicked desire to make a name for themselves at the expense of God’s people making a name for God. There can be no doubt that the removal of the wicked should be a cause for celebration, if only because their attack on God’s reputation is finished.

The greatest mind ever produced by America, (Rev. Jonathan Edwards) preached a sermon once that captured some of this. Edwards reminded his listeners that the most intimate of relationships would not cause the redeemed in the relationship to not rejoice over the destruction of the unredeemed. Edwards wrote,

“You that have godly parents, who in this world have tenderly loved you, who were wont to look upon your welfare as their own, and were wont to be grieved for you when any thing calamitous befell you in this world, and especially were greatly concerned for the good of your souls, industriously sought, and earnestly prayed for their salvation; how will you bear to see them in the kingdom of God, crowned with glory? Or how will you bear to see them receiving the blessed sentence, and going up with shouts and songs, to enter with Christ into the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, while you are amongst a company of devils, and are turned away with the most bitter cries, to enter into everlasting burnings, prepared for the devil and his angels? How will you bear to see your parents, who in this life had so dear an affection for you, now without any love to you, approving the sentence of condemnation, when Christ shall with indignation bid you depart, wretched, cursed creatures, into eternal burnings ? How will you bear to see and hear them praising the Judge, for his justice exercised in pronouncing this sentence, and hearing it with holy joy in their countenances, and shouting forth the praises and hallelujahs of God and Christ on that account?”

Our current Christian culture, such as it is, has no problem with the empathy side of the equation. Unfortunately, in our current culture most of our empathy is on the side of fallen men. But understand, that those who properly rejoice at the death of the wicked are also demonstrating empathy. It is a least possible that they are demonstrating empathy for God and His Christ in rejoicing over the death of the wicked. Is there not a place for empathy over God’s glory being diminished and then a place for rejoicing when those who have diminished God’s glory are removed? Is there not a place for empathy for God, when His name and character are denigrated, and then a place for rejoicing when those who have denigrated the Holy name of God are removed so as to never denigrate it again? Not all rejoicing over the death of the wicked is a case of insensitive clods who don’t understand what it means to be Christian. And some of the tenderness over the death of the wicked is a case of insensitive (to God) nekulturny who don’t understand what it means to be Christian.

The point here plainly stated, for those who may have missed it, is that it is possible that sympathy and empathy for the fallen wicked may come at cost for sympathy and empathy for the Transcendent, Holy God.

So, we must own both sides of the equation in this matter. I think that we can both rejoice at the death of fallen men and not rejoice over the death of fallen men by remaining God centered. We can rejoice in God’s name being cleared and we can not rejoice when remembering that it is only God’s grace alone that causes us to differ from God haters. In the death of the wicked we have to satisfy both sides of the equation.

Postscript,

Clearly it is possible that Robin Williams turned to Christ just before he jumped off the chair to hang himself, (odd combination there to think about) but if we were only to look at his body of work it is clear that the man did not own Christ and so is eternally separated from God. There is nothing inappropriate about noting that as a warning to people.

http://www.goodfight.org/a_v_williams_robin.html

Ask The Pastor; Shouldn’t We Show More Love?

Dear Pastor,

In reference to your critique of Tullian Tchividjian a week or so ago I would like to make a couple of comments.

First, I find it amazing that you would cite Billy Graham’s visits with the presidents. Graham has made a conscious effort to be bi-partisan and non-political, something which cannot be said of many evangelicals today. Rick Warren tried that route and was thrown to the evangelical wolves.

Second, I remember someone saying once that it is easy to preach against sins that no one in your congregation commits. It is easy to preach against abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates.

The individual sinner (me and you!) however, are not brought under conviction for the sins of our culture. It is our sins: self-righteousness, unbelief, hatefulness, greed, selfish ambition, impatience, anger, holding grudges, having a sharp tongue (and pen), pride, and the like. Some of us commit acts of murder or sexual sins, as well. But the good news is not that we are sinners, it is that Christ came to save sinners.

Sadly, we have become not associated with Christ and his love for sinners, but the Pharisees and their condemning words.

David

Dear David,

Just a brief response seeking to help you see where you’re in error.

1.) Graham was hugely political. To sanction what US Presidents were doing by appearing with them was HUGELY political. Take only two examples.

a.) When he appeared with President Bush I in the context of Gulf War I, thus communicating the Evangelical approval. Instead Graham should have, at the very least, not appeared with Bush I since the Gulf war was naked aggression. Something no Christian had any business supporting.

b.) The 9-11 Memorial where Graham went all political by being part of a service that communicated that all religions are equal. A political statement if there ever was one.

Billy Graham was a political beast and there is no arguing that he was “non-political” and bi-partisan.

I always liked this quote from R. J. Rushdoony on the likes of Billy Graham.

The kind of religion Billy Graham … represents is readily approved of by corrupt politicians and venal communications media. It does not challenge their godless dreams of dominion, and it does sugar-coat their sins with the veneer of religious respectability, with a facade of pietism. Such men can have the ear of national leaders and preach in the White House and in Congress without affecting even to the extent of an iota the national march into degeneracy and apostasy.

RJ Rushdoony- God’s Plan For Victory

2.) Really? You think it is easy to make a public stand against Abortion and Homosexual marriages? You think Evangelicals in our congregations are not involved in those sins so that they don’t need to be addressed from the pulpit?

3.) Christ came to save repentant sinners. Christ did NOT come to save sinners who are not repentant. This is the problem with the antinomian “Gospel” of Tullian and (presumably) yourself. You think that repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners should be approached in the same way. Here are some words of Geerhardus Vos which might assist you,

“From the fact that to a generation which knew God only as a righteous Judge, and in an atmosphere surcharged with the sense of retribution, He (Jesus) made the sum and substance of His preaching the love of God, it does not follow that, if He were in person to preach to our present age so strangely oblivious of everything but love, His message would be entirely the same.”

Geehardaus Vos
Redemptive History & Biblical Interpretation
The Scriptural Doctrine Of The Love Of God

4.) All I see is self righteousness in the school which flings around the accusation of self-righteousness against those who hold up God’s standard. All I hear them saying is, “Look how much more righteous we are because we don’t expect people to have God’s standard placed before them, unlike those mean people who insists that the Gospel must be preceded by the proclamation of God’s Law word.

5.) I quite agree that all God’s people have sins to repent of. That is why, in our Worship every week, we hear God’s Law, Confess our sins, and then hear God’s declaration of absolution.

6.) David, you said, “The individual sinner (me and you!) however, are not brought under conviction for the sins of our culture” —- Where, pray tell, do you get this David? I am convicted daily.

7.) You seem completely blythe to the fact that there is a set agenda being pushed upon the Church and culture to normalize particular sins. It is not me who is making a hobby horse out of preaching against “Sodomy” or “abortion.” It is the fact that my people are inundated with the message that sodomy and abortion are “normal.” Ministers, preaching in this cultural context, are fools if they don’t take a stand, for the sake of Christ and His people, against those prevailing sins of the zeitgeist that are seeking to force God’s people to conform to the zeitgeist.

8.) In closing allow me to suggest that it is you, by offering the love of a harlot as the love of Christ, who is showing a lack of love to and for the sinner. The good news is that Christ came to save those who see themselves under God’s wrath because they are sinners.

You can be sure that when I am face to face with someone broken by their sin the last thing I will offer is condemnation. You can be sure that whenever I am face to face with someone who is repentant all I have to offer is the Character of God who loves us in spite of our sin. You can be sure that when I am face to face with someone who is repentant what I do is enter into repentance with them.