# The Slander of R.J. Rushdoony



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2007)

Below is a quote from a person who left a comment on my blog concerning R.J. Rushdoony and totalitarian eduction:



> If it is true, as RJR affirms that, “Common to all forms of totalitarianism is a belief in the state control of education,” then this would put the United States outside his definition of “totalitarian.” For, in the U.S.A. we have freedom to educate our children and are not bound by the all “controling” hand of the state.
> 
> I suspect though, by totalitarian, he has in mind the forced racial integration of the 1960’s. Who knows? In the end, he probably blames the Jews.
> 
> If only we could just get back to that good ole theocracy of our founding Deistic fathers, then everything would be honky-dory.



To which I responded:



> “In the end, he probably blames the Jews”
> 
> That is a ridiculous comment; repent of that slander of another Christian. Moreover, Rushdoony never said that everything in the Revolutionary era was “hunky-dory”, and forced racial integration is not Biblical.
> 
> Also, while some people in America presently have freedom to home-school, the state could remove this if it so desired, so ULTIMATELY it has the final control over education.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 8, 2007)

Actually Daniel, the State does not have the ability to remove that freedom. There are numerous Supreme Court decisions to that effect.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Actually Daniel, the State does not have the ability to remove that freedom. There are numerous Supreme Court decisions to that effect.



But if the Supreme Court was to reverse its former decisions, then it would.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Actually Daniel, the State does not have the ability to remove that freedom. There are numerous Supreme Court decisions to that effect.



Just to further clarify - the theory of totalitarian Statism means that it is impossible for education not to be ultimately controlled by the state; while America has not gone as far down the Statist road as other nations, the logic of Statism means that home-schooling should be restricted and eventually prohibited.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Actually Daniel, the State does not have the ability to remove that freedom. There are numerous Supreme Court decisions to that effect.



They can't remove it directly, that is true, but as someone who has to deal with paperwork from _________, ____________, _____________, the State can make home-education/Christian education very inconvenient (and for some impossible) with mountains of rules, regulations, and paperwork.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Daniel, the State does not have the ability to remove that freedom. There are numerous Supreme Court decisions to that effect.
> ...



And this shows that the state is trying to have control over it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 8, 2007)

If that is the case (i.e. "it can be reversed" "paperwork can make it hard") then every State that has ever existed - including Davidic Israel - is a Totalitarian State.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> If that is the case (i.e. "it can be reversed" "paperwork can make it hard") then every State that has ever existed - including Davidic Israel - is a Totalitarian State.



I meant state regulations and monopolizing an area that God has not given to the state. I spent the last few weeks dealing with Federal documents on education. 

Davidic Israel didn't pass regulations on state-[-]controlled [/-]sponsored education.

And yes, many states have been totalitarian.

Also, the objection {A}"well, if you say it can be reversed" does not equal {B}"well, in that case every state is a totalitarian one."

Here's why: {A} is a modal statement. It is describing something that hasn't happened yet. {B} is a historical one. It has already happened (e.g., David ruling). 

Now if you were to turn the argument around, to say {C} "Well, if a state wanted to regulate education, then according to your logic it would be totalitarian." And then add premise {D}. Therefore, if David did {C}, he would be {D}." 

To which I say, "Probably so." But that's not the argument in question.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2007)

And David did some heavy-handed totalitarian things, like steal bathesheba and murder Uriah.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 8, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > If that is the case (i.e. "it can be reversed" "paperwork can make it hard") then every State that has ever existed - including Davidic Israel - is a Totalitarian State.
> ...



Jacob,

You are completely missing my point. The argument went thus:

1. (Per Daniel's comment on Rushdoony) America is a totalitarian state because it _could _compel State education.
2. I countered that the State was prohibited by its rule of law (i.e. Constitutional Law). NOTE: I did not even address the fallacious argument that it was totalitarian just because it could (not has) compel.
3. The counter-argument was (an exceedingly lame) "well, the law could change" or (perhaps implied) the rule of law is not stable. Again, not that the law had changed, but that it could.

So my point is that if a State is totalitarian simply because the _possibility exists_ that it could abandon its own rule of law that is directly *counter* to the situation that would make it totalitarian, then any State that has ever existed is/was totalitarian, since every State had the possibility of changing its rule of law. It is like saying A is bad; but non-A exists; but someone counters - ah-ha someday it _could_ be A! Therefore it is bad.

This is ridiculous.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2007)

Ok the, Daniel should have modified (1). In a sense the State has its fingers in the cookie jar already. They are already regulating education when they do not need to from moral and even from pragmatic standpoints. 

I am addressing different points than Daniel. My points should not be collapsed into his.

Anyway, go to the Homeschool Legal Defense site and type in "jail" in the search engine. I stopped after 2 pages. There were 8 pages last time I checked.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 8, 2007)

Brother Ritchie,

I would like to interject a few comments on your post:




> If it is true, as RJR affirms that, “Common to all forms of totalitarianism is a belief in the state control of education,” then this would put the United States outside his definition of “totalitarian.” For, in the U.S.A. we have freedom to educate our children and are not bound by the all “controling” hand of the state.



If not for RJ Rushdoony there would be no homeschooling in the United States. Nevertheless, this gentlemen's premise is flawed. 

While it is true that this Freedom is established, the United States is based upon contract law, and people have the freedom to waive their rights in contract law. A major change in the legal jurisdiction over children is developed directly from the Marriage License Act of 1887. Since a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be a crime, a tort or a trespass, the relationship of the State to the family, once so licensed, is altered and children are legally wards of the State. It is from this State licensed contractual relationship whereby the State erects its jurisdiction over the education of it's wards. Of course, most Christians are not engaged in an illegal activity when they get married and do not need the State's intercession to exercise that right. That is to say the State cannot criminalize rights.

The freedom, then, that this gentlemen claims to enjoy is a mere privilege derived from the familial delegation to the State it's control of education. If the Christian Right is successful in attempting to place Constitutional bars against sodomite marriages in the State via Constitutional Amendments, by defining the family in them, then the meaning of the family will be completely derived from the State and the freedom Christians now enjoy in the State's failure to exercise total jurisdiction over education will fall with it.

Ultimately, then, exercising a privilege under the State's failure to exercise total jurisdiction is not the historical American definition of "freedom." Of course, much progress could be made by the family in simply teaching their children to exercise their right to the free exercise of their religion and get married without State licensure. Then, true freedom to educate our children could be restored. But more importantly the covenantal status of our marriages before God would be restored and we would not be placing legal barriers to His blessings.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 9, 2007)

> Ultimately, then, exercising a privilege under the State's failure to exercise total jurisdiction is not the historical American definition of "freedom."




That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make; real freedom, in the historic American sense, is freedom to exercise our inalienable, God-given rights. The present system is one of _toleration_, not liberty.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 9, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> If that is the case (i.e. "it can be reversed" "paperwork can make it hard") then every State that has ever existed - including Davidic Israel - is a Totalitarian State.




When I say that it "can be reversed" I mean in the sense that it is not recognized as an inalienable right, but that the state merely tolerates it.

Davidic Israel was not the land of liberty that Israel started off as, remember the monarchy was a judgment from God (1 Sam. 8) - even though the Davidic monarchy was typical of Christ.


----------



## etexas (Dec 9, 2007)

I will not derail the thread, but I had never heard of this Rushdoony cat till I came, here, I did a Wiki, but it did not give me much, I may do a who was Rushdoony Thread or something.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

etexas said:


> I will not derail the thread, but I had never heard of this Rushdoony cat till I came, here, I did a Wiki, but it did not give me much, I may do a who was Rushdoony Thread or something.



Wiki is useful on rare occasions but usually borders on being an old joke that is no longer funny. The problem with Rushdoony threads is that most Reformed people momentarily pretend to be "all or nothing" guys. Meaning, well, if Rush is wrong on one thing, then he is a wrong teacher. That sort of thinking, however, never works. 

The best discussion of Rushdoony comes from Professor John Frame. He avoids the typical Reformed anathemas and hero-worship. 
Forward to <i>A Comprehensive Faith</i>

Rushdoony was a gigantic, systematic thinker. He wrote over 50 books, inspired the modern home-school, Christian school movement (here is the biggest irony: many Reformed folk who hate Rushdoony are christian-schooling their kids and often use the same arguments he did). He read 6 books a week for 50 years. He has over 1500 lectures online at The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life . You can sample about 20 free ones. The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life

Now, since Rushdoony is a systematic thinker who literally addressed all areas of life: education, law, philosophy, theology, sociology, literature, he is going to make some mistakes. So what? We are big kids and can read people with whom we disagree. I believe that when people start reading Rushdoony, they note his historical insight and new worlds are opened up to them.


----------



## etexas (Dec 9, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > I will not derail the thread, but I had never heard of this Rushdoony cat till I came, here, I did a Wiki, but it did not give me much, I may do a who was Rushdoony Thread or something.
> ...


Now I feel "edumacated"!


----------



## 3John2 (Dec 9, 2007)

Do yourself a favor & pick up a copy of "Salvation & Godly Works" by him. Excellent work!


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 9, 2007)

etexas said:


> I will not derail the thread, but I had never heard of this Rushdoony cat till I came, here, I did a Wiki, but it did not give me much, I may do a who was Rushdoony Thread or something.



eTexas,

If not for Rushdoony, I would not have become Reformed. Rushdoony took the sword of the Lord into his
hands and slew every opposition I had to the Reformed Faith growing up as a Baptist from a long long generation
of Baptists. In familial eyes becoming a "baby sprinkler" was treason.

Rushdoony made several errors, that were not so much derived from errors of theology, but errors of his response
to the reaction against his work, that he then incorporated into personal practice. He spearheaded the attack on liberalism that the "conservatives" were standing on to justify their condemnation and separation from liberal Protestantism. So, when someone separates from liberalism and then congratulates themselves on their conservatism in that separation, are they really conservative when they are standing upon the same principles but just haven't worked them out the same way? Rushdoony work pointed that out very clearly and they were hostile in their reaction.

Rushdoony's work came at a time when American Christianity was suffering the greatest assaults against it in our history, and the Reformed Christian community was powerless to do anything against it. So, when Rushdoony's work made manifest that it was the liberalism in the conservative Reformed Community that made it impotent, they reacted the same attitude the liberals did against them a few decades earlier.

I believe you are new to the Reformed faith? If so, pick up Rushdoony, his work is beams of light through clouds of darkness. As Frank said above, do yourself a favor. I believe Rushdoony will be to the Reformed Church, in the future, what Calvin is to us today on many spheres of Reformed Theology.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

> Rushdoony's work came at a time when American Christianity was suffering the greatest assaults against it in our history, and the Reformed Christian community was powerless to do anything against it. So, when Rushdoony's work made manifest that it was the liberalism in the conservative Reformed Community that made it impotent, they reacted the same attitude the liberals did against them a few decades earlier.



That is the most prescient insight into the last 30 years that I have raed. Well said.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 9, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > If that is the case (i.e. "it can be reversed" "paperwork can make it hard") then every State that has ever existed - including Davidic Israel - is a Totalitarian State.
> ...



Daniel,

I would understand from your signature that you are not an American. I would appeal to you to stop try and telling me what American law and rights are, because once again you are completely wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is an inalienable right - a part of the 1st Amendment. Just because a right is inalienable does not mean that the State cannot ever suspend it: else incarceration would be unconstitutional (right to liberty) and the death penalty as well (right to life).

This is not a case of "mere toleration." Please do some research before you take a Rushdoony quote and run with it to the violence of law and common sense.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 9, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> > Rushdoony's work came at a time when American Christianity was suffering the greatest assaults against it in our history, and the Reformed Christian community was powerless to do anything against it. So, when Rushdoony's work made manifest that it was the liberalism in the conservative Reformed Community that made it impotent, they reacted the same attitude the liberals did against them a few decades earlier.
> 
> 
> That is the most prescient insight into the last 30 years that I have raed. Well said.



Either that, or we don't think that the Confession is guilty of "complete nonsense" (a direct quote) in WCF 19.


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2007)

RJR: “Common to all forms of totalitarianism is a belief in the state control of education.”

An establishmentarian would say state control of education is not totalitarian where that education is distinctively Christian. Reconstructionists are too concerned with civil rights, and it is here that there is something of a libertine streak which pervades their social ethics.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



Except when the Supreme Court reinterprets these "rights." What do you say in response to the fact that the US threw homeschoolers in jail? In fact, if what you are saying is true, then how come the State threw homeschoolers in jail? See these links from HSLDA


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> RJR: “Common to all forms of totalitarianism is a belief in the state control of education.”





> An establishmentarian would say state control of education is not totalitarian where that education is distinctively Christian. Reconstructionists are too concerned with civil rights, and it is here that there is something of a libertine streak which pervades their social ethics.



To be fair, the State Rushdoony had in mind was the Messianic Humanistic one that persecuted christian educators, hence Rushdoony appearing in court on their behalf. Also, I think you mean to say "libertarian" instead of "libertine." Anyway, Rush critiqued libertarianism.


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> To be fair, the State Rushdoony had in mind was the Messianic Humanistic one that persecuted christian educators, hence Rushdoony appearing in court on their behalf. Also, I think you mean to say "libertarian" instead of "libertine." Anyway, Rush critiqued libertarianism.



No, I meant libertine, but I used the word streak to indicate that it is not pervading, but a mere tendency.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, the State Rushdoony had in mind was the Messianic Humanistic one that persecuted christian educators, hence Rushdoony appearing in court on their behalf. Also, I think you mean to say "libertarian" instead of "libertine." Anyway, Rush critiqued libertarianism.
> ...



Could you define "libertine" in the sense you are using, please?


----------



## 3John2 (Dec 9, 2007)

ONce again very interesting to see the response that the mere mention of Rushdoony incites.


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Could you define "libertine" in the sense you are using, please?



Freedom to do evil. I especially have in mind WCF 20:4.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

Then I don't think that applies to Rush. He doesn't oppose lawful power any more than John Knox did. In fact, Rush criticized any form of revolution against government. I can provide you with sources on that if you like.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

In this talk Rushdoony criticizes most forms of civil disobedience. In fact, he is so against it that he actually sounds like a modern-day Reformed theologian.

on the other hand, he does criticize unjust and warped forms of government.


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Then I don't think that applies to Rush. He doesn't oppose lawful power any more than John Knox did. In fact, Rush criticized any form of revolution against government. I can provide you with sources on that if you like.



The issue is not with revolution. Revolution is sometimes necessary. In fact, democratic elections have been well described as bloodless revolutions, but one wonders if we should be having them every three or four years. The issue is with the State enforcing the first four commandments. My comment about a libertine streak did not refer to RJR per se, but to the reconstructionist movement in general.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Then I don't think that applies to Rush. He doesn't oppose lawful power any more than John Knox did. In fact, Rush criticized any form of revolution against government. I can provide you with sources on that if you like.
> ...



I meant "bloody revolutions."

Rushdoony, being a theonomist, obviously believed the governemtn should be Christian and should enforce the Decalogue. But even granting that, public education is not an obvious given (although that argument could be hammered out elsewhere).


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Rushdoony, being a theonomist, obviously believed the governemtn should be Christian and should enforce the Decalogue. But even granting that, public education is not an obvious given (although that argument could be hammered out elsewhere).



It wasn't my intention to raise a controversy, but simply to show the basic difference between the old teaching of establishmentarianism and that which is advocated by reconstructionists in general.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Rushdoony, being a theonomist, obviously believed the governemtn should be Christian and should enforce the Decalogue. But even granting that, public education is not an obvious given (although that argument could be hammered out elsewhere).
> ...



Of course. There is a difference in that case.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> RJR: “Common to all forms of totalitarianism is a belief in the state control of education.”
> 
> An establishmentarian would say state control of education is not totalitarian where that education is distinctively Christian. Reconstructionists are too concerned with civil rights, and it is here that there is something of a libertine streak which pervades their social ethics.



That is true concerning old style establishmentarianism; however, this is a shameful compromise with the Messianic state. In Israel it was not the civil magistrates job to educate children, nor should it be now. I believe that the church should be established by the magistrate, but I see no warrant for ministers being paid by the state (i.e. reducing them to civil servants), state education, healthcare, welfare etc.

Did Calvin and Knox believe in Statist education? Yes. But they were wrong; what Calvin wanted was a baptised totalitarian state, what Christian Reconstructionists want is a limited Christian state. Traditionalist arguments are not enough; prove to me from Scripture that there is Biblical warrant for state education.

As for the "libertine" streak, it is simply a realization that the state cannot punish all sin. It is not an approval of sin, but a recognition that it is not the civil magistrates duty to punish everything - otherwise it would need to be totalitarian.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 10, 2007)

Dear Reverend Winzer,

I would like the opportunity to expand on this a bit with you, if you will. You said:



> Reconstructionists are too concerned with civil rights, and it is here that there is something of a libertine streak which pervades their social ethics.



You defined "libertine" as the freedom to do evil and referenced WCF 20:4.

What you call "civil rights" are in actuality legally imputed God given duties to us through the civil magistrate and the complex structure of multiple governments compacted together. At least speaking in their original character, which we are not excused from, in their perversion.

When you judge us as libertine, I believe you need to understand the American legal paradigm in which we live. The actual circumstances we are subject to and our responsibilities to live as self governing Christians, but being prohibited at every front. And the greatest resistance of properly exercising our responsibilities comes from our Churches, as so many subscribe to a concept of unlimited submission to civil government. 

Our system is so complex that hardly anyone understands it properly, and on top of this, we have all been educated in public state institutions that have intentionally lied to us for decades now. There are so many that don't have a clue, I'm not aware of any that are arguing for the freedom to do evil, but I know of several that are very misguided and don't have a clue, and seem to think the name of Jesus Christ is a talisman that they just banty about. But most of this is a product of ignorance, I believe anyway, I certainly hope because we are in dire straights here and God could kill us all any moment for the heinousness of our offenses.

Many of us want to obey the Lord with our spirit and our bodies, but this latter part is where it can get confusing, because our civil government is claiming total jurisdiction over it and we are supposed to not resist evil, but turn the other cheek, and we are supposed to accept chastisement and be subject unto every ordinance of man for Christ's sake, but we are also supposed to resist sin unto blood too. That generally comes from the civil magistrate, who is ordained to bear the sword against us. And our flesh betrays us, it seems like at every turn, at least for me anyway.

Maybe some of us are trying to figure these things out and properly interpret them to know our course of action that is absolutely consistent with the word of God, but we also know that Satan can transform himself as a minister of light to deceive us. The woman in her innocency was deceived, how much more so can we be? All of this stuff weighs heavily upon the conscience.

In the end, making a statement like this, I just don't think you fully comprehend the public confession of faith of our civil magistrates that is imputed unto us and our tremendous responsibility that is put upon us, to make a statement that we are arguing for the liberty to do evil in our social ethics.

I think if you properly understood our civil structure and the legally imputed public confession of faith that is crushing our consciences, I think you would say they aren't concentrating enough on "civil rights."

Cordially,


Thomas


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 10, 2007)

Although I am a Christian Reconstructionist, that does not mean that I fully go along with RJR's views on the establishment principle; indeed I critique them in chapter 3 "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle" in my forthcoming book _A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government_. 

It should be remembered that not everyone who rejects past abuses of the concept of an established church, automatically rejects the principle itself.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Although I am a Christian Reconstructionist, that does not mean that I fully go along with RJR's views on the establishment principle; indeed I critique them in chapter 3 "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle" in my forthcoming book _A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government_.
> 
> It should be remembered that not everyone who rejects past abuses of the concept of an established church, automatically rejects the principle itself.



In Rushdoony's lectures on American history he holds to a voluntary principle of the church.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 10, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Although I am a Christian Reconstructionist, that does not mean that I fully go along with RJR's views on the establishment principle; indeed I critique them in chapter 3 "National Confessionalism and the Establishment Principle" in my forthcoming book _A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government_.
> ...



Rush held that Christianity should be the established religion, but no church should be established. I disagree and argue that the church - as an institution - is to be established (whether it should be established _confessionally_, or _denominationally_, is another question).


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Traditionalist arguments are not enough; prove to me from Scripture that there is Biblical warrant for state education.



There is a difference between State control education and State education. A State may control curriculum without insisting all attend public schools. It naturally follows from the establishment principle that the State ought to suppress the teaching of falsehood and promote the teaching of truth. 2 Chron. 15:12, 13, "And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Traditionalist arguments are not enough; prove to me from Scripture that there is Biblical warrant for state education.
> ...





This is to be done by not interfering in Christian schools and homeschools and granting them liberty to teach a comprehensive Christian education, not by setting up state schools at the taxpayers' expense.

Just as an aside, I would differ with American Reconstructionists in that I believe the state should suppress heresy (not doctrinal error) - I have seen you make this point on other threads and commend you for it. Those who teach Arianism, for instance, are promoting idolatry and should be punished.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> I would like the opportunity to expand on this a bit with you, if you will.



Thankyou, Thomas, for a very well thought out post. Lest I be mistakenly thought to condemn reconstructionism, I should point out, as I have done in the past, my appreciation for their attempt to bring every square inch of life under the dominion of Jesus Christ. But as you have noticed, this attempt has been shaped decisively by the U.S. situation and its constitutional position. It is at that point where I believe reconstructionism stumbles because the Bible knows nothing of a "right" where people refuse to acknowledge the Right of God to command and to condemn. If preachers of righteousness in our modern world keep giving to Caesar what belongs to God, all future reformation will be rendered impossible.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I would like the opportunity to expand on this a bit with you, if you will.
> ...



You might find Gary North's book Political Polytheism a useful Christian critique of the US Constitution.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> This is to be done by not interfering in Christian schools and homeschools and granting them liberty to teach a comprehensive Christian education, not by setting up state schools at the taxpayers' expense.
> 
> Just as an aside, I would differ with American Reconstructionists in that I believe the state should suppress heresy (not doctrinal error) - I have seen you make this point on other threads and commend you for it. Those who teach Arianism, for instance, are promoting idolatry and should be punished.



 One may look at the private tutors of reformation times and see a recognition of private education.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> You might find Gary North's book Political Polytheism a useful Christian critique of the US Constitution.



 Good book!


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I would like the opportunity to expand on this a bit with you, if you will.
> ...



Hello Reverend Winzer,

I absolutely agree with you. My point is, though, that our Constitutional system, speaking in it's original character, legally imputes the responsibility of the people to acknowledge God as Sovereign. It is entirely based upon Reformed theology, the "reign of political protestantism," is what Samuel Adams called it. It's complex and structured the way it is because it's principles and structures are derived from Scripture.

For example, the atheist will make much ado about our "godless" Federal Constitution, it's that way on purpose because it is Trinitarian. The King of England recognized the independence of the several States in the Treaty Paris of 1783, it begins...."In the name of the most holy Trinity..." This is part of our organic foundation and forms the first treaty which is part of the Law of the Land in our Constitution. Since, "We the People" didn't establish the Triune God as our Sovereign, yet we can amend the Constitution, we still cannot cast off what the King of England did. This is legally imputed and cannot be changed.

With what we have been given, and the heinousness of our offenses, this country should have been destroyed by a direct act of Divine Wrath long ago now, but God is merciful and patient with us beyond all measure precisely because it is framed and formed from His word, and it has not been completely destroyed, just ignored and judicially altered. The original meaning is still there, and God is raising a standard here - Reconstructionism has provided a wonderful base of a Reformed theology of state in which we can begin outworking a proper response to the wickedness.

Again, though, the mental indolence in our Churches is the biggest hindrance upon outworking a Reforming theology. The problem is the great responsibility that is imputed unto us in our legal system makes us liable for what many are not willing to accept, so they erect idols to accept that liability for them - the State is that idol.
When you hear them justify it in flowery religious language of "spirituality," it's in the end self justification for idolatry.

A person has to have knowledge and understanding of all of this, and there is much much more, all of what we call "rights" are God-given duties imputed unto us in an expansion of Reformed theology into what one might call "the kingship of every believer" in concert with the "priesthood of every believer."

A tremendous amount of responsibility is legally imputed unto us as individuals to maintain Righteousness and Justice consistent with Jesus Christ as our High Priest, Prophet and King of kings, much more so than in other English Common Law nations like Australia or New Zealand.

We have inherited much and also a rich theological and intellectual Reformed tradition, but we don't have the spiritual maturity to exercise it properly. The problem isn't so much with Reconstructionist theology as it is our spiritual immaturity to properly apply it.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 10, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> You might find Gary North's book Political Polytheism a useful Christian critique of the US Constitution.


.[/QUOTE]

Daniel,

I would completely disagree with that, Gary North has provided much for the benefit of the Church, but while there is some value to this work, he doesn't properly interpret the meaning of Constitutionalism in part 3 of his book. Most of his conclusions are figments of his own imagination that he has found historical reference points to elaborate upon and make appear valid conclusions. His twisted repetitiveness is not evidence of truth, just a good way of confusing the reader and making his conclusions appear true.

Mr. North does not properly understand the political calvinism of our Constitutional structure. I would point you to Archie P Jones critique of his work entitled, "The Myth of Political Polytheism," as he properly dissects and shows where he is in error.

The American Structure is establishmentarian and to understand Rushdoony you have to understand that, we have an established Faith and an established Bible, but disestablished Churches. It is a more pure expression of Lex Rex than has ever been seen before.

Our big problem, though, is the Reformed Presbyterian Communities arrogance and ignorance, if not for the Baptists this country would be finished as the Presbyterians seem hell bent on dragging us into the sewer and destroying the foundations entirely. We have a group over here that want to add Jesus Christ to our Federal Constitution, they think they are honoring God and have no comprehension that this would result in our immediate destruction.

Our Founders understood what they were doing, it is us who don't understand it, we can't rightly impute our ignorance and lack of knowledge on other men because our sins have caused us to fall from a lofty estate. Ultimately, that is what North concludes, that the structure is what is wrong, the Founders didn't honor Christ by name the way he thinks they should have, and thus they were really concealed Masonic matoids outworking a concealed conspiracy to make us into a secular nation.

How about they were just sinners like the rest of us redeemed by the blood of Christ and outworked a purer theology of State derived from Reformed theology than anyone has seen before, but it wasn't perfect and no system can be.

The truth is that no good system can protect itself from bad men, even the Good Book itself can't do that. It requires men with intention of heart to be in submission to Christ in all of life and to live that way.

"If the foundations be destroyed, what will the righteous do."


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2007)

Is Archie Jones' critique of North online? 

While stylistically I enjoyed North's book, it seemed that accepting his conclusions demanded accepting his covenantal structure, but I am not ready to critique beyond that.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> My point is, though, that our Constitutional system, speaking in it's original character, legally imputes the responsibility of the people to acknowledge God as Sovereign.



Thankyou, Thomas, for another calm and considered post. It's an encouragement to meet and talk with people who take seriously the responsibility of the nations to bow before the Prince of the kings of the earth. We may pray and labour for that day which is so well expressed in the metrical version of the Psalter, when,

All nations whom thou mad'st shall come
and worship rev'rently
Before thy face; and they, O Lord,
thy name shall glorify.

Because thou art exceeding great,
and works by thee are done
Which are to be admir'd; and thou
art God thyself alone.

Blessings!


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 10, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Is Archie Jones' critique of North online?
> 
> While stylistically I enjoyed North's book, it seemed that accepting his conclusions demanded accepting his covenantal structure, but I am not ready to critique beyond that.



Hello Spear,

I don't know, I can't remember right now where it is published precisely, I know it is in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction from maybe ten years ago or so. I'll have to look it up for you.

Gary Amos did good scholarly work in "Defending the Declaration; How the Bible and Christianity influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence" and completely refutes North's ideas, which are nothing more than the same ideas the humanists claim.

If that is true, then why do we not have the immediate fruit of it, but no, that fruit doesn't manifest itself until 100 years later, when the Church became humanistic, then humanism budded and flowered. The Unitarianism of the middle 19th Century is not derived from the civil structure, but from immigration. To say that this sin is the product of theirs is foolishness, it's the other way around, our civil fall is a product of the Church's rebellion, the evidential fruit doesn't lie. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Their civil success in 1776 and following was a product of the Church's obedience.

What our Founders did was de-divinize the State consistent with Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and it put absolute bars against claiming an immanent Sovereignty. The only immanent Sovereign we have is the King James Bible, in the American civil structure. I talk about that more here.

While they utilized language of "law of nature," it is not the definition of Newtonian Enlightenment that North claims. They also used "pursuit of happiness," in place of property, which means in condensed form, to conform oneself to the image of Jesus Christ. North also claims this is Enlightenment language, it was Reverend Witherspoon that insisted upon it, he was a godly Reformed man. Read Blackstone's Commentaries on the Nature of Law in General, Vol 1, Section 2.

*The political polytheism we have is the critical text issue, multiple words of God, not the multiple States that formed the United States.* The whole problem is in the Church, the State fell after the Church began a new Revolution, it just meshed with the political ramifications of the civil war, and has never ended and will never end, until the Church puts the sword of the Lord back in it's sheath and stops desiring to wield what He alone wields. It's a quest for political power, because the Presbyterian Church doesn't like the eternal vigilance our civil structure requires, they are seeking a new establishment of the Church.

We have a principle of perfectionism that is magnified nincompoopery expressed in an astounding learned ignorance, the Church simply doesn't want a battle scarred sword, but it is Christ's Excaliber unto us.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> We have a principle of perfectionism that is magnified nincompoopery expressed in an astounding learned ignorance...



That's a keeper.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > We have a principle of perfectionism that is magnified nincompoopery expressed in an astounding learned ignorance...
> ...



Rev Winzer,
I think we agree on some basic principles. I think we both desire to see magistrates confess and bow the knee to King Jesus. I think we disagree on specifics, but that's okay right now. I know it is good for me to allow others to sharpen me on this issue.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I think we agree on some basic principles. I think we both desire to see magistrates confess and bow the knee to King Jesus. I think we disagree on specifics, but that's okay right now. I know it is good for me to allow others to sharpen me on this issue.



Jacob, yes, we agree on alot of things, the important things. I'm thankful for brethren who are seeking to please the Lord, even if they do it a little differently than I.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 10, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Rev Winzer,
> I think we agree on some basic principles. I think we both desire to see magistrates confess and bow the knee to King Jesus. I think we disagree on specifics, but that's okay right now. I know it is good for me to allow others to sharpen me on this issue.



Thank you both as well. One last thought in this line of thinking, the wisdom of American Constitutionalism is that it is the office of civil magistrate that is bowing before King Jesus, not the men alone that sit in it. A non-believer can sit in our civil offices and he can never remove himself from that prostrated position before King Jesus while in that office. He swears allegiance to our Constitution as a condition of his office, our Constitution prostrates all under Christ, and legally imputes it unto him without legally imputing his sin unto Christ, when properly understood. In other words, Christ is King of every man, believer and non-believer alike, but High Priest of the elect only - our civil structure manifests this reality, and is why it is called "political calvinism." In contrast, pure establishmentarianism attempts to impute Christ's Priesthood to all, which it can never do.

It's really quite beautiful. 

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Rev Winzer,
> ...



Even James Henley Thornwell allowed for the fact that a Jewish man could have ruling office in the Confederacy while the office itself acknowledge King Jesus.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 10, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> Read Blackstone's Commentaries on the Nature of Law in General, Vol 1, Section 2.



An excerpt from another thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/theonomy-split-wcf-vs-blind-wcf-following-23445/index2.html#post289621


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Rev Winzer,
> ...



This is the point Thornwell makes with regard to a Jew occupying civil office under a Christian constitution. It is of course the point of departure between the original Westminster Confession and its amendment by U.S. Presbyterianism, between establishmentarianism and voluntaryism. In defence of the establishment principle it needs only to be shown that the State always remains a distinct entity from the Church notwithstanding its legal connection to the Church -- an institution of nature for the maintenance of law and justice, and never regarded as an institution of grace to propagate the gospel. In fact, in the very process of recognising and legally establishing the Church, the State acknowledges its limitations and its need for a co-ordinate society for the maintenance of truth and morality; and in so doing it binds itself to a policy of non-interference into that which is the specific and independent jurisdiction of the Church. It might even be argued, and has been effectively argued by defenders of the establishment principle, that the failure of the State to officially recognise the Church gives it an unwarranted legal freedom to assume the powers of the Church.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



While I might disgagree with your conclusions and applications, this is a very helpful summary of the issue. Thank you.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 11, 2007)

> I would completely disagree with that, Gary North has provided much for the benefit of the Church, but while there is some value to this work, he doesn't properly interpret the meaning of Constitutionalism in part 3 of his book. Most of his conclusions are figments of his own imagination that he has found historical reference points to elaborate upon and make appear valid conclusions. His twisted repetitiveness is not evidence of truth, just a good way of confusing the reader and making his conclusions appear true.



Thomas, thank you for your reply - I must confess that I have not fully read either Gary North's book or Archie Jones' response (I have this in one of the CR journals), though I have studied bit of the PP for my book. While I think Dr. North goes too far in some of his assertions (the Masonic conspiracy is really not a good argument), he still makes a number of valid points:

1) The Constitution does not explicitly mention the kingship of Christ over the nation.

2) Nor does it require a Trinitarian oath for office.

These are serious problems; even though I recognise that there is much good in the US Constitution. Furthermore, I believe that the American Revolution was to a large extent inspired by Calvinistic theology and was a just revolution. (Don't say too much about this one or there may be an attack on me coming from "the House of Winzer").


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 11, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > I would completely disagree with that, Gary North has provided much for the benefit of the Church, but while there is some value to this work, he doesn't properly interpret the meaning of Constitutionalism in part 3 of his book. Most of his conclusions are figments of his own imagination that he has found historical reference points to elaborate upon and make appear valid conclusions. His twisted repetitiveness is not evidence of truth, just a good way of confusing the reader and making his conclusions appear true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This might be where I am branded as a libertarian. Constitution doesn't mention your 2 points because the framers thought that would be giving the Federal government (e.g., the State) way too much power. On the state level your two points would be valid.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 11, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > I would completely disagree with that, Gary North has provided much for the benefit of the Church, but while there is some value to this work, he doesn't properly interpret the meaning of Constitutionalism in part 3 of his book. Most of his conclusions are figments of his own imagination that he has found historical reference points to elaborate upon and make appear valid conclusions. His twisted repetitiveness is not evidence of truth, just a good way of confusing the reader and making his conclusions appear true.
> ...



I do not see how the Constitution mentioning Christ's kingship or requiring a Trinitarian oath for office is giving too much power to the federal government; surely both federal and state governments should bow to Christ. How is the Federal branch of the civil government gaining more power by requiring a recognition of Christ as a condition for holding office. While I can see how what your saying about Federalism may apply to the issue of a church establishment - the states had their own establishment - I think it is a weak argument on these two points.


----------



## MW (Dec 11, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> (Don't say too much about this one or there may be an attack on me coming from "the House of Winzer").



 Anyone for tea?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 11, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> This is the point Thornwell makes with regard to a Jew occupying civil office under a Christian constitution. It is of course the point of departure between the original Westminster Confession and its amendment by U.S. Presbyterianism, between establishmentarianism and voluntaryism. In defence of the establishment principle it needs only to be shown that the State always remains a distinct entity from the Church notwithstanding its legal connection to the Church -- an institution of nature for the maintenance of law and justice, and never regarded as an institution of grace to propagate the gospel. In fact, in the very process of recognising and legally establishing the Church, the State acknowledges its limitations and its need for a co-ordinate society for the maintenance of truth and morality; and in so doing it binds itself to a policy of non-interference into that which is the specific and independent jurisdiction of the Church. It might even be argued, and has been effectively argued by defenders of the establishment principle, that the failure of the State to officially recognise the Church gives it an unwarranted legal freedom to assume the powers of the Church.



Of course, though, the dual governmental structure of American Jurisprudence bars the negative pregnant argument. For it to be successfully argued that the State can exercise monopsony power through a negative pregnant, it must necessarily prove that a monopoly jurisdiction exists. This simply cannot successfully be argued in the American system.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 11, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Thomas, thank you for your reply - I must confess that I have not fully read either Gary North's book or Archie Jones' response (I have this in one of the CR journals), though I have studied bit of the PP for my book. While I think Dr. North goes too far in some of his assertions (the Masonic conspiracy is really not a good argument), he still makes a number of valid points:
> 
> 1) The Constitution does not explicitly mention the kingship of Christ over the nation.
> 
> ...



Hello Daniel,

Thank you for your well reasoned reply. I am sensitive to the two points you made, and have considered them at great length, I have recognized and submitted to the basis for their absence.

First, Christ's Kingship is inherent in the Common Law, and our structure is subjective to it, both Federal and State. Hence, the principle here is, that any King can be deposed and the Reformers outworked the theology of this which the Founders appealed to for their legal regicide of King George III. The King of Kings, however, cannot be deposed. 

In my understanding, the Founders resisted this type of thinking consistent with your first point, ultimately, because it means that the King of Kings can be deposed, once so recognized. This same type of argument was advanced against the Trinitarian oath of office for the United States, yet every State had one - which those same men argued was a necessity. They placed tremendous weight upon the legal imputation of the public confession of faith of the body politick, and gave it priority over a personal profession, as they intended it to be a permanent form of civil government

It is important to understand the States elected our Senators and they represented the States and the House of Representatives represented the people of the several States. The State's were Christian States, the people were not necessarily Christians, both must have representation. One of Founders said, our government is only for a moral and religious people, it is incapable of the government of any other, hence, it was fully expected that the Church would maintain her Apostolic witness and exercise the Keys of the Kingdom for the good of the Family, the Church and the Civil Magistrate. This is actually the very foundation of the system.

They were entirely subjective to the principle of Calvinism in their political thought and knew that Providence was gracious to have given them a predominate theological priority, but He may not maintain that. Civil government is for the government of the righteous and the wicked, and primarily the latter (1 Timothy 1:9, AV), as the righteous have the Spirit dwelling within them and are subject to the Law of God, the former are not and cannot be (Romans 8:7, AV). Hence, a system must be designed not only with theological righteousness as it's foundation, implicit or explicit, but the ability to maintain lawful rule through the storms of life.

Advancing the principle of your points, places too much weight upon explicit exaltation and presumes good words have priority over lawful power. They held to 1 Corinthians 12 as a spiritual blueprint of the body politick understanding that "the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." 1 Corinthians 4:30

To place too much weight upon documents or men, is contrary to Total Depravity and to think that limiting civil offices to Christians who can make a Trinitarian oath, when the Trinitarian public confession of faith is legally imputed to the office, is to presume that Christians behave consistently. Their experience, and ours, is that Christians can sink lower that the heathen, when faced with a threat and find it necessary to defend their righteousness. Anyone that has experienced Church politics should know that, they wanted to insure that first principles were not at stake in the coming battles.

I find it to be a wisdom derived from a true fear of God.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 12, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > (Don't say too much about this one or there may be an attack on me coming from "the House of Winzer").
> ...



Personally, I prefer coffee


----------

