Victimization
Evil triumphs. And you ask why.
Some people wring their hands in desperation, pray like crazy, talk about it with their friends, condemn the evil perpetrators. But nothing changes. Why?
Is it that God has made us automatons, without a mind and will of our own, that we might not do something about evil? History is littered with the names of evil. Robespierre, Amin, Castro, Stalin, Krushchev, and Mugabe wreaked havoc on the lives of millions. How did they get to those positions?
Forgiveness
“Few revolutions in history have been more deadly than the shift in theology from God’s law to man’s emotion.”
Commenting on Limited Atonement, R.J. Rushdoony contrasts this idea over against Arminianism’s unlimited atonement. He recognizes the Arminian failure that brings an unwarranted sentimentalism and emotionalism into the picture of the Atonement (Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol 3: “The Intent of the Law,” p. 107-108):
The root of the problem goes back to the meaning of forgiveness. We cannot understand the Biblical meaning of the word unless we begin with the fact that in the Old Testament it is inseparable from the sacrificial system, and, in the New Testament, from Christ’s atonement, in its essential meaning. In relationship to God, it requires sacrifice, i.e., the death penalty as restitution, with the animals sacrificed as types of God’s Redeemer and His sacrifice. In relationship to God, “without shedding of blood is no remission” of sin (Heb. 9:22). The atonement by Jesus Christ was a necessity for the remission of our sins against God. . . .
By separating forgiveness from sacrifices of atonement and from restitution, we have reduced its meaning from a legal or juridical requirement to a matter of emotions. Few revolutions in history have been more deadly than the shift in theology from God’s law to man’s emotion. Forgiveness now mean, “I forgive you,” i.e. I am no longer angry with you It has nothing to do with the offender’s repentance and restitution and hence nothing to do with God’s law. . . .
Clearly forgiveness in the Bible is not a blanket remission nor is it without cost to the forgiven. Arminian forgiveness leaves all the penalty on Jesus Christ, and a self-willed view of gaining remission with the sinner. it transfers priority and sovereignty from God to man. No judge sits on a bench merely to give to the guilty men before him whatever they want!
Limited atonement upholds the sovereignty of God and His law. It does not supplant God’s law with man’s emotional responses. . . .
Unlimited atonement sets aside the meaning of forgiveness in its Biblical and juridical sense to give it a lawless meaning. Antinomianism and unlimited atonement go together. . . .
Any weakening of God’s law is also a weakening of the meaning of the atonement. We have seen a steady loss of meaning for the doctrine of the atonement as antinomianism has prevailed. But without the atonement, there is no Christianity.
The effects of Pietism’s influence have devastated the older view of God’s law, and therefore the atonement. This, in part, explains the failure of contemporary Christianity to change the culture. It has the wrong message.
Ad Hominem, Sloppy, and Defective
Ad Hominem – Latin for “to the man.”
It’s a debating technique that is designed to avoid real argument by attacking the person with the express purpose of undermining his argument. In other words, it’s a debating tactic that can be very, very effective. Ad hominem arguments might be:
“The trouble is, he’s Australian . . .”
“He sounds just like a Roman Catholic”
“He’s dangerous . . .”
“He’s a Calvinist . . .”
It could even be, “He’s not a Calvinist . . .”
Get the idea? What has Australian got to do with in an argument, or being Roman Catholic, or dangerous, or being Calvinistic or even non-Calvinistic. It’s an attempt to slur the person’s character, thereby undermining the statements they make. It throws into question their character and integrity, so you begin to think, “well, if he’s like that, his arguments cannot be very good.”
10-Year Tribute to R.J. Rushdoony – Part 2.
In the first part of this Tribute to R.J. Rushdoony I recalled the personal side of my relationship with him and some of the fond memories I have as a result of a 21-year association.
In this portion of the Tribute, I’m going to highlight what I think is Rush’s very significant contribution to Christian thought.
The name R.J. Rushdoony is tied up with two concepts: theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. But for Rushdoony, these two concepts are tied together in a unique manner.
For those of us raised outside of Reformed circles, his call to return to God’s law was somewhat radical. Yet for those raised on Reformed catechisms, Rushdoony’s view was not that unusual in some respects. Both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Larger Catechism expound the Ten Commandments using what Rushdoony called “case law”. That is, the Ten Commandments were given substance through the many laws given in the Pentateuch (or Torah).
Many of Rushdoony’s followers, then and now, came from outside the Reformed tradition. What is curious, however, is the hostility Rushdoony received from the Reformed community, and I can understand why.
10-Year Tribute to R.J. Rushdoony – Part 1
R.J. Rushdoony left this life in February, 2001, just 10 years ago. At that time I wrote a tribute to a remarkable man, a friend, and a mentor. Here’s my updated version of that tribute.
It is with sadness, yet a spirit of hope, that the tribute was written to acknowledge a great man, Rousas John Rushdoony. His greatness, however, remains one of the best kept secrets of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, except for a relatively small devoted and loyal following that Dr. Rushdoony accumulated in his lifetime.
“Rush”, as he was fondly called by his friends, was a unique man. I did not have the opportunity to meet him more than a dozen times during the 21 years of our association. But I thoroughly enjoyed every moment with him.
Recent Comments