The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Van Til

I met Mr. Rushdoony about 1974 or 1975 at a Sovereign Grace Conference in Louisville, KY. It was a large meeting with preachers of all shades of the eschatological spectrum. There were "posts" there: Rushdoony, Francis Nigel Lee, Ferrell Griswold. There were "ah's" there: Lloyd Sprinkle, Henry Mahan, N. Burnett Magruder and others. There were "pre's" there: W.R. Crews,myself and a few others. I am not altogether sure of everyone's views (except mine), and they may have changed some since that time( those that are still alive now). I know I was a dispensational pre-mil at the time, as were some friends who were there with me.

A couple of us had a chance to have lunch a time or two with Mr. Rushdoony. He was very gracious, a real gentleman. So we discussed "last things" in this way. I asked him " Bro. Rushdoony, in light of all the events in this world today, which would indicate that ' the love of many is waxing cold', and 'wars and rumors of wars',etc., how can you hold a post millennial view?"

His reply " I do not base my theology on the newspaper, or current events, but by the Word of God". I didn't think it was a bad answer (actually rather impressive!), and it swayed me a little at the time.

As I examined God's word, although the dispensationalism I held then had to go, I came to believe the much more moderated historic pre-mil position (similar to W.R. Crews).

Later, in a meeting in Georgia, I got to talk with Bro. Rushdoony again. He had spoken that evening about all the Mosaic system being re-establihed in the coming Kingdom. So I asked him "If the system of OT law was going to come back, what about the sacrifices, since Christ had already paid the price once for all"

I shall never forget his answer. He said " Sacrifices and the OT priesthood will be set up again 'as a memorial'. I was born in Armenia, and there the priests of the Orthodox Church do something similar as a memorial ceremony, and I believe it will be like that".

From that time nearly 25 years ago, I have never again entertained IN THE LEAST a desire to be a reconstuctionist, or even a post millennialist!

I do not make eschatology a test of fellowship, however. I have friends that hold varying views. I am almost a "pan millennialist" myself. after all, it will "pan out" in the end!

Thanks for that post. I never would have expected a Reformed writer to say something like that about the "memorial" restoration of the priesthood. Perhaps it can be indeed traced back to his boyhood in Armenia, particularly if he attended an Orthodox church there.

Theo

Yes, Theo it surprised me also. But I quoted him verbatim, at least as memory serves, and my memory is still pretty good.. In reading his literature and listening to his messages , you can soon surmise that is what he believed and taught. There are others today carrying on at least the same reconstructionist theology such as Mark Rushdoony, Gary DeMar and John Weaver to name three. I don't know if they would say what Rousas Rushdoony said in my hearing, but I know Weaver, and have talked with DeMar and they hold Christian Reconstruction views. The best thing about the movement IMHO is the Christian school, and home school movement surged through their influence, especially Rousas Rushdoony who was a consultant to many Christian School associations in the 70's. and that is a good thing because of the poisonous liberal, "politically correct" teaching dominant in American public schools.

Is it not true that Theonomy is biblical, but extreem forms of Theonomy are not biblical?

Theonomy is God's Law. Jesus said, if you love Me, obey my Commandments and by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His Commandments and The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him.

Though your definition is technically correct, terms take on new meanings ... (that's bad man, can mean that something is cool or very good, etc.). The term "theonomy" today is used to mean the entire Mosaic economy (to varying degrees) is still in force today.

Thus, if you desire to speak about God's law today you had better separate it -- civil, ceremonial, or moral - and thus specify exactly what you desire to say. If you merely use the term theonomy to describe your position above everyone else will be confused by your use of the term ... In addition, though the moral law of God is still in effect today you would not desire to use the phrase "moral theonomy" for to many this would mean that the moral punishments (which are actually civil) are still in effect today as well. And then there will be <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" /> Thus, by today's definition theonomy is not biblical.

Thank you Joe, although I don't have a lot of knowledge concerning this issue, I am learning.

By the way have you read the blog over at Pyromaniac on this issue?

Tom