Promises, (Promises)
I have been a bad, bad blogger lately. It’s all Gracie’s fault. She had the temerity to get sick on Monday, and it threw off the whole week. She conveniently missed out on my whirlwind day of spring cleaning, but it was a blessing in disguise since her next youngest sister had more opportunity to show her organizational mettle, and she was a tremendous help in dusting the tops of kitchen cupboards and putting their contents in order again.
I need to keep my promises now, even though a bit late.
First, the Shakespeare book contest. I had the prairie pup who is celebrating a birthday tomorrow (with a personal tour of the local fire station led by his brother Ben, who graduates from fire academy tomorrow night) draw three names. And the winners are: for King Lear, Cheryl Reformed Muser (whom I let sneak past my geographical restrictions since I like her so well
); for Hamlet, Nancy (who may agree with me more often since I’m sending her this bribe
); and for the one-volume Shakespeare, my friend Lisa W. (whose friendship had nothing whatsoever to do with winning this prize, but now maybe she will come visit me again). The winners can email me their addresses, and if I don’t hear from you soon, I’ll bug you for them.
Aren’t contests fun? (and when I’m tired, do you think I use too many parentheses?)
Next, what book would I require college freshmen to read if I was the dictatress of a university (snicker)? I would probably give them each (see what a beneficent dictatress I am…I don’t even make them buy it) a copy of R.J. Rushdoony’s The Institutes of Biblical Law. I agree that the biblical knowledge of most students is woefully inadequate. Steve could tell stories (and has) of several times in business settings where he has appropriately used a biblical allusion which he thought was general knowledge (like referencing “the widow’s mite” or “the prodigal son”) and received only blank stares because the (mostly college educated) listeners had no idea what he was talking about. I’m afraid, though, that there are also many who have Bibles, who even read those Bibles, but who are so uneducated about simple theology and how it relates to everyday life, that they are almost as functionally biblically illiterate as my husband’s clueless co-workers.
Rushdoony’s Institutes is a hefty book, but it is one volume which goes through each of the ten commandments, expounding on the practical applications of each to life today. Using numerous examples from history and from the Bible to support his applications, this is a scholarly work unsurpassed in modern times, yet written so that the literate layman can use it as a handy reference, and it is heavily footnoted with a large index and many pages of Scripture references which were used in the text. Any Christian who is concerned with how to defend truth in these postmodern, lawless times, needs to read this book and keep it handy for the battles which are being waged in all quarters.
Here’s a bit from the introduction:
When Wyclif wrote of his English Bible that “This Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” his statement attracted no attention insofar as his emphasis on the centrality of Biblical law was concerned. That law should be God’s law was held by all; Wyclif’s departure from accepted opinion was that the people themselves should not only read and know that law but also should in some sense govern as well as be governed by it. At this point, Heer is right in saying that “Wyclif and Hus were the first to demonstrate to Europe the possibility of an alliance between the university and the people’s yearning for salvation. It was the freedom of Oxford that sustained Wyclif.” The concern was less with church or state than with government by the law word of God….
A central characteristic of the churches and of modern preaching and Biblical teaching is antinomianism, an anti-law position. The antinomian believes that faith frees the Christian from the law, so that he is not outside the law but is rather dead to the law. There is no warrant whatsoever in Scripture for antinomianism. The expression, “dead to the law,” is indeed in Scripture (Gal. 2:9; Rom. 7:4), but it has reference to the believer in relationship to the atoning work of Christ as the believer’s representative and substitute; the believer is dead to the law as an indictment, a legal sense of death against him, Christ having died for him, but the believer is alive to the law as the righteousness of God. The purpose of Christ’s atoning work was to restore man to a position of covenant-keeping instead of covenant-breaking, to enable man to keep the law by freeing man “from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2), “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:4). Man is restored to a position of law-keeping. The law thus has a position of centrality in man’s indictment (as a sentence of death against man the sinner), in man’s redemption (in that Christ died, Who although the perfect law-keeper as the new Adam, died as man’s substitute), and in man’s sanctification (in that man grows in grace as he grows in law-keeping, for the law is the way of sanctification).
As a pastor’s wife I knew once said, “Law is love’s eyes, and without it, love is blind.” In other words, we don’t know how to truly love God, how to please Him, if we don’t understand His law, because it is where we learn how to be holy, how to please Him.
And did you notice that Dr. Rushdoony used an awful lot of parentheses in those passages I quoted? I’m in good company.











