Menu | Archives | Last Pesher | Post Archives 2006 | Posts
THE SCIENCE OF ETERNAL LIFE
(a Preview)
The following
study appeared in the self-published magazine, The Family Spokesman, for
The matter of life and death and the hope for life after
death is one which dominates the concern of all major religions and certainly
is one which is most pressing for each and every human being. We all dread the specter of death, and the
person who denies any anxiety about dying is probably not being truthful or is
a simpleton incapable of reflection.
Although Grail theology is primarily concerned about
restoring paradise to a stricken world, it is not altogether silent on this
important question. It will be addressed
more directly and completely in the forthcoming Pesher.
The reader must remember that the following essays were
written many years ago, when this author was in his early twenties. They represent reasonably good scholarship,
but still betray elements of a less than fully matured mind. I will interject comments either in bold
print or as footnotes to clarify undeveloped points or poor reasoning.
The Author, 2007
If you want
to read their summaries with update commentary, click here:
The Separatist
Papers with Commentary
"THE
SEPARATIST PAPERS"
Between the years of 1982 and 1987, I wrote
about eleven essays entitled The
Separatist Papers. They were the result of research I did on early American
theology and social order. The essays were so-named because the Pilgrims were
known in England as "Separatists." This was a name which distinguished
them from the "Puritans" who came to America later. My research led
me to the conclusion that America had a Separatist origin and not a Puritan
one as claimed by our Reformed brethren. Nor did it have a secular origin as
argued by Humanists of our day.
To understand what
Separatism was, and is, I focused my research on the Pilgrims and their influence as "first
comers" to America. But the more I studied their beliefs, the more I
realized that they were a product of a yet unrecognized source. They could not
be fitted neatly into any of the commonly
recognized branches of the Protestant Reformation. I found the roots of
Separatism to be deeper than I at the first suspected. Separatism was not an
off-shoot of the Protestant Reformation, but was really its antecedent in the
person of John Wycliffe. That Wycliffe and his Lollard dissenters constitute a
distinct branch of Protestantism and that America was its fruit.[1]
I later found out was not a new thesis, although it may seem so. It was argued
by Thomas Cuming Hall in 1930. New England Theology from Jonathan Edwards
through Charles Finney simply cannot be classified as Calvinist or Arminian,
but Evangelical in the tradition of Wycliffe. And America's social order was
unlike any that were advocated by the major branches of the Reformation. Indeed, some of the positions in the Declaration
of Independence find no defenders in Protestantism except Wycliffe and
his theological heirs. It may be good to add that the Puritans were from
England, and were more influenced by Wycliffe than they ever realized.
In all the literature of recent years on
America's roots, none has ascribed to Wycliffe his just due. It seems that a
disproportionate share of attention has been given to Calvin. This I find to be
unfortunate. For it is guiding many toward a system of theology and philosophy
of social order which our Founding Fathers regarded to be unbiblical and
unjust. However great Calvin's legacy in America might be, Wycliffe's is far
greater. And other than myself, it has been only recently that Wycliffe's
legacy has been seriously linked to
the American Revolution (see Ben Hart's Faith
& Freedom).
If through the labyrinth of research,
scholars have found my essays or have by
some other means been awakened to my thesis, then my labor was worthwhile.
Wycliffe deserves a greater voice than mine.
The
Separatist Papers were to
end with two additional essays: "Separatism and Dominion Theology"
and "Terranomics: A Separatist Manifesto." As I worked on these
essays, I found them growing to unmanageable proportions. Ten or twelve-page
essays would not do. They were theses which required books - books that cost
money to publish, books that will not sell (as I have discovered in the past)
because they are not written with a popular audience in mind.
It was then that I came upon a solution. I
was working on a book for Campus Action Ministries on sex and morality (path
breaking material) that could draw a lot of interest. Since "Separatism
and Dominion Theology" actually provides the theological foundations to
the book's thesis - material that I would have to repeat anyway - I decided to
join the two.[2]
The family as an institutional power in
society was the topic of a book I wanted to write for Stivers Home Institute. Since
the ruling place of the family is the land - terranomics - I decided my
final essay would be developed best in that volume.[3]
These two books will be my contributions
to the renaissance of the Christian Home during the final years of this
century.
Since some time will pass before these two
books are available (1990 & 1991), I thought an outline and summary of
these two essays in the "Family Spokesman" would be appropriate. That
is why this issue is Copyrighted.
Before I do, let me briefly describe the Papers which have
preceded them:
#1 - "A Metaphysics
for Christian Separatism" (1982)
In this essay, I
follow Rushdoony's lead and identify the ontological Trinity as the organizing principle of
true society. Civilization is measured by
its ability to create and enforce distinctions in society. Paganism results
in the extremes of static or anarchistic cultures. Trinitarianism results in a
balance between unity and diversity, since man always images the God he
worships. Separatism challenges the drift of society toward absorption into a
single institution. Separatism is predicated by Trinitarian theology.
#2 - "The Kingdom of
God" (1982)
This is an expanded version of Rev. Gordon
C. Olson's chart of "The Moral Government of God". Separatism is
concerned about marking boundaries between
the various institutions of society (church, state, school, etc.) That
is best done by identifying their distinct missions in society. This chart
serves as a useful teaching tool for that purpose.
#3 - "The Divine Mandate
for Christian Separatism" (1983)
This essay is primarily a topical study on
the doctrine of sanctification, a theological term which means
"separated." A discussion of the Biblical passages which recur
frequently in Separatist literature is presented.
#4 - "An Eschatology
for Christian Separatism" page one (1983)
"An Eschatology
for Christian Separatism" page two
In this essay I attempt to distinguish
Separatism from Escapism. Separatism is correctly identified with the historic
and orthodox views of Bible prophecy, as opposed to modern, dispensational
ones. Separatism teaches an eschatology of victory in history. A shorter essay
on the Cultural Mandate is included with it.
#5 - "Separatism and
the Biblical Family" page one (1983)
"Separatism
and the Biblical Family" page two
"At one time, Separatists insisted on
the separation of church and state as two separate law-spheres. This was done
to protect the integrity of both. Today, Separatists demand the separation of
family and state, to protect the family's integrity as a law-sphere under
God."
#6 - "Economics and
Christian Separatism" page one (1983)
"Economics
and Christian Separatism" page two
This essay presents a view of economics
and private property which distinguishes Separatism from Christian communism
(Anabaptist). Separatism also calls for family capitalism and opposes corporate
capitalism.
#7 - "Christian
Separatism: The Source of American Liberty” page one (1983)
“Christian
Separatism: The Source of American Liberty” page two
Faith in God's providential grace enables
one to separate from a wicked society and
set up a godly order. Unbelief creates dependence upon collective and
institutional remedies to earthly problems. A somewhat sentimental look at the
Pilgrims is also presented.
#8 - "The Separatism
of the Pilgrim Fathers" (1986)
A historical study
into the Separatist theology of the Pilgrims, and how it resulted in the two great systems
of American society: Congregationalism and localism.
#9 - "The Church According
to Separatist Doctrine" (1986)
Distinguishing between the Church
Universal and the church as an institution in society is the first purpose of
this essay. Secondly, it describes
the institutional church
as it is
organized according to
congregational principles.
This form of
polity became dominant
in American society through, of all people, the
Puritans, who converted to the Plymouth pattern.
#10 - "Separatism and
America's Christian Foundations" (1987)
This essay is a closer study of the
Anglo-American branch of the Protestant
Reformation as headed by John Wycliffe. A short account of Wycliffe's
work and theology and its impact upon Protestantism in England and America is
presented.
#11 - "Separatism and
the American Nation" (1987)
The final published essay. It is a
historical study describing how Separatism transformed
itself into the Americanism of the 19th century. The 20th century has
been the setting of a contest for the soul of the American people between
Separatism (Americanism) and an increasingly
pagan imperialism. The essay ends on
an uncertain note, mirroring the uncertainty of America's present condition.
I might mention that several issues of The
Separatist Review were published:
#1 - November, 1982 -
"The Return
of the Pilgrims" (Stivers)
"The Election
Year Blues" (RJ. Thiry)
#2 - March, 1983 - "Christian
Reconstruction & County Politics" page one and page two (Thiry)
(Excellent article)
:
#3 - August, 1983 -
"The
Dying Gasps of American Civilization" page one (Stivers)
"The Dying
Gasps of American Civilization" page two
(An evaluation of
the "Reagan recovery"; its
failure to reverse the decline of
family capital; growing statism, etc.)
The remaining issues were written by me.
#4 - November, 1983 - "The Signposts of National
Reprobation, Pt. 1” page one
“The Signposts of
National Reprobation, Pt. 1” page two
(A
point-by-point indictment of
American society based upon the covenantal lawsuit found in Ezekiel 22)
#5 - May, 1984 - "Signposts, Part 2" (America's "Abomination of
Desolation")
#6 - June, 1987 - "The Plague"
(AIDS in historical context)
"The
Signposts of National Reprobation, Pt. 3" (the dangerous compromise of
churches with state charters)
#7 - November, 1987 - "The Coming
Great Decession" (The controlled destruction and grinding down of the
American economy amidst the efflorescence of prosperity).
SEPARATISM AND DOMINION THEOLOGY
(Summary & Study Notes)
The need for structure is a
fact which permeates all of reality. Since God is a God of order, all of creation
contains and reflects that order. For instance,
science has learned only recently, through the aid of computers, that
the fundamental randomness of nature (i.e. subatomic particles) is really an
elaborate order inconceivable and imperceptible to the human mind. What may
seem disorderly to us, to a greater mind than ours, it is a basic order. This
basic order makes knowledge and dominion by man possible. Man's developed order
would not be possible without the fundamental order created by God.
Theology is an
attempt to put the teachings of the Bible in a form in which man can use them in his particular dominion task.
That theology does this is not to say that there is no order to the
Scriptures. Indeed, like nature, there is a basic order in them, although not
always perceived by us. Like nature, the basic order of the Scriptures is
developed by man to become usable. The earth
does not naturally have houses, roads, and croplands. These must be built
by man. The earth has potential usableness. Nevertheless, man must develop that
potential for it to become truly usable.
Likewise with the Bible, its
truth must be searched out and developed intellectually. It teachings must be simplified by organizing them into a
structure so that they can be efficiently taught and understood. This is
the goal of theology.
Very recently,
there has arisen to prominence among Evangelicals a movement in theology and
social action. The leaders of this movement have been called "Dominion
theologians" (because they promote a Christianized version of the Mosaic
system), and sometimes "Christian Reconstructionists" (because of
their efforts to restore America's Christian heritage). They are self-professed
Calvinists, with sometimes a charismatic background, although the two leading
figures - R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North - are Presbyterian and Reformed.
Christian
Reconstructionists draw heavily from America's Puritan legacy, and to a large
degree, seek to return to the "Holy Commonwealth" of early New
England. I am both a Dominion theologian and a Christian Reconstructionist. I
have been tutored by the writings of such men as Rushdoony and North since
1978. But I am not a Puritan or a Calvinist. I am a Separatist, adhering
consciously to the Anglo-American branch of Protestantism as founded by John Wycliffe.[4]
I do not see it
necessary to be Puritan or Calvinist in order to be a Dominion theologian or a
Christian Reconstructionist. North identifies the Five Points of Dominion
theology: 1) the Absolute Sovereignty of God, 2) Presuppositional Apologetics,
3) Postmillennialism, 4) Theonomy in Christian Ethics, and 5) Covenantalism.
Having thoroughly studied their works on these five points, I have no problems
with them. Let me describe them briefly.
The Absolute Sovereignty
of God
Here, the
Dominion theologians have argued for what I consider to be semi-Augustinianism
(the orthodoxy embraced by the Early Church), but what they continue to insist
is out-right Augustinianism (and Calvinism). The key is in their description of
Divine Predestination. They argue against a false dualism pitting the will of
man against the will of God (i.e. predestination and free moral agency). Metaphysically (or should I say
ontologically?), man's will is dependent upon God's predestination of
all things. In other words, man would not be able to make a choice at all were
it not for the fact that God created the objects of choice and the power to
choose. Thus, predestination and human action run parallel to each other, never
against each other. Man is not metaphysically self-dependent, although he may
rebel in a moral sense.
I argued for this position in 1982 in an ostensibly Arminian
publication. No one seemed to
have any problems with it. It was my position that God predestines options
which make man's free will possible. If there are no options, there are no
choices. Yet man is not sovereign; for he cannot create options autonomously.
Man may have the ability to resist the created order, but he cannot overcome
it, nor does he have the right. "Free wil,l"
in the original meaning, does not mean autonomy.
Where I disagree with the Augustinians is
in the area where the Early Church disagreed with them: double election and
irresistible grace. The Early Church refused to embrace the latter, and openly
condemned the former. Double election
teaches that God predestines, particularly, the saved and the damned.
Coupled with
the doctrine of irresistible grace, it means that these results come from God's
perfect will, not His permissive will. It makes God the author of sin and
misery. Reconstructionists have not openly argued for these positions in any
of their prominent writings. So, I conclude that it is not necessary to
Dominion theology.
The importance
of predestination, of course, is the predictability
of consequences and the assurance that history will inevitably end up, in its
particulars, at the conclusion foreordained by God. No group can exercise dominion, exert
influence, or build a civilization without a predestinating God. The Marxists
have the State. Humanists have Nature. Christians
have the God
of the Bible. A predestinating God
is a God who is sovereign. The
power to create is the power to judge and to destroy. Only a sovereign can claim the right to rule.
Every apostasy begins with a compromise of God's sovereignty.
Presuppositional
Apologetics
Dominion theologians (DTs) advocate a rigorously Trinitarian philosophy
on the
order of Van Til's presuppositional apologetics.
Philosophically, there is no common ground between Christians and the world.
The presupposition of secular
philosophy is atheistic. Therefore, it is impossible to begin with secular
philosophy - a universe without God - and end up finding the God of the Bible,
the ontological Trinity. Atheism begets atheism. Trinitarianism is not
attainable by open-minded philosophy. Man always thinks with a bias, because
reason, by its very nature, always begins with a presupposition which
immediately determines the conclusion. The God of the Bible must be accepted by
faith. It can never be proven, for it is a presupposition.
Christianity
must begin with the assumption of the Triune Godhead as the basis of all human
thought in any academic discipline. If it does not, it will at some point cease
to be Christian and end up with atheism. Only Trinitarian Theism begets
Trinitarian Theism.[5]
A theological
example of this compromise is the Governmental View of the Atonement. The
Satisfaction Theory teaches that God consulted His own happiness alone when He
determined to make Atonement for sins. According to this Theory, God had to
satisfy His sense of retributive justice: the penalty must equal the crime. The
Governmental Theory rejects that concept of justice, saying that there is
nothing gained in reducing suffering in the universe if the exact equivalence in suffering were merely transferred from one
person (the sinner) to another (Christ). God did not have to answer to
retributive justice, but to public justice (a symbolic vindication of
God's pardon of sin).
Really, both
theories are in error for they are not Trinitarian. The Satisfaction Theory
depicts a vengeful and tyrannical God. The Governmental View reduces God to a
middle level, corporate manager. God must answer to all the moral agents of the universe, including the creatures He has made.
In this sense, the idea of Public Justice is a preposterous humanism. A
Trinitarian View of the Atonement would depict a Public Justice derived from
the ethical sense of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Trinity satisfied
their own sense of justice. It was not a lone decision of the Father, requiring
appeasement from the Son. Nor was it God pressed by moral obligation to His
creation. It was a satisfaction of public justice, but the "public"
was the Holy Trinity.
Because the
Governmental View compromised on this essential prerogative of Deity - the
right to dispose of creation as He saw fit - it has surrendered already to
humanism. The Grotian view gave-way to Socinianism, and Socinianism to
Liberalism.[6]
The Governmental
View began as a theodicy, a vindication of God's justice. It did not accomplish
its intended objective because it accepted common ground with the atheists: a
human sense of justice.
Postmillennialism
This is nothing
new in American theology. In fact, it is the unique feature of American
theology: an eschatology of victory and conquest. It is in line with historic
Christianity because it denies that the Kingdom of God will triumph by a
cataclysmic end to history, but that it already triumphed by the re-introduction of the Holy Spirit into the lives of men.
This fundamental change of reality was made possible by the Atonement.
Since previous Papers have addressed the subject of Bible prophecy, I will not
discuss it here, except to note: humanists have publicly acknowledged that the
resurgence of Postmillennialism among evangelicals is the driving force behind
the Christian New Right.
Theonomy
Theonomy,
meaning "God's law,"
is a doctrine
which asserts that
the Old Testament must be
incorporated in the
process of forming
Christian ethics.
The New Testament is primarily concerned
with the issues of personal salvation. Alone,
it does not
provide an adequate
base to build
a civilization. Unless we
are willing to live in a civilization created by sinful men (for example,
communism), then we must look to the Old Testament for guidance in social
ethics and governmental structures. Liberals have tended to view the entire
Bible as archaic and unworthy as a basis for modern civilization. Fundamentalists cling to the New Testament, but view the Old Testament (over two-thirds of the Bible)
as outmoded (sometimes barbaric) in the modern setting. Of course, as scholars have shown (e.g. Philip J. Lee), Christianity eventually
becomes Gnosticism without the Old Testament.[7]
Dominion theologians have challenged these
compromises with the world. They favor a return to the early American tradition
of using the entire Bible as a blueprint for all areas of life.[8]
Covenantalism
This is a new development within the
Christian Reconstruction movement, and not all branches of the movement accept
it. Although all Dominion theologians teach a covenantal view of the Bible,
not all see a five-point structure as do the "Tyler branch" (North,
Sutton, Jordan).
The five points are
the following: 1) Transcendence (Who is in charge?), 2) Hierarchy (To
whom do I report?), 3) Stipulations (What are the rules?), 4) Sanctions (What happens if I break the rules?),
5) Succession (Is there a future to this outfit?)[9]
The Covenantal aspect of Dominion theology
has given definition to a very, amorphous topic. You cannot perpetuate a
doctrine you cannot define. The Puritans,
for instance, taught the covenant idea, but could not define the thing
itself. Consequently, the doctrine fell out of favor in the rising popularity
of dispensationalism. This aspect of Dominion theology promises to reestablish
the covenant idea because of its pedagogical value.
Christian Reconstructionists
represent a new advance in Christian theology. They signal a new stage in the
Protestant Reformation. Separatism embraces Dominion theology, because it is
orthodox and it is a branch of the Protestant Reformation.
All the above doctrines were believed and taught by American theologians
through the 19th century, with the exception of Van Tillian apologetics. Van Til’s Trinitarian philosophy has served as a milestone in
the quest of purging pagan thought out of Christian doctrine. Reconstructionists
have taken Van Til’s system and used it like a search
light in other areas of doctrine. Dominion theology has been the result. And
there is much more to, come.[10]
Theological Trojan
Horses
The two
doctrines which are rising in influence among Christian Reconstructionists, yet
which are not integral to Dominion theology and yet are objectionable to
Separatists are these: the resurrection of Calvin's view of social order, and
Calvin's doctrine on the immortality of the soul.
Before
proceeding to explain these issues of debate, let me point out that Calvin is
not the originator of these doctrines. Both of them were inherited from
medieval Catholicism. To a large degree Calvin was not so much a Protestant as
he was a "Reformed Catholic." The reason I single him out is because
he was the channel through which two pagan doctrines received from the Roman
Catholics entered Protestant theology.
First, the
authoritarianism of the Roman Emperors which was carried over into the
bishoprics of the early Catholic Church established a pagan view of government
among Christians. This idea said that rulers in church and state were ordained
by God, and that their rule was the extension of God's rule. Unlike Wycliffe's
view of authority, which saw it as a line directly from God to the people, who
in turn delegated, but never surrendered, their authority to temporal rulers, this view of government created an
independent class of rulers accountable only to their peers (other
rulers) and to God.
I will
distinguish these two systems of social order by calling the one "Ruler's
Law" and the other "People's Law."
Although Calvin
did not approve of popes, bishops, or kings, he did adopt this authoritarian
system. Calvin's system was decentralized (presbyterian), but it still created
a class of rulers in distinction from the ruled. Calvin's unique contribution
to the Protestant cause was his defense of a theocratic order mediated by an
ordained clergy and magistracy.
This system was established in
Puritan New England, but it was soon abandoned because it created a stagnant
society. While Calvin's legacy in America has many
positive features, in its essential character, American social order resulted
from the rejection of Calvinism, not by its adoption.
Wycliffe's Anglo-American
Protestantism is responsible for American civilization. But this is not
altogether good. For Wycliffe's system tended toward an individualistic society
based upon voluntarism. We see this strongly in America's greatest theologian
- Jonathan Edwards. In a sense, Separatism has no social order. Historically,
it has vacillated between Anabaptist/libertarian concepts and
Presbyterian/republican ones. In good times, the extended family provided the
social structure to society. And astute American thinkers have recognized the importance of the family. But
because Americans have been unwilling to pursue a Biblical familism, modeled
after the Hebrew patriarchies of the Old Testament, American society has
drifted into a dualism between individuals and the state, with the state
winning in the long-run because of its collective power.[11]
The other of Calvin's
doctrines which has plagued Evangelical theology and which has had cancerous
effect upon Anglo-American civilization, has been his defense of the immortality of the soul. That Popish doctrine, condemned
by Luther and Tyndale (a theological heir of Wycliffe), was smuggled
into Protestantism through Calvin's book, Psychophania
("soul-sleep"). Permit me to quote Rushdoony at length for us to see how the Reconstructionists have handled
this issue:
"Another example of
speculative theology is the argument about the birth of the soul, an argument
which comes down to us from the early church. How is the soul of the baby in the
mother's womb brought into being? First, the Pre-existents held that, at
the beginning of creation, God created the souls of all men, which are only
united to bodies at the time of their
conception or birth. Justin Martyr and Origen espoused this doctrine, which was later condemned in A.D.
540 by the Council of Constantinople. Its pagan origin was obvious, and
its condemnation deserved. The poet William Wordsworth, in his ode,
'Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood', espoused
it, as did other Romantics.
"Second, the Creationists
insisted that every rational soul is from God by an immediate act of creation.
Pelagius and others adopted this view, because it separated the soul of man
from the fall of Adam and left only the body
as an heir to the fall. As a result, while seemingly exalting the creative power of God,
this view actually exalted man and made him innocent and capable of
self-salvation. In modern philosophy, Leibniz had creationist ideas.[12]
"Third,
Traducianism held that both soul and body were generated by the parents through the normal process of
sexual reproduction. The Augustinians, Lutherans, and Calvinists have been
Traducianists in the main and have given the doctrine the flavor of orthodoxy.
Clearly, Traducianism does not have the
glaring defects of the other two positions, but this is not enough to
give it a clean bill of health.
"The argument about the
generation of the soul rests, first, on presumption. Man professes to
know the details of God's creative method and speaks with confidence about the
mind of God when he cannot express his own will and mind with clarity or
certainty. The argument is illegitimate and presumptuous.
"Second, the argument
rests on an alien religion, Hellenism, and its view of mind and body as two
separate and alien substances. Traducianism comes closer to bringing them
together, but it has not challenged the premise of the argument, the
presupposition of two differing substances. The difference in being for
Scripture is not between mind and body, or soul and matter, idea and form, but
between the uncreated being of God and all created being. . . "
- The Necessity for
Systematic Theology (p. 14)
Rushdoony might have
substituted the word "Hellenism" for "Platonism" or
"Gnosticism," for the adoption of Creationism by the early church
constituted a compromise between the Gnostic fathers (Origen) and anti-Gnostic
fathers (Tertullian). The result was the acceptance of pagan thought into
Christian doctrine, which has been a leaven leavening the whole lump of the
Christian witness
ever since.
Notice also in
the final paragraph how Rushdoony identifies the spirit/body dualism in
Christian doctrine with the pagan Greek dualism between the mind and matter. They
are the same error in different contexts. Rushdoony discusses directly the
"immortality of the soul" question in his book on the Creeds and
Councils of the Early Church, The Foundations of Social Order, which I
cite, again at length:
"For the pagans, life was
haunted by an eternal recurrence, by change and decay in an unending and
meaningless cycle. For them, the horror of flesh was its inevitable decay.
Flesh was thus a kind of trap for humanity. Very early Greek thought also
turned to the transmigration of souls, as with Pythagoras. It was held, by
some, "that, on account of this, they should even abstain from eating
animal food? May any one have the persuasion that he should abstain, lest by
chance in his beef he eats of some ancestor of his?" All these absurd
opinions are given intellectual respectability, "But if a Christian
promises the return of a man from a man, and the very actual Gaius from Gaius,
the cry of the people will be to have him
stoned; they will not even so much as grant him a hearing.'[quoting Tertullian]
"This point is a
significant one: the world of antiquity, committed to humanism, tolerated any
absurdity concerning the future life but rejected, without a hearing often, or with demands that the preacher be killed,
the doctrine of the resurrection. The answer is obvious. Every one of these other beliefs, i.e., the immortality of the
soul, reincarnation or transmigration, etc., all affirmed the basic divinity of
man and his self-salvation. The Biblical doctrine made man a creature
and God sovereign. It placed man's total life under a total God, and this was
and is the offense of the doctrine of the resurrection. The immortality of the
soul, in its every form, is a doctrine which makes man his own god and savior;
it gives man an open universe, i.e., free from God, which is man’s to explore
in time and eternity.
- p.
205-206 [emphasis mine]
"This is the Christian
faith, the resurrection. Pagan antiquity, as well as 'primitive'
cultures, hold to a belief in a supernatural, immortal soul. Whether in its
Hellenic form, or as animism, this view is alien to the Biblical perspective,
'immortality' is ascribed in Scripture to God alone [1 Timothy 6:16 cf. 1:17].
. . , and when the word is applied to man, in 1 Corinthians 15:53,54, it is not
declared to be a natural condition of man but a miracle of grace . . .
Immortality is seen by Paul not as a condition of man but as an aspect
of Christ's grace to the sanctified (Romans 2:6,7). . . The Hellenic
perspective saw the soul as immortal, basically divine, and in essence under
restraint because of its mixture with the earth of the body. In neo-Platonism,
this body was viewed as the prison of the soul, which the soul had a positive
duty to renounce and transcend. Whenever and
whatever the soul is seen as of another substance than the body, then
contempt of the body is inevitable. The body, as of lower substance, is a baser element, and the soul either actually
or potentially divine. But, this perspective, which has extensively polluted
the church, and influenced many of the church fathers, Tertullian
included, is not Biblical. It is hostile to a respect for the body, although
conducive to license. Greek culture was congenial to license but hostile to a
true materialism."
p. 210-211
Evidence of this
infection is widespread. One obvious
example is the Evangelical
position on the
state of the
dead, which believes that the body is lifeless because the soul (or spirit
for trichotomists) has departed for a conscious existence in heaven or hell.
It is this doctrine which has allowed this Gnostic dualism to live on in the
Church. And the consequences are manifold. First is the obvious asceticism and
monastic lifestyle. Second is the contempt for sex and its purpose. Since sex
and reproduction are acts of the flesh, then it is evil by nature.
Consequently, either men abstain from it altogether, or they indulge in it
perversely as a denial of its legitimacy. Third, it leads to either contempt
or a romantic view of women. Either men avoid them because association with
them involves sex, or they adore them as the "purer" sex, untouched
by the baser emotions of lust, wrath, and greed to which men are so
susceptible.
It also gives rise to feminism. Women hold
men in contempt for their sexual ardor. They hate men who love them for their
bodies. In the Hellenic dialectic, they want to be admired and loved for their
intellect - that is, their ability to think abstractly like a man, not as a
woman. This is supposedly a more "spiritual," "meaningful" (read
that "Platonic"") relationship.
Furthermore, this doctrine has led to a
depreciation of a man's seed (semen), being viewed as non-life, since it is
held that life begins at conception when it is endowed with a spirit. This has
allowed the sins of uncleanness to abound in the church. Gnostic arguments have
been used to discourage these sins ("lust is sinful - the desire for
pleasure is “evil"), but a Stoic abstinence has never been the answer to
the human condition.
The Gnostic doctrine of immortality still
has negative effects on Evangelical doctrine. The false division between flesh
and spirit has led to a division between Hebrew Scriptures (carnal) and Greek
Scriptures (spiritual). This false dualism has also led to a neglect of
Biblical land law (an Old Testament concern), since the spirit is detached from
the earth. The land is of no consequence, in this system, to our spiritual
existence. This neglect of Biblical terranomics has given rise to Marxism,
socialism, corporate capitalism, feudalism, and many other oppressive, man-made
systems of terranomics.
It also leads to contempt for the earth
and for mundane labor, since it involves the world of flesh and matter. Yet as
a reaction, as in Marxism, it can lead to a glorification of labor, or the veneration
of nature (as in animism). The list can go on and on. Only a Biblical faith and
a Biblical theology can avoid these extremes.
Having read
virtually all of Rushdoony's published works, I think it is fair to say that Rushdoony is not a Calvinist in
those areas which make Calvinism distinct in Protestant theology. Rather, he is
orthodox, and I am tempted at times to
classify him under Wycliffe's branch of the Reformation. But Rushdoony
is not consistent. While he does not pursue the extremes of the Tyler branch of
Reconstructionism (which has not dealt with this issue and positively endorses an authoritarian, albeit decentralized,
society), he has not met head-on the
Gnostic threat among Protestants. The previous quotes come from a few
pages in two of his least read books. He addresses the problem of Platonism
repeatedly in his other works, but he never challenges its evangelical
expression in the doctrine of immortality, the origin of the individual soul,
or the state of the dead. And for that reason, I believe that Dominion theology
will soon follow the demise of Separatism and Evangelical theology in general.
Signs of this fact
are already beginning to appear. Gary North likes Bill Gothard's "chain of command" theology, a consistent
Catholicism not seen since the days of Cyprian. He also rejects the Jubilee and
Biblical land law, believing it to be typology fulfilled in the New Covenant.
He accepts artificial contraception. Rushdoony refuses to condemn it. James
Jordan favors a romantic view of marriage, and embraces a moralism on sex and
marriage (as do the rest of the Tyler group) along the lines of Phyliss Schlafly's (a Roman
Catholic) anti-feminist group Eagle Forum.[13]
The Tyler group also
prefers the conjugal family to the extended family group (the latter favored by Rushdoony),
replacing it with the local church. Rushdoony rebukes this drift toward
clericalism, but is powerless to stop it.
As for the present
state of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, it is nearing its peak, theologically. With
the publishing of Jordan's book on the Ceremonial laws of the Bible and North's
commentary on Exodus, we will finally get to see what a Biblical society would
look like according to Reconstructionist interpretations. But as things appear
to be going now, I expect it to be a curious blend of Puritanism in the social
realm and Libertarianism in the economic realm.[14]
The Anglo-American branch of Protestantism
(Wycliffe) in general, and Separatism in particular, find their completion,
not in humanism and individualism, but in familism. That is the direction we
must go. Only the extended family group, patterned after the patriarchal system
of the ancient Hebrew theocracy, can provide a truly Biblical social structure
to society.[15]
Theologically, it must embrace the essential points of Dominion theology, but
abstain from Calvinism; for Calvinism has
been a channel through which Catholicism, and ultimately Gnosticism,
has entered Protestant theology.
Note,
2007: Since this conclusion, my emphasis
on the patriarchal system of the Old Testament has been tempered and superceded
by the doctrine of the abbey as taught in Grail theology. While the leader of an abbey is usually a
masculine figure, it need not always be the case. Women could be the heads of abbeys in Celtic
society. Grail doctrine would recognize
the right of the individual to join himself or herself to others in forming an
abbey while not being necessarily bound to a pre-existing kinship group. A group marriage to form an abbey would be
acceptable according to Grail doctrine, as long as it reflected the covenantal
union of the glorious Trinity.[16] The failure of past communal experiments is
that they have not adhered to the Trinitarian pattern.
[1] Not too
many years after this discovery, I would find that Celtic Christianity
represented the Protestant view as a distinct branch of the Old Catholic church
which reaches back to the time of the Apostles.
I would document this connection in my book The Holy Conspiracy, available on the
[2] These two books were published as Eros Made Sacred and Restoring the Foundations. Both titles are archived on-line at http://www.familyabbeys.org
[3] These essays were published as a periodical called Biblical Terranomics, no longer in print. Many of them were published in other books, among them the textbook edition of Hierogamy & the Married Messiah. http://www.grailchurch.org
[4]
Wycliffe, being a child of his time, was not sufficiently influenced by Pelagianism. Grail theology is Pelagian and the reader
will note that my service in the
[5] This is assuming that any man, made in the image of God, is capable of a consistent atheism.
[6] Grail theology is much more sympathetic to Socinianism – properly understood. The Socinian system relies upon Abelard’s moral influence theory of the Atonement. Grail theology, following its Druidic antecedent, views the journey of life as one of discovery and moral growth. Sin and evil are not separate and absolute principles, as they are in the traditional Catholic/Protestant view.
[7] Gnosticism in the sense of mysticism and the finding of spiritual truth through psychic means.