Originally Posted by Spear Dane
Well, I did start with IBL, though I usually make mistakes like that; though you could start by reading a few pages of it at a time - maybe only at weekends.
Sadly, I think Rush's other books take a back seat to IBL, and this is not always a good thing. The reason I say that is because he made some rash statements in that volume, which he did not make in other books, and so those with an axe to grind pick up on this. For instance, his off-the-cuff comments that Calvin (taken out of context) was talking "heretical nonsense", and that the WCF 19:4 (again taken out of context) was talking "nonsense", gave the enemies of Theonomy ammunition. Note however, that Rush said these things BEFORE the likes of Martin Foulner, Chris Strevel, James Jordan, Ken Gentry and Gary North did their historical research. Also, it is sad that the likes of Carl Trueman has picked up on his comments about the holocaust in IBL, in order to discredit his credibility as a historian. Yet you would think that if you were going to prove what a poor historian he was, you would begin by looking at his books on history, not a passing comment in a book about Biblical law.
So read IBL, but don't neglect his other stuff. So far, I would agree with Jacob that Politics of Guilt and Pity is the best Rushdoony book I have read - though that may change.
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)