Question about Auburnism and Rushdoony

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ConfederateTheocrat

Puritan Board Freshman
Was R. J. Rushdoony a proponant of Auburn Avenue theology? I must admit, I do not know much about it except it has caused a civil war within Presbyterian circles. I know there is/was a debate between Doug Wilson and James White on the subject.

I am theonomic, but I don't like to stray from classical Reformed theology. It appears to me that Wilson/Wright/Wilkins are reinventing many Reformed doctrines. What was Rushdoony's position? I have seen him call the covenant of works an invention of Phariseeical Christians, and is that Auburnism?

Somebody has got to know. :banghead:
 
Rushdoony did most of his work before Auburnism came on the scene. Now, Chalcedon is sympathetic to "Auburnism." Bear in mind that many theonomists are militant opponents of "Auburnism."

I am new to much of this also.
 
I have not studied the Auburn controversy hardly at all For what it's worth. I just picked up Rushdoony's 2 vol. Systematic Theology and in it Rushdoony clearly rejects the covenant or works. He calls it a gracious covenant as well. It looked to be the same language that I've seen Wilson use. But wasn't this the position of John Murray? I'll have to reread it. If someone wants me to I could post selections this weekend.
 
Chris For what it's worth, I think you will find that Murray rejects using the term "covenant" to describe the relationship of Adam to God, instead calling it the "Adamic Administration," but all the substance of the COW is there in Murray. There are several other notable Reformed people who take a position similar to Murray (embrace the substance, quibble over terminology) but that is very different then the FV/Auburnists who reject both the substance and the terminology.

Regarding Rushdoony, there are Theonomists on both sides of the Auburnism/FV controversy, so that alone is no indicator of which side he would support.
 
Yes, it is true theonomists are on both sides. Paedocommunionist, and Reconstructionist, Pastor Joseph Moorecraft III (founder of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States) is ardently opposed to Auburn Avenue theology. Sell-out Andrew Sandlin is pro-Auburnism.

How is Chalcedon sympathetic to Auburmism though?

[Edited on 11-19-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]
 
How is Chalcedon sympathetic? If someone had asked me about 3 months ago I could have given a better answer. I read on their website (I know, that is a vague affirmation) that they did not see that much heretical with Norm Shephard (Again, that doesn't say anything. My pastor (who is ardently Confessional) studied under Shephard and does npt think that Norm is saying what people are saying that he is saying.

But then again, I might have been reading a book review by Sandlin, which would not speak entirely for Chalcedon. Do, Mark, you like Rev. Morecraft? His sermons put fire into me. Go to www.sermonaudio.com, click on the speakers link, and look for Joe Morecraft, especially his sermons on the Refomration.
 
Yeah, while I agree with theonomy, from what I hear about Rushdoony, he was kind of "out there" on some points, from his denial of the Covenant of Works to his affirmation of the binding nature of the dietary laws today.
 
I haven't read his works myself yet, but I've heard that from various sources, including people on this board as well as in online articles by modern theonomists.
 
He didn't believe, however, that the state should enforce them, but only that they should still apply in the Christian's life today.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
See Rushdoony on Acts 10, Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 301
Click to expand...

He goes on to say that they are no longer binding for us, but are good moral principles. He said they are good for health purposes, but are not legally binding (all on p. 301).

[Edited on 11-19-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]
 
"The various dietary laws, laws of separation, and other laws no longer mandatory as covenantal signs, are still valid and mandatory as health requirements in terms of Deuteronomy 7:12-16." - Rushdoony, Law and Society, p. 702.

Mandatory means mandatory.
 
He is probably not far off, though. Today our school served fried catfish, fried corn-fritters, fried onion rings and (fried) hushpuppies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Question about covenant theology
2 3
Replies
83
Views
10K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
T
  • Locked
A Question About Covenant Keeping
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
pastorway
P
C
  • Locked
Question about dispensationalists
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
Zenas
Zenas
Sven
  • Locked
New Blog About Law and Gospel
Replies
14
Views
2K
youthevang
youthevang
C
  • Locked
Questions about Covenant Theology
Replies
8
Views
3K
ColdSilverMoon
ColdSilverMoon
Back
Top