Full disclosure: I was so unimpressed with Institutes of Biblical Law I never bothered to keep a copy. I did read it. I remember the holocaust statement. I remember thinking that he was probably mistaken in taking his historical source seriously. I also remember noting that he did not deny that the Nazi’s pursued the extermination of the Jews (and others), and he affirmed they were evil for doing so.
His whole point was that if the number was a million lower or more should not in the least exonerate them. They were evil murderers.
Ironically, this came up in an exposition of the ninth commandment. The point Rushdoony was making is that, just because you (legitimately) hate someone doesn’t give you the right to accuse them of things they didn’t do.
For the record, I know lots of people who like both Grenz and Rushdoony. And, as hinted earlier, Rushdoony had some serious problems. Which is why we don’t need to invent more of them.
BTW, comments about “hating the right people” as test for orthodoxy” … No, I won’t touch it.
BTW 2, If you haven’t read the internet monk (or his Boars’ Head Tavern) your missing a treat.
Is it too much for me to ask which “great creeds of the faith” Trueman is thinking of? From what I’m reading by the mainstream Reformed these days, yea even Ref 21 writers, Nicea certainly isn’t one of them.
It strikes me that the homeschool/rushdoony axis (which is the bigger target of Truman, in that he questions why Rush is popular “as an historian” (?) among homeschoolers (what, don’t they KNOW?)) is quite receptive to any of the kinds of arguments or ‘debunkings’ that challenge “official” histories or “generally accepted” narratives about law, history, science, etc. I’d guess its pretty easy to get a hearing challenging some historical position that seems to support a liberal view.
C’mon, Trueman could just have easily been a scientist complaining about Rush supporting Price or some scientific creationist handwaved argument. (of course, the audience of Ref21 might be a bit more up an arms if its their ox being gored)
I remember one wing-nut visiting my house that I disputed with. An argument turned on the definition of a word, which I supplied with reference to a disctionary. The man replied “well, was that dictionary published after the secular humanists changed all the definitions?”
Trueman is right – scaling the numbers or expressing doubt about the 6 million figure is part and parcel of holocaust denial. It is fruitless to fight against this.
Another one:
Rushdoony
Full disclosure: I was so unimpressed with Institutes of Biblical Law I never bothered to keep a copy. I did read it. I remember the holocaust statement. I remember thinking that he was probably mistaken in taking his historical source seriously. I also remember noting that he did not deny that the Nazi’s pursued the extermination of the Jews (and others), and he affirmed they were evil for doing so.
His whole point was that if the number was a million lower or more should not in the least exonerate them. They were evil murderers.
Ironically, this came up in an exposition of the ninth commandment. The point Rushdoony was making is that, just because you (legitimately) hate someone doesn’t give you the right to accuse them of things they didn’t do.
Another:
A little clarity in retrospect
For the record, I know lots of people who like both Grenz and Rushdoony. And, as hinted earlier, Rushdoony had some serious problems. Which is why we don’t need to invent more of them.
BTW, comments about “hating the right people” as test for orthodoxy” … No, I won’t touch it.
BTW 2, If you haven’t read the internet monk (or his Boars’ Head Tavern) your missing a treat.
Rushdoony again
Hey, thanks for the link, much appreciated. I’ve often read your blog, especially in recent days regarding your thoughts on Wright, etc. Very helpful.
Is it too much for me to ask which “great creeds of the faith” Trueman is thinking of? From what I’m reading by the mainstream Reformed these days, yea even Ref 21 writers, Nicea certainly isn’t one of them.
It strikes me that the homeschool/rushdoony axis (which is the bigger target of Truman, in that he questions why Rush is popular “as an historian” (?) among homeschoolers (what, don’t they KNOW?)) is quite receptive to any of the kinds of arguments or ‘debunkings’ that challenge “official” histories or “generally accepted” narratives about law, history, science, etc. I’d guess its pretty easy to get a hearing challenging some historical position that seems to support a liberal view.
C’mon, Trueman could just have easily been a scientist complaining about Rush supporting Price or some scientific creationist handwaved argument. (of course, the audience of Ref21 might be a bit more up an arms if its their ox being gored)
I remember one wing-nut visiting my house that I disputed with. An argument turned on the definition of a word, which I supplied with reference to a disctionary. The man replied “well, was that dictionary published after the secular humanists changed all the definitions?”
o.O
Rushdoony – a final clarification
Trueman is right – scaling the numbers or expressing doubt about the 6 million figure is part and parcel of holocaust denial. It is fruitless to fight against this.