Elijah and Elisha for Today

God’s Survivors or Death in the Pot

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject:

Genre: Sermon Series

Lesson: 14 of 16

Track:

Year:

Dictation Name:

[Rushdoony] Our scripture is from II Kings four verses thirty eight through forty four. II Kings 4:38-44.

“38 And Elisha came again to Gilgal: and there was a dearth in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him: and he said unto his servant, Set on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets. 39 And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not. 40 So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out, and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof. 41 But he said, then bring meal. And he cast it into the pot; and he said, Pour out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot. 42 And there came a man from Baalshalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. 43 And his servitor said, what, should I set this before an hundred men? He said again, Give the people, that they may eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof. 44 So he set it before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord.”

The paper tonight tells us that since 1967 the dollar has depreciated 50%, in ten years time, slightly more, a 50% depreciation. The likely hood is that in the next five or six years there will be an even greater depreciation. We live in a century when a higher proportion of mankind has been killed by war and revolution, by famine, by slave labor camps, by torture, and by massacre, then ever before in history. We live in the world’s bloodiest age. The worst may be ahead of us. Very definitely humanism is dying. Humanism is the established religion, it is the faith of the power structure all over the world, and Humanism is unwilling to surrender its power even though power is slipping from its hands. Result promises to be a grim struggle in the years remaining in this century.

What about the Christian in this picture? Right now the Christian who truly believes, who takes the word of God seriously is in the minority, very much so. He is almost certainly in the minority in his particular denomination. He is definitely a minority in his country; by and large even the majority of those who profess to be born again Christians are not. One fundamentalist leader has estimated that 80% of the members of fundamentalist churches are not Christians. They are there, especially in the Bible belt, because it is the thing to do to go to church. I have had pastors in the south tell me of the problems they face with unregenerate members because, in the Bible belt, everybody goes to church and if he plans to do anything in politics why he most certainly goes to church and tries to become an officer or teach an adult Sunday School class so that he can run for office as a born again Christian. This makes the work of the pastors all the harder because their churches are filled with hypocrites.

And what are we to do? We have in this scripture two miracles recounted, two miracles that deal with the school of profits, God’s remnant, young men preparing themselves for the ministry. This was the school at Gilgal, there was a dearth in the land. Things were very, very difficult for them. There was no question that those who were the false prophets of the day were living off the fat of the land. But here at the school of profits it was rough going. It was so bad that on one occasion, no doubt one of many, a student whose turn it was to cook or who may have been the regular cook, but he was obviously new to the area, had to forage for some wild herbs and things with which to prepare their dinner.

Now in many parts of the near east one of the favorite foods is a wild gourd, we have reference to it in Numbers 11:5. But in this particular area there was quite prevalently something which seemed very, very much like this tasty and popular wild gourd, with the difference that it was poisonous. This young man, not being acquainted with the vegetation of the area, and assuming that these wild gourds were like those he knew and good to eat, collected a number of them, shredded them into the pot, and they began to serve. And the first few to eat immediately cried out “there is death in the pot!” and immediately Elisha said “bring meal” and he cast it into the pot and he said “pour out for the people, that they may eat” and there was no harm in the pot. We have here thus a miraculous feeding, a miraculous feeding that took a poisoned dish, purified it, and they were fed.

Then on another occasion we have a similar miracle. Again there is a shortage of food, a hundred men in the school of profits and no doubt a number of wives and children. Finally one man comes with his first fruits, a symbolic sheaf of barely and some barely loaves, twenty of them for a hundred men plus some women and children. And the servitor said “what? Shall I set this before a hundred men?” and Elijah ordered him again “give the people that they may eat, for thus saith the Lord ‘they shall eat and shall leave thereof’” So he set it before them and they did eat, and left thereof according to the word of the Lord.

Elisha of course, as is well known, was a type of Christ and forerunner, and we have here two miraculous feedings that point to the miraculous feedings by our Lord. They looked back to the miraculous feeding in the wilderness by manna. They tell us of God’s care for His people in the midst of famine. Now these miracles are very important for us to understand, they tell us that in every situation we face in time and in this world there is always more present in the situation then ourselves. If we ever believe for a moment that we are alone as we face the world, that we are alone as we face our problems, that we are alone as we move day by day in terms of our duties, we are atheists. Basic to Biblical faith is this; to believe and to know that we are never alone, that there is more to history than man and the doings of man. Scripture tells us emphatically that history is the work of God. Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world. All of history, every atom of it, every moment of it, is a part of God’s plan. Therefore our Lord tells us to be not anxious about the morrow, to avoid fearfulness, the very hairs of our head are all numbered, not a sparrow falls apart from the will of your Father in heaven. Always, in all of history, there is more present then ourselves and we have the repeated assurance of scripture, He hath said ‘I will never leave thee nor forsake thee’ so that we may boldly say ‘the Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man may do unto me.’ We are told by the prophets, Isaiah for example, again and again that if the Sabeans or the Egyptians or the people in the isles afar off pile up wealth, it is for the Lord and His kingdom, they shall sow but they shall not reap. Everything that man does shall redound to God’s purpose, His glory and His kingdom. If it is our work, it can fail, if it is the Lord’s work it will accomplish His purpose.

Now scripture tells us first that we cannot sin that grace may abound, that it is blasphemy so to believe, that we are called to believe and obey the Lord. But scripture also tells us emphatically that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to His purpose, so says Paul in Romans 8:28, and so says all the scripture and it tells us also, as does Jeremiah, and certainly Obadiah for example in Obadiah 15, for the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen. As thou hast done it shall be done unto thee, thy reward shall return upon thy own head. All things work together for evil to them that hate God and who will not serve Him. So that history moves always in its totality, in terms of God’s purpose and that God’s is mindful of the very hairs of our head and of His school of the prophets and of us, that there is nothing to great nor too small for the Lord. And for us to assume that our concerns are too small for Him is sin, it is practical atheism; it is a denial of God and of His word.

This does not mean that the school of the prophets was kept in luxury, they had difficult times, but the Lord was there to remove death out of the pot, to provide a farmer who brought his tithe in the nick of time, and God gave the increase, and God tells us that He is so with us. For God has not changed, He says “I am the Lord, I change not” He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and His arm has not grown short nor His power waned since the days of Moses, and David, and Elijah, and Elisha, and our Lord and the apostles. He is the same, and when we serve Him, and when we seek His honor and His glory, He is there.

Now this does not mean, let me say again, that things goes easily for us anymore than they did for these schools of the prophets. Isaac Watts, one of whose hymns we sung a little while ago, expressed it very, very powerfully and beautifully in the hymn which begins “am I a soldier of the cross?” and goes on to say “must I be carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease, while others fought to win the prize, and sailed through bloody seas? Sure I must fight if I would reign, increase my courage Lord. I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain, supported by Thy word.” God’s word tells us He will never leave us nor forsake us. Thus as we face the future we must face it as more than conquerors, we must face it in the assurance that we are never alone. The world may talk about the communications gap, about alienation and loneliness, we have no right so to speak, we are not alone.

If it is our work it can fail, if it is the Lord’s work that we do, and if it the Lord we obey, He will accomplish His purpose. We are in the advent season and one of the most glorious of the prophesies concerning our Lord is that the government is upon His shoulders. The government, of all things, the government of your life and mind, He was made captain of our salvation because of the things that He endured, tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. He understands all that we undergo, our every burden, our crying out, our weariness, our weakness, He was one who experienced all these things during his lifetime and because of this was made captain of our salvation, and the government is upon His shoulders. The government of our lives and of our time, so that as we face the world around us with all the monstrosities that humanism is perpetrating, and all that it dreams of accomplishing, of a tower of Babel and Babylon the great, we know that is our Lord’s purposes that shall prevail, and we know that scripture is right when it declares the things which are, are being shaken, so that the things which cannot be shaken may alone remain. So as we see these things and we open the papers, let us rejoice. It does mean problems for us, and it does mean sufferings for us. The dollar is weaker than what it should be, because the word of God is being profaned and men are trying to create a fiat money which is based on theft rather than God’s commandment. Are all the nations in turmoil? Well they should be, “except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.” Do men’s hearts fail them for fear? Indeed they should, because it is the wrath of God that is coming upon them.

But we have a king, and we are told that not only is the government upon His shoulders, but of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end. What’s happening then? Why Christ is shaking the tree of the nations, He is confounding the workers of iniquity, He is bringing His judgment to bear upon the nations and we need to rejoice because of the increase of His government and peace there shall by no end. Do we find ourselves at times today, and tomorrow, like the school of the prophets turning to our leaders, or Elisha’s, ‘where is the food?’ ‘How are we going to deal with the problems?’ ‘What’s going to happen?’ There seems to be no security, but Moses the man of God as he faced the future and as he faced his own life could say as he counseled his people “the eternal God is Thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.” Underneath all the experiences of life, all the turmoil’s, the everlasting arms of God. We are not alone, we can never for a moment, without being atheists, feel that we face a single problem or a single moment of history apart from Him upon whose shoulders is the government of all things and who says “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

And what does Paul say? “We may boldly say ‘the Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man may do unto me.” Let us pray.

Almighty God our heavenly Father we thank Thee that as Thou worked at the school of the prophets of Gilgal so Thou art unto us. We come unto Thee oh Lord confessing that many a time in our lives Thou hast in different ways removed death from the pot, and hast fed us miraculously and provided for us and gone before us, and we have not thanked Thee, and then we face our today’s and tomorrow’s still complaining and still burdened. Lord have mercy upon us and give us a grateful heart. Open our eyes that we may see that behold Thou art here, Thou art everywhere, and that the government of all things is upon Thy shoulders. Give us grace therefore our Father to take hands off our lives and to commit them into Thy care knowing that Thou who didst begin the work of a new creation in us will continue Thy work unto our journey’s end, in Jesus name, amen.

[Audience member] {?}

[Rushdoony] The question is with regard to Chalcedon, what is it and what are we trying to do?

The name Chalcedon which can also be pronounced Kalsedon is the name of one of the great councils of the Christian church in 451 A.D. When as against the attempts of the empire to say that the state was the continuation of the incarnation and God upon earth, very pagan doctrine, the church declared that Jesus Christ alone is very God of very God and very man of very man; two natures without confusion in a unique and once and for all incarnation of God the Son.

We felt that the problem again in our time is very similar to that that the council of Chalcedon faced. The state again claims to be God. In modern political theory after Hegel the state is God walking upon earth. It felt that this had to be challenged directly and the only way was to organize a foundation which would be a center for research and writing to set forth the basic doctrines of our faith and their relationship to every area of life and thought. Thus we’ve done a great deal in the area of Christian education and there will be two of us next week Friday, one after another, witnessing on the stand before IRS in favor of the freedom of the Christian schools; Gary North and myself will both testify next week Friday morning. We have had quite a bit to do with the Christian school movement across country. We have had materials produced in the area of economics, in the area of Biblical law, in the area of theology the philosophy of religion, mathematics and other fields. And as we find scholars we hope to go into more and more fields, and of course as we have the funds because that’s the life blood of any organization from the economic point of view.

Thus we try to set forth the Biblical premises of thought in every area of life. Now I’ve indicated we’ve had some real results in the area of Christian education and with very widespread response to it. My book on Biblical law has had an impact on various schools of law and is taught at one university law school, they have a seminar on the subject now and I have been asked to speak on the subject before congressmen and before state legislature and a governor’s staff and various other groups. In other fields also we have had an impact. We have someone working right now, Otto Scott, to show forth the Christian foundations of science and how modern technology is not a product of university scholars who have been theorists, but of hard-headed by Christian pioneers and by industrial research and development so that when this book is written I believe that textbooks will have to be revised in terms of it, and we do have some Christian textbook writers who are waiting for the book to come out so they can start re-writing the textbooks for Christian schools in terms of that book.

I could go on and tell you more about our work, we have four full time staff members and four part-time. The full time are myself and David Chilton who is here, and Edward Powell and Mark Rushdoony. The part-time Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Jim Jordan, and Otto Scott, and we have a secretary as well. We have a small building up in the mountains near Vallecito which we’ve outgrown, we have a great many students and ministers who like to come there for seminars from all over the country. One of these days, Lord willing, we can have a place of meeting so that we can have these groups or conferences.

Any other questions now?

[Moderator] They’re just full of them {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience member] Did you by any chance bring over the book that you were reading this afternoon?

[Rushdoony] No I did not bring over the book, perhaps I should of, I intended to and forgot. I was reading a book this afternoon by the daughter of Bertrand Russell. I would not say she is an orthodox Christian but she says she did undergo a conversion experience, she said she found it an unbearable burden to live with her Father’s ideas. She knew she was not good, she did feel guilty, and she said the most liberating force in her life was when she encountered the doctrine of original sin, and then to know there was forgiveness of sins because she said humanly speaking she didn’t know how to get rid of the problem of guilt, so it’s quite an interesting story so that while she’s far from orthodox she very definitely makes quite an eloquent witness against what her father believed and she said her father’s faith was an impossible burden and it was a great deliverance to be freed from that burden.

Yes?

[Audience member] I’ll ask one question but I, when you were talking about Chalcedon, I thought that Chalcedon also was at the time of the East and West separation, that was a different council, wasn’t it? When the Eastern Church and the Western church separated?

[Rushdoony] The separation of the Eastern Church from the Western came much later than the council of Chalcedon, yes. Not that there were not differences at that time but the division came much later. Now one of the results of the council of Chalcedon is that it did tend to divide the east and the west. Some of the Eastern churches had strongly Monophysite tendencies, beliefs in which the humanity of Christ was almost swallowed up in His deity and therefore the incarnation was to a great extent undermined. Now those tendencies in the east finally worked to separate it from the west and there was dissatisfaction with Chalcedon really behind some of the division.

[Audience member] {?} Was at the time of the division of the East and West, the later council?

[Rushdoony] The question is about the division also with regard to the creed. That’s a very interesting point. When we say the apostle’s creed we say “I believe in God the Father.” The East says “We believe.” Now that’s a very significant point because in the East faith did not become a person thing, it became a church thing. The church affirmed the faith, and you did not say “I believe it” but “the church believes it” so you are not bound by the creed. But in the West whether it’s one person or a thousand saying the apostle’s creed together it is “I believe” it has to be personal. Now it was this distinction that gave to the Western churches a vitality that Eastern orthodoxy lacked. In the west all through the middle ages and of course with the reformation and ever since, every time the church has strayed and become corrupt there is a reformation that springs up.

In the middle ages it was various orders that arose, monastic orders, preaching orders, lay orders. Then of course it was Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Cramer and since then it’s any number of groups. You yourself see a seminary in Tacoma that is a part of the continuing spirit of the creed “I believe” the emphasis on the necessity for the faith to begin in the individual. Now it’s very significant that some of the churches today are recognizing that this is the problem. How can you get control of a church and hold it and hang on to the people in the West. As long as you have this emphasis on the individual and his faith, the intensely personal stress so that even if you are one person in a crowd of a thousand in church you say “I believe.” They are changing the creed in one church after another, protestant and catholic, it’s being changed to “we believe”, “we believe” and that’s dangerous, very dangerous.

Now many people have not caught on to that but there’s a long history there and church hierarchies are very subtly slipping that in to indicate we want to have a unity of the creed all over the world between the various churches. But the kind of unity that they are talking about is one that is dangerous because it is that change, or that emphasis in the East, that held the East back although that was where the faith really began and the west progressed because of it.

Yes?

[Audience member] Dr. Rushdoony I have a question. In today’s Christian churches many people say that God is sovereign and man is sovereign and the issue of freewill of man being destined, let’s say, to {?}how would you respond to that, especially here in Orange County we see a lot of that?

[Rushdoony] Yes, it is impossible to have two masters, and to say that there are two sovereigns is to say there are two masters. The only difference is the word sovereign is stronger than master. Sovereign means, really, Lord. It means God, it means the absolute authority. There was a time as John Adams pointed out, about 1831 when he first heard talk about state sovereignty and federal sovereignty he challenged the use of the word and he said it belongs to the Lord God of battles, the Lord. Word sovereignty belongs property to God alone, it’s a theological word. When it was used in paganism it was used for an emperor or a king or a ruler because he claimed to be God. Now anyone who applies it to man today is a polytheist. He is saying there are more God’s than one, there are millions of God’s and the God of the Bible is one among those millions, or billions. It is a very, very dangerous statement to make that man is sovereign, he is not; he is a creature.

[Rushdoony] Yes, the question is why is there such a push for one Bible, one this, one church, and so on. Well of course if your mentality is that you believe in a one world order, that the world has to be organized under man rather than under the Lord, then you’re going to try to bring about a uniformity in all human practice, so let’s all be under one authority, let’s all read one version, let’s all compel a unity. Now, this is totalitarian in its implications, but the goal therein is to establish a human sovereignty. But when we are under the Lord we don’t work for union, we work for unity in the Spirit and there’s a difference between union and unity in the Spirit.

Yes?

[Audience member] I think this question also had to do with the unisex part, that God is not masculine, God is not a Father as opposed to being a mother and so on.

[Rushdoony] Oh. Yes, I see, I wasn’t aware of that. The question has to do with also the nature of God. It’s hard to comment on that type of develop that we’re seeing today because it is so blasphemous. It’s anthropomorphism, it is trying to project our human concepts into the being of God. Now when God speaks of Himself in scripture language He uses is alone the language we can apply to Him, and when God speaks of Himself as the Father He gives us no right to say He is the Father/Mother God as I have heard some say.

Now, that type of thinking is born out of the equalitarian movement and I don’t know what to say about it, it’s so blasphemous it’s appalling, but it certainly has no ground in scripture. With the feminist movement of course it’s become very common place. It’s not the first time, incidentally. Over a century and a half ago there were strong currents in this country demanding the re-writing of scripture in terms of feminist goals and standards, and the movement waned, cleared up again, and died a bit in the 20’s, and is now stronger than ever.

There’s so much I’d like to say on the subject, I just don’t know where to begin, but let me comment briefly on this. God in His wisdom has created us male and female. Now to the male He has given an aspect that is unique to the male, and that’s dominion, and that you might say is the maleness of God, the masculine aspect of God, to what degree we can speak of Him such, He Himself does, but it’s that characteristic. And God has created women differently than man, and we are told that dominion is not an aspect of women.

Now it is interesting that in recent years various aptitude and IQ tests have been devised which have had their aim as testing accurately, unlike the standard testing that is commonplace. Standard testing is designed to eliminate sexual and racial differences, so the kind of testing that is given normally is neutralized. But in very accurate testing the results are rather startling. Now they will not be startling to the women who are here present, they will be to the men. But women test out as either equal to or better, usually, then men in every area test except two. One of those areas is dominion, the woman is not interested in dominion, in status, in power, the way a man is. The other is abstract reasoning. A woman excels in practical reasoning; she’s far ahead of her husband in practical reasoning. The man’s thinking tends to be abstract. Now those are the only two areas where man can say he is out in front. In every other area woman are way ahead. Well I guess God gave man dominion because there’s not much else you can say for him. [laughter]

Yes? [Unintelligible comment from audience] [Laughter]

[Audience member] While you’re on a feminist issue what sort of effects do you think that the {?}

[Rushdoony] Could you say that a little louder?

[Audience member] What effects do you think that equal rights amendment will have if {?}

[Rushdoony] Do I think the equal rights amendment will go through? And what effects will it have? I don’t know. I would say that the tide is turning against the equal rights amendment very definitely, the sad fact is the woman’s libbers are very effectively organized politically. They have put their money where their mouth is and they did defeat a number of the men in the key states where they had been opposed. So there situation looks rather good. I think if it passes it will create all kind of dislocations already it’s creating some very serious ones in many corporations; let me site an example.

The telephone company trains girls to be operators and the cost of training is such that if the girl works less than two years they’ve lost money on her training. Well there is no area where there is a higher turnover of labor than with women, that’s simply a fact of life. And let us assume that the pay goes up in terms of equal rights in the phone company, it will destroy service because they simply will not be able to pay them a radically higher pay and maintain services because it will take four or five years of work from one girl before she has paid for the training that has gone into her.

Now do you see something of the problem? On top of that when you add to it all kinds of benefits or childbirth you complicate the problem. Now in Germany a few years back, a decade or so, maybe it was the fifties, maybe twenty years ago, they did pass a law requiring equal pay and it added to more really all kinds of maternity benefits so that I think it was three months off for the girl who became a mother. Well the net result today is there is no working woman between the ages of 15 and 45 in Germany, nobody can afford to hire them. The whole thing backfired, I think it will backfire here.

Yes, is there another question?

[Audience member] Is it equal for the congress, and they’re already doing it, to extend the amount of time that the men {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes the question is about the time extension for the E.R.A. Well that certainly means that the law means nothing to them, their own law, so the time extension was in a sense illegal, the big question is will someone sue them over that? If they do I think congress could be very vulnerable on that point.

[Audience member] {?}

[Rushdoony] What’s that?

[Audience member] Who would sue if {?}

[Rushdoony] No, you would sue an officer of congress. It would be perhaps some state legislator would say there’s a breach of contract here. Now whether that will be done or not I don’t know, it has been proposed but I don’t know whether it will ensue.

[Audience member] {?}

[Rushdoony] I don’t know because it would have to be an estate where someone already had voted on it, or voted it down, or passed it, or something like that and I don’t believe he was of course not involved in it.

[Audience member] {?} Phyllis Schlafly came up with a statement and I heard her {?} that no matter what happens that they’re going to continue to fight and that it is faster going in to help to try to legally defeat it, and all she does is plenty of help. {?} The wrong capitalists have been in the forefront of the conservative political movement, and they are very active and probably she will attend to it, she’s been in this thing for almost 25 years now.

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience member] You were going to speak on Biblical law to some lawyers. I’m no lawyer but isn’t the basis of a lot of a lot of our laws today Biblical yet?

[Rushdoony] It was but the Biblical basis of our laws is rapidly being destroyed by the courts. There was a time in this country when cases were decided by juries right out of the Bible. They would go to the Bible, consult the Bible, and decide the case in terms of it. After about 1816 that began to disappear rapidly. John Whitehead, a lawyer, very fine Christian, has said that about 1952 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the churches were dead and they could proceed to discard every trace of Christianity from the law. That became especially clear in the decision on abortion, they cited pagan religious authorities and never went to the Bible. So they have been dismantling the Biblical foundations of our law.

Yes?

[Audience member] Is there any way to get today’s laws back on a Biblical basis?

[Rushdoony] Is there any way to get these laws back on a Biblical basis? Yes. First of all get the people back on to a Biblical basis, and that really is the heart of it, it’s because the people have drifted and because the people profess the name of the Lord but they are strangers to his house and to his word and to prayer.

Now you cannot have the courts reflecting a faith that the people don’t have.

Yes?

[Audience member] {?}

[Rushdoony] Alright.

[Audience member] Just a little bit back to the {?} Where do you think this idea of man’s freewill come from? What do you think about that whole idea of man having free will?

[Rushdoony] What do I think about the idea of man’s free will? Well the great classic on the subject is Luther’s On the Bondage of the Will as against Erasmus, it’s one of the greatest classics of Christendom.

Now first of all the idea that man has free will is absurd, it’s absurd. I’m not free to become a year younger, or to flap my arms and fly. I wasn’t free to choose when I was born or where I was born, in what family I was born, you get the picture. Our freedom is a very limited kind of thing, it’s the freedom of a creature. Now the Bible speaks of the fourfold estate of man. First, the state of innocence; man had the limited freedom to obey or disobey God, but his will was good. He fell, so you had the state of depravity in which now man, being fallen, will to do that which was evil, and the Bible says of him that in him there is no good thing, in all of us, apart from Christ. There is none righteous, no not one. No freedom to do good. Then third there is the state of grace in which now while we still can sin, we are far from perfectly sanctified, we now essentially seek to do the will of God and His law is written in the tables of our hearts. And fourth there is a state of glory in which we do the will of God perfectly and are delivered entirely from the burden of sin and guilt.

Now in each of these fourfold estates of man, and of course the fourth state you can also say there’s the state of reprobation, but in each of these fourfold states man is responsible, but he is a creature; creature does not have sovereignty, God alone has freedom in any true sense. Our freedom, if you can speak of it as such, is the freedom of creature but the better word to use for man is responsibility. God says we are accountable; we are responsible, in each of these estates.

So the humanist really invented this whole free will argument because they see man as God and freewill in the sense that they talk about is an attribute which God alone has, and we are not God. Does that help answer your question?

[Audience member] {?}

[Rushdoony] The first estate is innocence, depravity, grace, and glory or reprobation.

[Audience member] The first estate did you say man had had a choice?

[Rushdoony] Man could do good or evil in the first estate but his will was essentially good and he was as yet without sin.

Yes?

[Audience member] Are you saying we don’t have a choice in the decision, we don’t make the choice? {?}

[Rushdoony] I’m not sure I can hear you.

[Another audience member passing along her question, henceforth known as “#2”] The question is are you saying that man doesn’t have the freedom to make a choice, or we don’t make decisions or make choices? She’s asking if that’s what you’re saying.

[Rushdoony] We do make choices but even our choices are limited. In the state of depravity we choose between evils. We cannot choose the Lord until He first chooses us so that our only ability to choose good when we are in the state of depravity when the Lord works in our hearts, when we are justified and regenerated, then we can choose the good.

[Audience member #1] {?}

[Audience member #2] Doesn’t God want to reach everybody? {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. God says that whom He will choose He chooses and whom He reprobates he reprobates. But He also says that He sends out a summons to all men. Now beyond that we cannot go. You see we are not given the probe the mind of God beyond the word of God.

[Audience member #1] {?}

[Rushdoony] I can’t hear you.

[Audience member #2] God doesn’t force anyone to choose Him.

[Rushdoony] God doesn’t force anyone to choose Him but you see

[Audience member #1] {?}

[Audience member #2] She’s saying that its man’s choice, that a man chooses God, that God doesn’t force anyone to choose Him.

[Rushdoony] We are totally God’s creatures. From all eternity He made us, we are totally His product. Therefore whatever we do is of the ordination of God. Now as I’ve said the classic in this area, the book to read which will answer your questions I believe as no other book and no other man has ever been able to do, is one of the greatest documents in Christian history, Martin Luther On the Bondage of the Will it was his debate with Erasmus and Erasmus was unable to answer it. I highly recommend that you get that book because it goes very carefully into all the scriptures, and I believe very powerfully and beautifully answers all the objections.

[Audience member] One of the {?} in man’s response to God’s offered grace, all the credit goes to God. But man refuses the offer, man makes {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience member #1] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience member] Dr. Rushdoony you’ve statement before states that man’s innocence, depravity, grace and {?}

[Rushdoony] Could you say that little more?

[Audience member] I’m talking to Beth. Stating the four states of man. I’ve kind of heard like these same things in dispensationalism and, I’m kinda confused in dispensationalism, dispensationalism curious {?} like the books that is Leviticus and Exodus, could you please explain that to me?

[Rushdoony] Yes. Dispensationalism really has an evolutionary view of God, that God has changed in His ways and dealings and so on. Now the fourfold estate of man has nothing to do with dispensationalism, and it’s a doctrine that antedates dispensationalism. It comes from way back in Christian theology and the great classic, The Fourfold Estate of Man was written by Thomas Boston in Scotland long before dispensationalism was born. Now the fourfold estate of man has nothing to do with dispensations of God, it has to do with the history of man which is something radically different. Dispensationalism is a relatively modern thing that has been born in the past century, that is early in the last century, and it gained a great deal of impetus as a result of Darwin because it now could regard a great deal of the Bible as not relevant for us as in a sense a more primitive way, God’s dealings at a lower stage in history, and it presumes a God who has changed. Whereas scripture says “I am the Lord, I change not.” Now, it is man who has changed you see, and the fourfold estate of man is the history of man from creation to glory.

[Audience member] So many that many churches are virtually preaching antinomianism, let’s say, they’re in scriptural error?

[Rushdoony] Yes. Antinomianism is very prevalent today but it was once regarded everywhere as the most dangerous kind of error and as one which would destroy ultimately the doctrine of grace, it would undermine the sovereignty of God, it would undermine the cross because if we deny the law of God then we deny the justice of God. If God has no law why was it necessary for Christ to die? And if the law was going to be dispensed with after the cross then why couldn’t of the Lord dispensed with it a day earlier you see?

Antinomianism really divides the Bible and says there were two plans of salvation, one by law and one by grace, but it’s always been by grace. Sanctification has always been by obedience to God’s law, it’s the way of holiness.

Yes?

[Audience member] Could you define the term?

[Rushdoony] Antinomianism? Yes. Anti - against, nomos - law. So antinomianism means being against the law. Now perhaps you’re not familiar with it but there are churches where you cannot even recite the Ten Commandments, they regard it as sinful to do so and I know of one church in Northern California where a Sunday School teacher began to go into the ten commandments and the church board immediately dismissed him. They were not under the law, they had nothing to do with it anymore. Now that’s antinomianism. Now there are varying degrees of antinomianism, but it’s a very deadly heresy.

[Audience member] {?} Terminology gives you a clue to where it exists when people talk about liberation theology, the minute they start thinking they are for liberation theology you know they’re antinomian.

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience member] {?} Talked a lot about this, but I just wanted to bring it up again. {?} views on speaking in tongues and first Corinthian [comment made in audience] “therefore my brethren desire earnestly to prophesy and do not forbid to speak in tongues”

[Rushdoony] Yes but Paul also says in I Corinthians as David Chilton was pointing out to someone after the meeting last night, in the law in Isaiah it is written “With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign not to them that believe but to them that believe not.” Now what is Paul saying? He’s quoting Isaiah there and Isaiah said that the time would come when as a last witness to Israel people would speak to them in tongues, and they still would not believe. They would see a miracle like that and still reject it. So it was a sign for Judah and Jerusalem, before the fall of Jerusalem, a witness to them as God predicted in there [audio cut off[