I don’t completely defend Luther’s view of reason; however, I think generally he has been misunderstood. All my best reason tells me that I could never be forgiven. In that context, reason stands as my accuser – echoing the stern message of the law. My reason is absolutely correct: I don’t deserve to be forgiven; without Christ, I am beyond hope of forgiveness. But Romans 5:8 says that I am forgiven, in spite of what my reason or the law may say.

I don’t think Luther had a low view of reason or the law. I think he just knew how scandalous God’s grace is. I think Luther also had a skewed view of Aquinas, but that’s another story.

I enjoyed your post. I’ll be adding your blog to my regular reads.

Thanks

Thank you for the warm welcome. It is much appreciated.

treebeard, one church I attended had standards for membership that I simply couldn’t meet. I had to agree jot and tittle with all their creeds, confessions, by-laws, etc. It was too much to have to agree with. That’s how I escaped the legalism, and the Sovereign Grace baptist group and my next church pointed a lot of things out, and were more grace oriented. The ministry burnout was solved when we adopted a child. I had to quit them all.

AnneG, I haven’t read them, but would love to have the time.

Please don’t assume that I am associating your comment with all possible future comments.

I just know that the accusation of racism is denied by many who have read him, and the accusation of racism is regularly leveled at guys like Doug Wilson, who I know isn’t a racist.

I have never mentioned Rushdoony unless I was quoting someone else. I haven’t read the guy and don’t plan to. I do know a bit about his influence on some good people and some not so good ones.

I don’t want a Rushdoony debate, but I also don’t want matter of fact statements on racism unless they have some available documentation.

Honestly I am not smacking or shooting. I am not comfortable with theonomy and have no plans to undertake any discussions of it.

Just trying to moderate here.

peace

ms

Here’s an irony: the only reason I know anything about Rushdoony is because you wrote a post on “complementarianism” awhile back and I started seriously researching this view and that led me to th patriarchal “view”, and the fact is that Rushdoony is a hero to a lot of these patriarchal folks. Rushdoony’s writings and viewpoints are not hard to find, btw.

So give me a smack with a ruler if you want, but I’m not the one who brought this very controversial. . .uhmmm. . . theologian up. I understand that he is part of Steve’s journey, but he admits knowing that it would probably cause some angst for people who know who this man was. And it did. So shoot me.

Second, I don’t think that “what to believe” is void of reason and thinking. As evangelicals, we have a large body of knowledge given to us with a lot of dots to connect using a lot of reason and thinking. Often “what to believe” is also being told how the dots connect themselves together. I enjoy finding the dots that aren’t in the picture originally given to us.

He said the guy taught him how to think. I could have left that out and skipped these comments, but it’s Steve’s journey. I once had a box of R.B. Thieme materials. Shoot me.

Let’s keep it where it is, and not open the box of guilt by association.