Can anyone tell me a bit about this author and these commentaries on the Pent.?
Sorry, I don't have any insight, but here is the link for anyone else reading along and not sure what set is being discussed
http://www.logos.com/products/details/5063
Rushdoony is a Theonomist, and one of their "trademark" theologies is the belief that the OT laws (and punishments) should be the basis for current society. Also known as "Reconstructionism"
Did some searching regarding theonomism. Don't think I'll buy the commentaries. Don't agree with their desire to bring back or even to have the Mosaic Law enforced on society. Lots more I don't agree with.
Thanks for the tip.
Great to see Phil Mickleson win the Masters!! Again.
Did some searching regarding theonomism
It is not my particular bent, either, but reading it might force one to think through issues: just how do we view the Law, and what relevance does it have for us today? Are you looking to beef up your OT commentaries in general, or do you have something in particular in mind?
Good morning Dan,
Acutally both. However, I'm beginning to go through the OT (again) and beginning with Genesis, I'll want to do an indepth study. This would include of course, variants, language, background, context, etc.
If you have any good suggestions I'd be all ears. I have the NAC, The Expositors, a couple of WBC, would love to have NICOT but $$$$. and few odds and ends. Also, I have the usual intros, 4 or 5 OT theologies.
Maybe I have enough, but you know how it is, can't say 'no' to more books.
MM
No need, thank God, to "bring back" the Law God gave to Moses. It is still God's Law. It, like God, does not change. God's Law has NOT been repealed. The 10 Commandments remain God's Law. God's Law will either be obeyed (bringing a blessing) or disobeyed (bringing a curse.)
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “The American View” Radio Show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
If you have any good suggestions I'd be all ears.
One relatively cost-effective set is the Tyndale series. They are generally more brief in scope than a volume in something like the WBC, but that does not mean they are short on insight. SEVERAL of the OT volumes are highly regarded. (My dad considers the Job commentary one of his all time top books--not that his opinion means anything to anybody but me!)
If you are dispensationalist, you may find yourself at odds with some of the commentaries on the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Zechariah, etc.
That said, it is a very good and cost-effective set.
Nothing like opening a can of worms. [;)] It is one thing to uphold the consistent nature of God, but quite another to delve into matters of a law given to a particular people in a particular place and time. What "law" does not change? The 10? The Torah? Can they be broken into ceremonial, legal, and other categories, as a way to delineate what applies today (or not)? What about Gentiles? Jesus fulfilling the law?
Anyway, welcome John, to the forums! Are you by chance a theonomist?
No need, thank God, to "bring back" the Law God gave to Moses. It is still God's Law. It, like God, does not change. God's Law has NOT been repealed. The 10 Commandments remain God's Law. God's Law will either be obeyed (bringing a blessing) or disobeyed (bringing a curse.) John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Hey John, glad you could join us. Do you have suggestions on commentaries for the original poster? Otherwise Logos likes to keep theological and political debates off of their forums, which is where your comments would lead. Not that I agree or disagree with the topic, but since it's your first post, it looks like you're trolling for off-topic discussion. On the other hand, suggesting relevant books and resources wouldn't be considered off-topic.
"Can of worms?" St. Paul says God's Law is holy, righteous and good. And God's Commands to not murder, steal, covet, etc. are for ALL people not just "a particular people in a particular place and time." And it is GOD's Law that does not change -- the Law of the God of the Bible, the only true God there is. God's Law applies to ALL people today unless you can show in Scripture where God says otherwise. And I am a theonomist by the grace of God alone, not "chance."
"Milkman" and Mr. "DeVilder" bring up Rushdoony, theonomy, and an opinion is expressed; no warning. I say what I say and am warned. Why the double-standard?
And I am a theonomist by the grace of God alone, not "chance."
Yes, "can of worms" in that the issues don't appear to be that simple. But not "can of worms" in that the issue is very important, and quite worthy of discussion. But, as Todd pointed out, not here.
Perhaps per the original post, do you have particular insight into this set by Rushdoony that would be helpful to the OP (original poster). And if you like, please write a new topic under "suggestions" if you have other works that would be helpful to add to Logos' resources. I have a couple hard copies by Bahnsen and North, but not in Logos format.
No double standard...people often express opinions in the course of the discussion of Logos products. But to come here to purposefully discuss the topics would seem to be against the forum policy. (And Dan knows this, but sometimes he can't help himself [;)] ) It's also okay to state your positions so people know where you're coming from.
I don't work for Logos, but we try to stay on topic here. Especially considering all the viewpoints represented by Logos users.
Good question John. I was going to ask that but you beat me to it. Truth is Milkman broke the rule first in this thread. I have been guilty of the same law-breaking in previous threads. And since you and I do understand the universality of God's law we both understand that just because Todd & Dan did not reprimand Milkman for taking a theological stance (or criticizing one) does not give us the privilege of ignoring that forum rule. [:#]
BTW: I think your second post says it very well. There have been many great Bible teachers that have preached the same. Rushdoony isn't some radical standing out in left field.
I think Todd is referring more to the engaging of a more long and intricate (perhaps heated?) discussion. Some happen on this forum, and it can be a tad ugly. Some happen and they are quite edifying. Either way, Logos has expressed they wish us to steer clear of such discussions. Even at that, they still happen. For my own comment, I guess I was agreeing with Milkman that I don't subscribe what I understand to be a major perspective of theonomy, but I was not trying to engage debate, or even disparage it. Merely pointing out what the OP asked: "what we knew of this 5 volume set."
I actually am highly interested in this topic (Law/Gospel), but just don't have time (or desire) to debate it right now, or at least engage in a sustained discussion. And "can of worms" was not to be disparaging/condescending of your comment (sincerely!), merely warning that your bold statement would easily morph into a very long back and forth with many on the theological spectrum. Theonomy may be clearly the correct hermeneutic to you, but that would not be shared by many.
However, as I mentioned earlier, if you perhaps could comment on the 5 vol set, that could be very helpful. Or if you could suggest other works (either IN Logos currently, or as suggestions to be added) that could aid anyone wanting to pursue it more in depth, outside of this forum.
(And Dan knows this, but sometimes he can't help himself )
[:$]
I say what I say and am warned. Why the double-standard?
Speaking for myself, I considered warning the preceding poster but decide to wait and see if it pulled the entire thread into "dangerous territory." However, had someone not already pointed out the forums rules to you, I would have. Why? Because your post count indicates that you are likely new to the forums and may not be familiar with the rules. To me, that is not a double-standard; it is common-sense and politeness.
Thanks for your comment, Matthew. And any and all may come to our site or my Facebook page to continue this discussion or abt most anything else --- within reason and, of course, revelation.
And any and all may come to our site or my Facebook page to continue this discussion or abt most anything else --- within reason and, of course, revelation.
Thank you for the invitation, John.
Just to be clear about some of my comments: I don't find this a simple subject. I have relatives who are on a wide continuum from "old school" World Wide Church of God to United Church of Christ. My friends are everything from Eastern Orthodox to United Methodist to Reformed. My series of "questions" (the 10? the Torah?, etc) was not intended to be inflammatory or to engage in heated discussion, but merely to bring up the myriad of issues involved, and why it might result in a long discussion.
Or if you could suggest other works
Shedding light on theonomy: The Institutes of Biblical Law (3 vols.) http://www.logos.com/products/details/5065
engaging of a more long and intricate (perhaps heated?) discussion.
A one sentence derogatory statement inflames as quickly as a 3 page diatribe. Just go ask a the ________. (Fill in the blank with Arminians, Catholic, Calvinist, Pentecostal, Protestant, Unitarian.--listed alphabetically)
Great to see Tiger Woods lose the Masters!! Again. [6] << now that could be inflamatory!
Ah, yes...our relatives. Thank God (literally) they are NOT the standard by which we are commanded to judge things, to determine the truth.
A one sentence derogatory statement inflames as quickly as a 3 page diatribe.
Perhaps more so.
. . . but are you suggesting I made such a statement?
but are you suggesting I made such a statement?
No. Milkman did when he said,"Don't agree with their desire to bring back or even to have the Mosaic Law enforced on society. Lots more I don't agree with." After all, Muslims would object to enforcing the Gospel message of "one name given under heaven..." but God seems to like it that way. (No offense intended Milkman, just an example)
But Todd correctly pointed out it is permissable in the course of dialogue. I don't see anything wrong with making that statement as far as forum guidelines go. But it should come as no surprise it is viewed negatively by some.
Seeing that I started this thread I should apologize for "breaking the rule" re: expressing my opinion. SO I'M SORRRRYYYY!!! That being said, I didn't realize how touchy a forum can be.
In all actuality, expressing your opinion about a book or author is not a bad thing to do. If a debate needs to take place, then this particular forum is not the place. Maybe a forum on "Theological debates" would be a good idea.
That being said, since I broke the rule, what kind of punishment do you think Mr. Rushdoony would dole out to me. Help! Maybe I better buy his commentaries to find out and appease the forth-coming wrath.
Now please don't take offence at this. It was only a joke and surely we have liberty to do so. I was not poking fun at anyone or anything and if you're saying, "then why did you say it anyway?" Then maybe some need to lighten up and as they say, get a life.
Ok, going outside to help my son with his car, beautiful day here in Canada.
Once again, I meant no offence and please accept my apology.
Super-great to see Woods lose!!!
Excellent to see Phil the thrill win. What a shot on the 13th.
Help! Maybe I better buy his commentaries to find out
Since I get tempted to buy anything with the Logos brand on it, don't take my word for it. Last year George Somsel made a wise suggestion. He proposed we actually read what others disagreeably say to ponder and learn from them. After you buy the commentaries that cater to your already-held views, give consideration to those who have a different perspective. Someday I will buy Barth's Church Dogmatics http://www.logos.com/products/details/2607 and who knows what I may learn?
Now I have to crawl under the house and run a water line. Enjoy your time helping your son. [:D]
