R. J. Rushdoony

“Quare—Me Sollicito? Legero Insanus.”

‘The Reformation restated clearly the doctrine of justification, but it failed to clarify the doctrine of sanctification.  The confusion is apparent in the Westminster Confession of Faith; chapter XIII, “Of Sanctification,” is excellent as far as it goes, but it fails to specify precisely what the way of sanctification is.  In chapter XIX, “Of the Law of God,” one of the errors of the Confession appears, in that Adam is placed under “a covenant of works,” the law.  However, in paragraph II, it is stated that “This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables.”  The law is thus seen as the rule of righteousness, i.e., the way of sanctification.  However, in paragraph IV, without any confirmation from Scripture, it is held that the “judicial laws” of the Bible “expired” with the Old Testament.  We have previously seen how impossible it is to separate any law of Scripture as the Westminster divines suggested.  In what respect is “Thou shalt not steal” valid as moral law, and not valid as civil or judicial law?  If we insist on this distinction, we are saying that the state is free to steal, and is beyond the law, whereas the individual is under the law.  At this point, the Confession is guilty of nonsense.  In paragraph VI, it is stated that the law is a “rule of life informing” believers “of the will of God, and their duty; it directs and binds them to walk accordingly.”  That which is a rule of life for man is also a rule of life for his courts, civil governments, and institutions, or else God is then only a God of individuals and not of institutions.’

R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 550, 551.