George Mueller: Bypassing God’s Law for a New Standard of Holiness
The same kind of abstraction from the law [as puritan author William Gurnall] is to be found in George Mueller, one of the winsome figures of nineteenth-century piety. A basic motive in Mueller’s perspective was his anti-postmillennialism, (He was a premillennialist.) Mueller bypassed the law for a new standard of holiness, a dependence on faith and prayer for his support. The widespread publicity his stand attracted very early gave him a strong basis of support. At a time when a few hundred dollars a year was a good income, his income as early as 1856 to 1865 amounted to “over $50,000 a year.” He returned most of this to his missionary works. He was against giving by God’s law. “With regard to the amount to be given, no rule can be laid down, because what we ought to do should not be done in a legal spirit, but from love and gratitude to the Blessed One, Who died for us.”
We have here the typical antinomian attitude that obedience to God’s law lacks love and gratitude. Mueller opposed debt, not because of Old Testament law, but because of the New Testament injunction. He opposed planning, and hence savings of any kind.
For Gurnall and Mueller, the future as history was irrelevant. Man’s function was for them not dominion under God, but, for Gurnall, inner victory and peace in the spiritual struggle against Satan; for Mueller, it was soul-saving, through his orphanages and through evangelism. Both men are good examples of the Protestant monastic spirit, an abstraction from history and an unconcern with it. They are very remote from the prophetic and apostolic concerns with the very material realms of personal and world history.
– R.J. Rushdoony, Vol II of The Institutes of Biblical Law, Law & Society, p 228.
Rush was a false teacher. We’re under the new covenant, Joel.
RJR: “Mueller opposed debt, not because of Old Testament law, but because of the New Testament injunction.” HORRORS!
GM: “With regard to the amount to be given, no rule can be laid down, because what we ought to do should not be done in a legal spirit, but from love and gratitude to the Blessed One, Who died for us.” Amen & amen.
Just curious why you think Rush was a false teacher. Yes, we are under the new covenant, and yet the Law of God was not abrogated. I understand where you are coming from, but we need to be careful not to go too far.
I could very well be that I neither know what theonimists teach nor what the phrase [‘not under law, but under grace’] refers to.
Or, it could be that in fact I do, yet was in a hurry yesterday to go to work. I did fail to explain myself, which I hope you & Joel will give me license to do as this thread develops.
Do you really think Rushdoony didn’t also teach that “we are not under law, but under grace”? He did and so do I and I’m confident Joel does as well. This makes you a false accuser-unless, of course, you repent of having done so.
Or if I can prove that Reconstructionism* & postmillennialism are false, unbiblical hopes. In naming Rush a false teacher, I am saying he taught false doctrine, and regularly neglected the gospel that drove the Apostle Paul. Galatians must be added to my list of Hebrews and 2 Cor. 3, above.
However, not only have you violated the Ninth Commandment… you’re also one of those whom Jude described: ”…ungodly… lascivious/ licentious, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 1:4)
Again, could be, or perhaps you’re in error both in your understanding of the new covenant, as well as in the status of my soul.
…see the free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant”
WIll peruse, and thanks for the tip! More as time permits.
* A more accurate term in my posts above wherein I used the more general “theonomy.” To wit: Postmillennialism is a necessary component of Reconstructionism. Not all Post-mills are Reconstructionists, but all consistent Recons are Posties.
Mueller was right – Rush was wrong. Much to theonomy’s chagrin, we are not under law, but under grace. Ironically, the Postmillennial myth* is as seductive and deadly as the pre-mill varieties.
The book of Hebrews (w/ 2 Cor 3) devastates the theonomic/ post-mill false hope as effectively as it does the dispensationalistic folly.
Am reading Rush’s Institutes of Biblical Law and Banhsen’s By This Standard.
Greg’s double-mindedness was twice refuted by John Robbins, and Tim Cunningham’s new book looks good: /www.amazon.com/How-Firm-Foundation-Perspective-Reconstructionism/dp/1608994619/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380990054&sr=1-3&keywords=timothy+cunningham
* This is a necessary component of theonomy. Not all Post-mills are theonomists, but all consistent theonomista are posties.
I agree re: post-milll and pre-millies. Still, the question of the standard for holiness?
Hughmc5, for you to employ “we are not under law, but under grace” against Rushdoony is indicative that you neither know what theonimists teach nor what the phrase refers to. Do you really think Rushdoony didn’t also teach that “we are not under law, but under grace”? He did and so do I and I’m confident Joel does as well. This makes you a false accuser-unless, of course, you repent of having done so. However, not only have you violated the Ninth Commandment, your rejection of Yahweh’s everlasting righteousness as reflected in His triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) under the New Covenant reveals you’re also one of those whom Jude described:
” For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness [licentiousness, NASB–see definition in Websters 1828 Dictionary], and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 1:4)
For more regarding how Yahweh’s moral law applies today (and a Biblical explanation concerning under grace and not the law), see the free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html