The following is from the forward of a small booklet by Dr. H. Rondel Rumburg. It is a reprint of an article written by Dr. R.L. Dabney in 1888 entitled “Anti-Biblical Theories of Rights’. In Dr. Rumburg’s words: “Even though first written in July 1888, the principles Dabney discloses are an index to the state of things today. In a day when we hear so much about rights and entitlements, Dr. Dabney deals with responsibilities for our actions and duty towards God.”

In a day when so many mistakenly equate being ‘conservative’ with being a Christian, and being American as being entitled to more rights and privileges than others, this is an article well worth reading. -JT

by Dr. H. Rondel Rumburg

Today people talk about their rights or entitlements. One does not hear much about responsibilities or duties toward God, but there is a great deal said about one’s own privileges or rights. Rights may be described, in the present context, as powers of free action. Such freedom of action is nothing but licentiousness. The rights that are now in force or are in vogue may be defined as one person’s innate interest controlling another’s actions, goods, or position. Thus a certain person, by law, is said to have the legal right or entitlement to have, do or receive from others. So his right is what he as a person should have or receive from others. Therefore his right becomes a claim by which he would dispossess someone else. Such views are not biblical and were never part of the Constitution which was the legacy bequeathed to us by the Founder’s.

“God hath made man upright;, but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl 7:29). Originally man was in an upright state, but he sought out many devices. Fallen man in his natural reasoning’s neglects God’s wisdom for the vain speculations and ideas of his own heart. One of these inventions is human rights.

Man was not created, nor does he exist, for himself; but he was made for God’s purpose. Everything that exist, including man, was created for God’s pleasure (Rev. 4:11). Man was created to do God’s will and give all glory to Him. However, man outside of God seeks to change the creation mandate. So instead of man being God-centered he is self-centered. Therefore, his reference point becomes self, and although he may make reference to a higher being as the transcendentalists do, man becomes god. Thus, to such a man, the higher law is himself, not the Bible. Man in some form or other creates a doctrine of rights whereby even anarchy may become law. True Christianity believes that God’s law takes precedence over all other kinds of law. Thus the higher duty is to God rather than man because the State as well as the Church must answer to God. Man’s duty is obedience to God. The Bible does not speak of rights, but it does reveal God’s requirements for man His creation. For example, peace is not a right, but a state of being. Peace comes through a former violator of God’s law being reconciled to God through the redemptive work of Christ the Prince of peace.

The emphasis on human rights demands the rejection of Divine Revelation in favor of human legislation. Man thinks he is capable of legislating rights. Human legislation seeks to supplant God and make statutes in areas that only God can regulate. And the rule of iniquity is framed into law. The actual trade that is made in this deal is the exchange of true freedom for human bondage. This bondage is then called freedom, and freedom from God is considered the greatest achievement, but the ends thereof are the ways of suffering and death. Man’s fiat law is then made into an instrument of rights. Man is presumed to be sovereign instead of God in a doctrine of rights. Human rights is a false doctrine that seeks to make man the lord of all. The end result is the rule of rights rather than the rule of law.

The purpose of Dabney’s article was “to point out the coming contest, and to warn the defenders of the faith of its certainty. My wish is to make all Christians face this plain question: Will you surrender the inspiration of the Scriptures to these assaults of a social science so called?”