Because God is one, and truth is one, the one law has an inner coherence.  The unity of the Godhead appears in the unity and coherence of the law.  Instead of being strata of diverse origins and utility, the law of God is essentially one word, a unified whole.  p. 18.

The importance of understanding God's word as law is so important to Rushdoony that throughout his writings he repeatedly unites them with a hyphen.  "Law-word" is a term he uses whenever he wants to emphasize the importance of the "law" as "word of God" more than the usual idea of "Bible" as the "word of God" conveys:  

But the word of God is one word, and the law of God is one law, because God is one.  The word of God is a law-word, and it is a grace-word:  the difference is in men, by virtue of God's election, not in God. p. 18.

Except for pluralism, Rushdoony opposes the idea of progressive revelation more than anything else.  When explaining why Christians are not obligated to wear phylacteries, he writes:

It is not observed by Christians, because it was, like circumcision, the Sabbath, and other aspects of the Mosaic form of the covenant, superseded by new signs of the covenant as renewed by Christ.  The law of the covenant remains; the covenant rites and signs have been changed. . . . In every age, the covenant is all-holy and wise; in every age, the people of the covenant stand in terms of grace, not because of a "higher" personal ability or maturity.   p. 23

His final statement, "Not because of a "higher" personal ability or maturity," caricaturizes the position of Christians who believe that God's revelation is historically cumulative and progressive.  In the progressivist view, the Hebrew prophets called attention to the inadequacies of a legalistic propositional understanding of truth by foretelling a time when a "new covenant" would be inscribed on human hearts.  Later, the incarnation revealed that truth is ultimately personal, not propositional.  Then, Pentecost revealed God's willingness to relate with us personally and individually.  

Rushdoony's view of revelation admits no such dynamism or progressivity.  His God is as static and unchanging as Aristotle's unmoved mover.  For him, human understanding of God should be equally static and unchanging.  In his view:  God is perfect, the law is perfect, men are imperfect, Jesus died for the imperfections of God's elect, and the elect prove they are elect by observing the law:

The law was given in order to provide God's people with the necessary and required response to grace, and manifestation of grace:  the keeping of the law. pp. 23-24.

Rushdoony's ultimate concern is with God as law-giver.  He only seems comfortable talking about God in personal terms when he speaks about God's wrath:  

The fact that jealousy is associated repeatedly with the law, and invoked by God in the giving of the law, is of cardinal importance in understanding the law.  The law of God is not a blind, impersonal, mechanically operative force.  It is neither Karma nor fate.  The law of God is the law of the absolute and totally personal Creator whose law operates within the context of His love and hate, His grace towards his people and His wrath towards his enemies.  A current of electricity is impersonal:  it flows in its specified energy when the conditions for a flow or discharge of energy are met, otherwise, it does not flow.  But the law of God is not so:  it is personal; God restrains his wrath in patience and grace, or He destroys His enemies with an over-running flood of judgment (Nahum 1:8) p. 24

If God is ultimately a jealous law-giver, then it would be insane not to fear him:

The reason for the giving of these commandments is to awaken fear of God, and that fear might prompt obedience.  Because God is God, the absolute lord and law-giver, fear of God is the essence of sanity and common sense.  To depart from a fear of God is to lack any sense of reality.  p. 16

According to Rushdoony's understanding of reality, we only live in a "universe" because God is One and the Law is One with him:

The premise of polytheism is that we live in a multiverse, not a universe, that a variety of law-orders and hence lords exist, and that man cannot therefore be under one law except by virtue of imperialism.  Modern legal positivism denies the existence of any absolute; it is hostile, because of its relativism, to the concept of a universe and of a universal law.  Instead, societies of men exist, each with its order of positive law, and each order of law lacks any absolute or universal validity.  The law of Buddhist states is seen as valid for Buddhist nations, the law of Islam for Moslem states, the law of pragmatism for humanistic states, and the laws of Scripture for Christian states, but none, it is held, have the right to claim that their law represents truth in any absolute sense.  This, of course, militates against the Biblical declaration that God's order is absolute and absolutely binding on men and nations.
    Even more, because an absolute law is denied, it means that the only universal law possible is an imperialistic law, a law imposed by force and having no validity other than coercive imposition.  Any world order on such a premise is necessarily imperialistic. . . .
      Modern political orders are polytheistic imperial states, but the churches are not much better.  To hold, as the churches do, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist, and all others virtually, that the law was good for Israel, but that Christians and the church are under grace and without law, or under some higher, newer law, is implicit polytheism. pp. 17-18.

We could ignore Rushdoony if he and a handful of others were the only ones who shared this view of reality, God, and the law.  Unfortunately, large numbers of evangelical Americans are being influenced politically by people who both share these opinions and know that they do not reflect traditional Christian thought.  That is why it is important to examine this thought so closely.  

To be continued . . .