Isaiah on Sarah Palin, GOP VP Candidate
I have refrained from writing about the presidential race for quite some time, but I must now break my silence. Of course, any self-respecting, self-described "conservative" must wince upon seeing the maverick, neo-con Arizona Senator, John McCain, on the GOP ticket. To top this off, Christians and all supporters of biblical and traditional values must wince to see the mother of a newborn, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, as McCain's running mate.Not that we would necessarily argue that Palin is any less intelligent, savvy, or capable of exercising the duties of VP than any other potential candidate; no doubt, McCain carefully and deliberately calculated this decision, and in coming weeks, the media, the Obama campaign, and various special interests groups will thoroughly vet her resume. Many will argue that she is qualified based on her background, experience, political creed, and credentials -- just as some Bush lackeys initially vocally favored his infamous nomination of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice. Others will assert that Palin lacks experience and is otherwise unqualified for the job of VP. In either case, the evaluation and debate will center on whether Palin can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the men who preceded her. Will she effectively fill the shoes of this traditionally man's role?
Christians should be willing to shift the terms of the debate. The point is not that a wife and mother is inherently inferior to, say, a former Haliburton CEO (Dick Cheney). Rather, I argue that the curse of Isaiah 3:12 is being fulfilled before our very eyes:
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
God has called women to the distinctive roles of wife and mother, plain and simple. Paul tells women to be "keepers at home" in Titus 2. God has called men to stand in the gates and lead within the civil realm, as we see throughout Scripture with precious few exceptions. Many will mock this position as outdated, chauvinistic, sexist, and worse. At best, the position will strike many as "unfair." Indeed, it is unfair. God is not an egalitarian. He did not ordain men and women to function with the same roles and responsibilities. For example, in Genesis 3, God cursed the man's responsibility of subduing the earth and taking dominion over the ground; men would have to wrestle with thorns and thistles and sweat to provide bread for their families. In turn, He cursed the woman's role of bearing children by ordaining travail in childbirth.
Egalitarians argue that women should vote (as opposed to heads of households, typically males, representing their homes and speaking for their families with one coherent voice in the civil sphere), hold political office, participate in the workforce, and fulfill other roles, responsibilities, and burdens that God ordained for men. Christians have largely embraced this egalitarian worldview that comes to us from French Revolutionaries and Marxists, rather than Jesus, Isaiah, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Witherspoon.
Palin said in her acceptance speech, "It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all." Palin was very logical in praising two infamous women who preceded her: "I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 [Walter Mondale's running mate] and, of course, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign."
In short, Palin is on a mission to thoroughly sweep away the last vestiges of America's historical roots, grounded in a biblical, traditional, and, yes (take a deep breath) patriarchal view of governance. For some reason, I cannot conjure up very much excitement about this candidate.
If you are one of the Christians who seriously pondered holding your nose long enough to cast a vote for McCain, I pray that you will reconsider. Do not participate in placing the first woman in a major elected executive office of these United States.
posted by C.S. Hayden @ 5:40 PM
35 Comments:
I've been waiting for a situation like this to see how anti-suffragist would react. I think most will ultimately support her. After all, they aren't going to vote for Obama. And a vote for Ron Paul or some other third party candidate would be like voting for Obama. She is pretty likable that's for sure. I predict they will come around.
Laura,
With the founders of this country, I certainly do not believe that voting is a fundamental, God-given right for every man and woman. Yes, I am aware that this is sociological heresy in our day, but mine is a political orthodoxy of former times. Life, liberty, and property are "inalienable rights," to borrow Jefferson's word, but voting is not. I believe that a well-ordered, republican-based civil government will recognize the voting franchise for responsible and productive heads of households, the overwhelming majority of whom will be fathers and husbands -- patriarchal men who govern their homes, churches, and societies by the authority of God's Word.
I do not know how many "anti-suffragists" there are these days, as even most ostensibly conservative Christians have embraced some form of egalitarianism in their worldviews. I do not hear the popular "family values" pundits arguing against women's voting rights. Doug Phillips is one of the few notable "anti-suffragists" I can even think of, and I am quite confident that he and most people who share core elements of his worldview, including myself, will not support McCain and Palin.
Just to set the record straight, voting for a third party is, in fact, voting for a third party, not Obama. Gratefully, even in our country, there are more than two choices.
Thanks for the comment.
Caleb
"I certainly do not believe that voting is a fundamental..."
Oh I know. I've been reading your blog for some time. I would be shocked if you were one the people that decided to support McCain, but I suspect most people will. If you vote for Ron Paul instead of McCain, you are giving Obama a vote. I predict most people will end up seeing this way. My views don't fall long party lines at this point I don't love or hate either pair.
I know I don't want to see the videos of her shooting a machine gun that some Republicans are already bragging about. I've shot a machine gun too. That doesn't mean anything. They just want to show her pro-gun and pro-military side (the wrong way I might add). She was a good speaker with good ideas and a diverse background, they need to focus on that.
Amen. These are basically my thoughts as well. It would be an abomination if Palin were to take office. This may be a step forward for the idolatrous republican agenda, but not for biblical civil government or a Christian social order.
Dobson's quick shift shows how ready most evangelicals were for an excuse to vote McCain. But how much influence does a vice president have, really? One could argue Cheney has had an unprecedented level of influence, but I think it is a novel phenomenon for the VP to attract so much attention.
Am I right that for a short time early in American history, the losing contender for president was appointed vice president?
Great points Caleb.
I linked to your article over at 'the shoe'
Pc3
Ron Paul is not running. He definitively declared that he is a Republican and will not run as a third party candidate. Thus, I cannot and will not be voting for him.
I have heard a lot of people say that a vote for a third party is a vote for one of the major party candidates. I do not agree with this, and I have never really heard anyone explain why this is supposedly the case. If I vote for a third party candidate, is there some secret process whereby my vote is automatically credited to Obama? Both McCain and Obama are horrible welfare/warfare statists, and I predict little, if any, difference in the practical outworkings of a McCain vs. an Obama administration. They will both lead us toward global government, they will both expand US worldwide belligerence, they will both increase federal power and spending, they will both continue to wreck our economy and way of life, and so forth. If I don't want McCain or Obama in office, believing them to be isohorrific for our republic, why not vote for someone else or no one at all? That's my philosophy, and I'm sticking with it.
I'm not saying you have to agree with me about Obama and McCain being equally atrocious, but I hope you can see from my perspective that refraining from voting for McCain is something different altogether than casting a vote for Obama. I don't think I will stand before God and give an account for why I voted for Obama, simply because I did not vote for McCain and/or because I voted for someone else.
Josh: Thanks for the great comment. I'm glad you made the point about the influence of the VP. The framers of the Constitution established in Article II, Section 1, that the runner-up in the electoral vote would be VP, but this check and balance was overturned in the wake of the War Between the States by the Twelfth Amendment.
Lew Rockwell addresses this in his interesting podcast about Biden and other current events (starting about 2 minutes into it).
Pc3: Great to hear from you. Hope your family is well. Thanks for linking to the post at the shoe: http://inashoe.com/2008/08/29/vote-republican/. The site looks great, by the way.
Correction: The Twelfth Amendment was ratified in 1804, not in the wake of the War Between the States. (Those were the 13th - 15th Amendments.)
Good post! I for one was hoping that McCain would chose a pro-choice VP so that more conservatives would abandon him.
By even considering a pro-choice (pro-murder) running mate it is obvious that McCain doesn’t even care about the abortion debate. And yet some people think that he would never choose a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice. Who knows?
I hate to say it, but I was just telling my family last night that Sara Palin was just what conservatives wanted: an excuse to vote for McCain.
I'm curious as to how you would approach the (positive) example of a woman leading a nation (ie Deborah) in the scripture.
You are the first person I wanted to confer with on this. Although we differ morally, I for one from a historical standpoint am shocked. The leaders of this country, aside from being male have been strong, educated, wise, and EXPERIENCED as well as accomplished in areas directly related to government and running the country in some fashion. Obviously some better than others, but I feel most ardently that McCain is trying to doop us, play us for fools and I find it insulting. As a political progressive on the other side of the fence from you, women have worked for years (and I'm not talking about the crazy feminists I'm talking about a few of us more...mentally stable) to earn respect through the largely Christian values of education, modesty, family values, and frankly merit.
If he were going to choose a woman to "make history" which I suspect as motive, why not pick a host of other more accomplished older women without young children in the home. Kay Bailey Hutchinson for one.
It's ironic to me that in a society where many of us, especially Republicans denounce Affirmative Action that we didn't pick the most qualified candidate or one that was already on the ballot in the primaries (and thus publically supported by the people) we've subjugated women women further by just picking them to play puppet politics and prance around...the worst kind of insult I would venture to guess any side could fathom.
Faithful reader, Jessica
Ryan: Great point about McCain giving the Dobsonites an excuse to vote for McCain! Thanks for the comment.
Anonymous: Thanks for the question. I will address it in a separate post.
Jessica: Interesting perspective. I don't think you necessarily speak for the "conservative," quasi-egalitarian women (the Dobson-lovers and CWFA types), but I think you bring some interesting thoughts to the table. Perhaps McCain's pick is indeed patronizing and an insult, of sorts, to the feminists (sort of like, in the case of affirmative-action, picking a token African-American to parade around, just because he's black and not because of his accomplishments, even when other, more accomplished African-Americans would be available to represent that constituency -- using a person of a particular group for political purposes, in other words). I think the Democrats will try, maybe with or maybe without success, to exploit this angle. NOW certainly did so in a hurry with its press release, calling McCain's choice a "cynical effort." Maybe, when all is said and done, this pragmatic move will end up backfiring. I tend to think not, however. Conservatives have come far enough in the Marxist cultural revolution to be genuinely giddy about a woman holding a high political office on the national level. If we are no longer willing to speak against women being sent into combat to have their bodies mutilated by ruthless aggressors, how could we speak against a woman potentially leading the charge, being "one heartbeat away" from the Commander-in-Chief's chair?
Ryan is right. I believe the rumors about McCain picking a pro-death VP were all canards designed to scare gullible evangelical voters (am I repeating myself?) so that once McCain did choose someone even remotely pro-life, they would all immediately fall in line, which they did.
I realize that's a cynical position to hold, but it's more than justified based on decades of the GOP manipulating so-called conservative Christians.
RL Dabney spoke truly: "American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition." (Realize he said this in the mid to late 1800s!)
More great insights, Josh. Never have I seen Dabney brought into a discussion too soon, and thanks for giving us that gem.
You're not being cynical. Rather, they call that the stuff of political realism.
"I cannot and will not be voting for him"
That must vary by state because in my state you can write in a vote for anyone.
If you really feel that Obama and McCain are equally bad, then I suppose you wouldn't care if your vote for a third party person ended up being a vote for someone else. But if you are a typical conservative but decide you vote for a third party then you have taken away a vote from the conservative. It is worse than not voting because you voted but not for someone that had a chance at winning. But in your case, if you see McCain and Obama as equal, then it wouldn't matter.
Lol, no I couldn't represent people I can't wrap my understanding around yet, I always feel my confidence teetering just in these conversations, but I agree and maybe that just goes to show that all the political process is about anymore is theatrics, almost like...well professional wrestling (which I assure you I don't watch).
But then again, Laura, it's also objectively true that my vote for a third party is not a vote for Obama!
Good grief C.S., you've certainly generated some controversial thoughts! :) It is indeed grevious to see where this nation is headed, especially in regards to the ruthless attack on the biblical family and the God ordained roles of each member thereof. May God show us mercy. . .
Where do you get your idea about women in leadership from Isaiah 3:12?
The interpretation of the Septuagint authors was that it was a judgment against Israel that the strong woman would be taken away:
"1 Behold now, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, will take away from Jerusalem and from Judea the mighty man and mighty woman, the strength of bread, and the strength of water,
2 the great and mighty man, the warrior and the judge, and the prophet, and the counsellor, and the elder,
3 the captain of fifty also, and the honourable counsellor, and the wise artificer, and the intelligent hearer.
4 And I will make youths their princes, and mockers shall have dominion over them.
5 And the people shall fall, man upon man, and every man upon his neighbor: the child shall insult the elder man, and the base the honourable.
6 For a man shall lay hold of his brother, as one of his father’s household, saying, Thou hast raiment, be thou our ruler, and let my meat be under thee.
7 And he shall answer in that day, and say, I will not be thy ruler; for I have no bread in my house, nor raiment: I will not be the ruler of this people.
8 For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judea has fallen, and their tongues have spoken with iniquity, disobedient as they are towards the Lord.
9 Wherefore now their glory has been brought low, and the shame of their countenance has withstood them, and they have proclaimed their sin as Sodom, and made it manifest.
10 Woe to their soul, for they have devised an evil counsel against themselves, saying against themselves, Let us bind the just, for he is burdensome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruits of their works.
11 Woe to the transgressor! evils shall happen to him according to the works of his hands.
12 O my people, your exactors strip you, and extortioners rule over you: O my people, they that pronounce you blesses lead you astray, and pervert the path of your feet."
Anon: Having studied the matter, I believe a better approach to Isaiah 3:12 is the rendering found in every other English translation rather than relying on the English translation of the Septuagint. The words "women" and "rule" are unmistakably present in the original Hebrew and in every other translation from the original Hebrew of which I am aware. There is a clear connection between the phrase "women rule over them" and the laments that "children are their oppressors" and "they which lead thee cause thee to err," as well as the rest of the passage. This entire portion of Scripture is a lament and proclamation of God's judgment. Clearly, within context, we see that Isaiah's words regarding women ruling are not a mere statement of fact but rather a lament and a proclamation of God's judgment.
Commentators may differ on this -- some say, for example, that Isaiah is proclaiming that the male leaders are childish and effeminate -- but when all is said and done, the text clearly points to God's judgment and a lament over the state of a nation governed by women.
If enough conservatives vote their discerning consciences for a third party candidate, it is remotely possible that a plurality of votes could go to a more acceptable candidate. I'm leaning toward Alan Keyes. I also borrowed the argument from him.
Some people are arguing that it's ok for Mrs. Palin to be Vice President, because the Bible never says women can't be political leaders. Since Deborah is our only example of such, and she was by default in a time of judgment, and because the New Testament makes clear what a woman ought to be doing, where she can have the most influence, I think that we should not vote for her. Additionally, I think her gender and family status makes her ill-qualified for the job.
Before the VP pick I had absolutely decided against voting for McCain, for facts stated in some of your other posts, Caleb. He is a politician. He botched his marriage. Though he says pro-life things, he is not pro-life. This is more dangerous even than being pro-choice, because he makes it sound as though he was alright. He's ok with lying to us. And McCain says all sorts of lovely things about going back to the Constitution, but the constitution he has in mind is nothing like the obvious original intent of the Constitution. To me it seems like all of this is a farse to get people to vote for him.
The more people reject these tactics, the more likely change and reform will come to our country, enabling conservatives to have a voice and representation again.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Whether Is. 3:12 is describing the rule of effeminate (ie. woman-like) men, or the rule of women, it does not offer support to the egalitarian hypothesis. Because in either case, womanly rule is described as a woeful state of affairs.
To reiterate, this is not because of some kind of subordinationist ontology created by men to oppress women. It goes back to the divinely mandated creational order.
However, the blame ultimately falls back on men for abdicating leadership and being effeminate, timid, compromising, and cowardly. A true revival of manly courage and fortitude is sorely needed.
"For some reason, I cannot conjure up very much excitement about this candidate."
Probably for the same reason, neither can I. I enjoyed reading and agree with your thoughts on the topic. Mrs. Palin is absolutely in opposition to a Biblical, patriarchal view of government.
Thank you for this post. I hope that your readers will be encouraged to vote honestly and to trust in God's sovereignty.
Grace and peace to you
Josh: I have read a counter-argument, which asserts that Isaiah was supposedly premising his lament on a "chauvinistic" assumption his culture supposedly held regarding female incompetence to bear rule. Isaiah might have been stating that the rulers -- whether male or female, it matters not -- were leading the people astray, in the same way the people would be led astray if ruled by women who were inherently inferior, according to the assumptions Isaiah's culture supposedly held. I don't believe this approach is justified by the text. Isaiah was lamenting over God's judgment, which judgment always accords with His eternal and righteous law -- not with the norms and presuppositions of the ungodly cultures that God is judging. I agree with you that the message we can apply from Isaiah 3:12 is that female rule, which is contrary to God's created order, is a woeful and lamentable state of judgment by God for men refusing to take their God-given role of sacrificial servant-leadership. Also, I agree that the problem is with the men who refuse to fulfill their calling, not that we believe there is anything inherently inferior about women.
Sadly, many of the leaders within the Christian-GOP partnership establishment are leading the charge toward further male abdication by supporting McCain based primarily or solely on his decision to place feminist Palin on the ticket. The neo-cons never cease to amaze us by their ability to co-opt and invert biblical and "traditionally conservative" concepts and values, such as male leadership in the gates and dominion by women within the home. What do the neo-Marxist egalitarians have left to accomplish now that professing "conservative" Christian leaders are supporting a foundational pillar of the neo-Marxist agenda to eradicate the family as the fundamental unit of society?
Let us never forget that Palin's aim is to once and for all shatter the highest, hardest glass ceiling in our country. Leave it to the "conservative" Christians to lead us further into folly. Who needs Hillary when we have McCain, Palin, and their lackeys, apparently including (so sad to say) Dobson, to do the dirty work. The feminists are really ignorant if they truly do not realize what a boon this is to their cause -- the Dobsons of the world are essentially throwing in the towel and embracing egalitarianism in practice with full-force overnight. I suspect the feminists do understand the implications but feel the need to rhetorically oppose Palin because 1) she is pro-life, 2) she does not quite fit their picture of a feminist (e.g., she is a Christian with five children and a husband), and 3) most importantly, the conservatives beat the tried-and-true feminists to the punch, so the hard-core feminists are maybe a little embarrassed that newcomers like Dobson are forging the path of cultural revolution a step or two ahead of the self-professed neo-Marxist, egalitarian feminists.
Rissa: Thanks for the comment. Nice job on your post about Palin as the VP nominee. As you point out, we have to be willing to break ranks with the GOP and so-called "conservatives" when they go so far astray.
Laura wrote: "With the founders of this country, I certainly do not believe that voting is a fundamental, God-given right for every man and woman."
____________________________________
I am of the opinion that any citizen whose leaders can choose to draft into the military at any time has the absolute right to have a voice in choosing those leaders by voting...While expecting someone to die defending their homeland while denying them a voice in the selection of their leaders who may send them out to die is not only elitist but extremely immoral as well...
c.s. hayden...
It is biblical principle that by beholding one becomes changed...It seems quite apparent to me that dobson and those on the religious right who support him have beheld their enemies (feminists) for so long that they have at long last fallen into the trap of becoming the very thing that they claim to hate and despise...
Anon1: To clarify, the words you quoted were my words in response to Laura, not Laura's words. I do not believe that civil leaders have a biblical or constitutional right to force citizens to serve in wars overseas. The draft as practiced in our day is unbiblical and tyrannical. I agree with the Bible and the founders in opposing a standing army and military belligerence, although I believe that all men should be prepared with tactical training and heavy firepower to defend their homes, families, and social order. I am not worried about sounding elitist because I reject egalitarianism. Anyone who does so in our day is labeled an "elitist," but I prefer labels such as "biblical covenantalist," which is inherently anti-egalitarian and anti-democracy.
Anon2: Thanks for the insightful observation. This brought to mind the famous lament, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Mr. Hayden,
You say, "in Genesis 3, God cursed the man's responsibility of subduing the earth and taking dominion over the ground; men would have to wrestle with thorns and thistles and sweat to provide bread for their families."
When was the last time you took your biblical command to take dominion over the ground literally? If it's figurative for you, symbolizing the role of breadwinner, but not literally "wrestling with thistles", breaking the earth and planting/harvesting crops, why is it still a literal mandate for your wife?
It appears, from my orthodox Presbyterian position, that you are using scripture instead of seeking to understanding it, and manipulating God's word rather than applying it.
Will you post this?
Mark
Your question is vague, Mark, but I will take a crack at what I think you are asking. You want to know why I don't set aside God's design for men and women. After all, if we take Genesis 3 literally, men have to sweat and toil with the earth. We don't apply this literally -- yes, I work in an office and very rarely touch dirt with my hands -- so we can set aside the design for women to bear children and keep the home; so goes your argument, it seems.
In response, I point to various examples in Scripture of men -- including our Savior -- fulfilling distinct roles outside the narrow realm of agriculture. God has called us to subdue the earth and have dominion, which means that we exercise our callings in every lawful, available field of work.
Women, particularly Christian women, are called to serve as helpmeets to their husbands, to keep the home, to be submissive, to bear children, and so forth. Any cursory glance of Scriptures from Genesis 3 to Proverbs 31 to Ephesians 5 to Titus 2 and so on, will yield this conclusion. Analyzing the whole of Scripture, with the exception of Deborah, we do not see women serving as civil authorities. We see God's design in creation, in the many examples throughout Scripture, and in various directives to His people, that men are to serve as civil leaders.
Until relatively recently, orthodox Presbyterians would not have argued with me on any of this. Why have you embraced elements of egalitarian, neo-Marxist feminism and abandoned some of the teachings of Calvin and your Reformed forebears?
Mr. Hayden, until recently, the Westminster Confession's three-fold division of God's law was the accepted view in the reformed world.
The session of our church recently adopted the following policy, which bears upon this whole discussion. Will you post it?
=============
The school of thought labeled “Christian Theonomic Recontructionism” or more popularly “Theonomy” (promulgated by J.R. Rushdooney, G.L. Bahnsen, G. North, J.B. Jordon, K.L. Gentry, and others) has been a source of tragic controversy in Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide.
In order to better protect our flock from this spiritual danger and the pastoral problems it causes, we reaffirm the plain, historic reading of our Confession of Faith in regard to the threefold division of the Law of God, since this teaching is contrary to a fundamental tenant of Theonomy. We reaffirm the threefold division of the Law of God, as displayed in the Scriptures and outlined in Chapter 19 of our Confession of Faith: while the Moral Law of God abides, the Ceremonial Law has been fulfilled, and the Judicial Law of Moses has expired. The plain, historic reading of this teaching in our Confession of Faith has been adequately expounded in our own day against various theonomic misunderstandings by J. Ligon Duncan, III, “Westminster Confession of Faith: A Theonomic Document? [http://www.providencepca.com/essays/theonomyhtml]; J. Ligon Duncan, III, Moses’ Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstruction Movement (3rd edition, Reformed Academic Press, 1998); Sinclair B. Ferguson, “An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. by William S. Barker & W. Robert Godfrey (Academie Books of Zondervan Publishing House, 1990); and The Report of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland from 1998: Theonomy and the Confession of Faith.
We deny any twofold division of the Law of God, which is taught or implied when Christian Theonomic Reconstructionism collapses the Judicial Law into the Moral Law, as being unbiblical and against our Confession of Faith. While this twofold division leaves only a distinction between the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law, it also subtly makes the Civil Law into an abiding, eternal requirement for all nations and peoples, which God never intended.
Therefore, Christ Church, Presbyterian shall not preach, teach, or inculcate Christian Theonomic Reconstructionism, as it is deemed to be against the Bible and our public Confession of Faith in a fundamental tenant.
Adopted by the Session on September 2, 2008
=============
Thanks for listening to an opposing viewpoint.
Mark
Mark: Although many theonomists hold to the positions I espoused in response to your initial post (and some do not), my views are not exclusive to theonomists or Reconstructionists; some non-theonomists share unity with some theonomists on biblical patriarchy. In my opinion, you are fighting in a different battle if you think that the statement you posted counters what I wrote, although maybe you are right that the statement somehow has bearing on the discussion (not sure about this, though). Notice I did not reference any so-called "civil laws" once (not that civil law is irrelevant to the discussion, but the biblical case for women's roles is made most compellingly through passages in Genesis, Proverbs, and throughout the New Testament, with principles from Old Testament law mixed into the case).
The Reconstructionists have been quite prolific and voluminous in their careful refutations of those documents listed in that statement you posted. Bahnsen was especially prescient in his analysis of the two-fold vs. three-fold division of God's law. North, DeMar, and Rushdoony have also contributed abundantly to the debate. (By the way, I am not very impressed with CR critics who cannot even spell the name "R.J. Rushdoony" -- makes me wonder who this "J.R. Rushdooney" guy is and whether they have even read him, but I digress.) Because we are on the subject, one of the more beautiful passages in Scripture regarding the universal applicability of God's perfect, eternal, and righteous Law, is found in Deuteronomy 4 (I hope we can both agree that this passage is the blessed message of a gracious God to His covenant people, even if we disagree on its theonomic implications):
vs. 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
vs. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
vs. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
vs. 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
At the very least, we have to agree that the OT law, including the civil law, was provided to set Israel apart and above the other nations. Another point to consider is that the "moral law" is expounded and applied by the "civil law" and that even Paul uses the civil law in his argument to pay preachers (I Tim. 5:18). It seems that Paul did not agree with discarding the civil law.
grow up
All women were called to be wives and mothers? Riight. Woe to Nancy Leigh Demoss, unmarried and running her own business; woe to evil Billy Graham, who encourages his daughter to preach in mixed company!! And to woe to little men who cover their crotches in fear when real women stand up. Tell yourself that a third vote is "just a third vote" all you want, dear; the blood of the babies Obama allows to be slaughtered in the next four years will rest at least partly on your empty skull.
Anon: Do you really think your comment is a logical, well-reasoned response to the issues at hand? Do you think that bringing up Demoss, Graham, and "little men," is germane in the least to this discussion? Do you really think that voting for McCain and Palin, in itself, would have kept blood from being "partly" on my "empty skull," as compared to my standing before God having not voted for McCain and Palin?
Really, anon? Really? Come now, let us reason together.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home