We need to take stock of ourselves. If what God calls an abomination is a matter of indifference to us, something is seriously wrong with us, not with God nor the Bible. Are we making of ourselves an abomination in God’s sight?
Paul tells us that if we share in Christ’s death we share in His resurrection. This victory must direct our thinking and our actions to serve our Redeemer. Because Christ died, our penalty is paid; because Christ rose, we are raised as new creatures; and because Christ sits at the throne, our thinking and action must be predicated on His victory and rule.
There may be a word other than “patriarchy” which causes more of the “usual suspects” to foam at the mouth and chew the carpet, and about which more nonsense has been spewed, but I’m not sure what that word would be.
Certain features of presbyterian church government can be Biblically justified with ease. Yet it is perhaps telling that most modern defenses of the system root themselves not in Scripture, but in the Reformation. When appeal is made to Scripture, however, those making the appeal sometimes ask God to say more than He actually has on the subject.
But just as children generally arrive one at a time, so also souls are generally welcomed one at a time into God’s Kingdom. Among the burdens of ministry will be found the question of whether this or that soul has been granted the seed of life from God, whether we are attending upon a “pregnancy” that will issue in new birth, or one that will “spontaneously abort.”
The Great Commission must be wed to the Cultural Mandate. Yet this is exactly where the church in America is failing. It refuses to be a city set on a hill. It has placed all its emphasis on converting individuals but ignores the commandment to disciple these converts and then, by extension, to disciple their nations.
A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness.
With his two-edged talent for kind edification and piercing conviction, Rushdoony—by his sheer honesty—challenges the reader to consider personal sins of presumption as he exposes principles that have been abused for centuries. It doesn’t take the proverbial rocket scientist (or Bible scholar) to see, as we read, that we are often guilty of the Phariseeism of Rome and Galatia, or that we nurse our precious dialecticism with the best of the Hellenists, in spite of our protestations. Rushdoony has a way of demolishing our foolish pride—even as we think we are reading him for “enrichment.”
Christians should be concerned about being obedient. Christians are commanded to pray for peace in the land so that we have the freedom to preach the gospel and further God’s Kingdom. Political involvement in a constitutional republic is a natural obligation for those who take these prayers seriously, whether it is full-time service or just being an informed voter. Christians who choose to volunteer or work in political endeavors want to know that their work will be effective, and that they will not be called upon to compromise Biblical principles. This is where the California model may be helpful.
Evangelicals have traditionally rejected the historical-critical method. Why? After all, it would be difficult to argue that Biblical studies have not benefited significantly from many discoveries and insights resulting from the work of historical-critical scholarship. Evangelical exegetes make—excuse the pun—liberal (if cautious and discriminating) use of the fruits of historical-critical studies. Our understanding of the Bible has clearly been deepened and expanded by such research.
The meeting was attended by about 30 people representing cities throughout central and southern Florida. Moderator Andrew Sandlin emphasized the purposes of Reconstructionist societies—to apply the Reformed Faith in all spheres of life.
One of the common errors in modern thought is the confusion between reason and rationalism. If one is opposed to rationalism, it is mainly assumed that one is irrational, which is similar to saying that, if one is opposed to Romanticism, one is against emotions or feelings. Such an attitude would mean that Shakespeare’s works are devoid of emotions.