Sarah Palin and the Media: Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

I am astounded at the media frenzy attacking the Vice-Presidential candidate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin, but not for the reason that most people are. Most conservatives seem to be thinking that this is an unprecedented attack on the privacy of a candidate’s life. That’s not why I am surprised. I am surprised at the media’s idiocy. Normally, they are much more image-savvy than this, and much more politically calculating.

Here is a candidate that has the potential (and is certainly off to a good start) to fire up the conservative base of the Republican Party, and who has already upstaged Barack Obama in a major way. And she’s a woman. A conservative woman. The announcement of her as a running mate for McCain could not have come at a better time for the GOP. As many have already noted, Republicans have only wanted to prevent Obama from winning. Now many are excited that McCain could win. It came immediately after the DNC, insuring that the news from that convention would be old news just a day afterwards. Any kick that Obama might have gotten in the polls would be completely eliminated because of this impeccable timing. And now, McCain has the RNC to give him a kick.

The liberal media knows that they have to do something to win back the momentum, or at least slow McCain down, so they attack her. This is political suicide, if you ask me. It will not help the Democrats for Barack Obama and Joe Biden to distance themselves passively from such attacks. While that is laudable, it seems evident to me that a two-step is going on here. If Obama wants to convince the people that he is not in favor of attacking Sarah Palin, then he needs to attack the media attack. He needs to denounce the two-faced hypocritical media assassination attempt.

If the DNC wanted to eliminate the influence that Sarah Palin could have on this election (which I predict will be by far the most influence a VP candidate has EVER exercised on an election), they should have simply ignored her. There is a lot of time between now and November. Sarah Palin would eventually become old news. But what the media has done wil backfire in an enormous way. This, combined with Obama’s foot-in-mouth statements of late practically guarantee that this race is McCain’s to lose.

72 Comments

  1. rfwhite said,

    September 3, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    It’s about proportionality, right? Level of perceived threat = level of real attack?

  2. greenbaggins said,

    September 3, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Indeed. That is why I think they protest too much. They would never attack someone who is perceived as a non-issue. This means that the Dems are EXTREMELY nervous.

  3. Vern Crisler said,

    September 3, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    IMO, these attacks on Sarah Palin are way out of line. To use a 17 year old pregnant girl to score political points is just plain despicable.

    I hear that Gov. Palin believes in creationism. Bravo! That makes here more faithful to the Bible than some of our strict RPW and Westminster types out there. ;-)

    Vern

    P.S. Sorry, couldn’t resist. :-)

  4. ReformedSinner said,

    September 3, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Actually I’m not surprise at all. The reason I don’t like the liberals is not their ideology, but their hostility. They have no moral standards when it comes to destorying their enemies. Then again that’s why they’re liberals right?

  5. September 3, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    I hear that Gov. Palin believes in creationism. Bravo! That makes here more faithful to the Bible than some of our strict RPW and Westminster types out there. ;-)

    Why, do you know some strict RPW or Westminster types that reject creationism? If not, then creation scores an equal point for both sides.

    “P.S. Sorry, couldn’t resist. :-)

    Resist what, making a mistake?

    Ron

  6. Lee said,

    September 4, 2008 at 12:11 am

    I do not think that this about the perceived threat. I think this is good old fashion hatred. There is nothing that needs a beat down like a traitor, and that is exactly how the media views Gov. Palin. She is a woman who is against abortion. They hate her for that simple fact. Much like they hate Justice Thomas for being conservative and against affirmative action while being an African-American.
    I think this is why they cannot help themselves and have to mock, scorn, and deride this woman.

  7. synthesizer said,

    September 4, 2008 at 8:25 am

    The double standard is breathtaking! Just look at how the John Edwards affair was a non-story to the main stream media. They have gone on full scale attack mode over Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. The same people who see nothing wrong with premarital, extramarital and just about any other kind of sexual relationship. They accuse the right of a double standard in being accepting of the situation. As Christians we don’t say that it’s right, we just realize that our own children are capable of falling into temptation, and are in need of the same forgiveness and compassion that Palin has shown her daughter. I applaud palin in going forth, blemishes and all. Her humility may prove to be the biggest asset to this campaign. And that is refreshing.

  8. Ron Henzel said,

    September 4, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

  9. ray said,

    September 4, 2008 at 10:21 am

    I watched the RNC last night. Even Ron Paul like’s her:)
    I do not agree with her choosing to accept being a VP, while juggling being a wife and mother to her family.
    At times, the last 3 speakers were pretty much guilty of idol like worship of McCain. I can only hope that McCain tonight will call upon the grace of God, and christian conservative values instead of using the tactics of a Caesar. Is that too much to ask of supposed straight talk Republicans? Inquiring Canadian neighbor would like to know.

  10. ReformedSinner said,

    September 4, 2008 at 10:37 am

    What impress me the most about Palin is that she is no hyprocrit as we too often see in today’s politicians. She’s against government waste and she went after everybody, Democrats AND Republicans. She sold the governor’s private jet. She dismissed the governor’s private chef. She drives herself to work everyday instead of the perks of drivers and government vehicles. Instead of worrying about re-election she truly has the people’s interests at heart. you may disagree with her policies, but you have to respect her moral standings.

    I really think the liberal media and hard-left camp are nervous. Her short political career actually made her less of a chance of being scrutinize, and they can’t play the “inexperience” card too often before if not careful it will blow up in their faces (Obama does not have a long resume either and never serve in any executive position.) So they need to run with whatever they’ve got.

    The pregnant daughter story will actually hurt Obama from his moderate liberals. Moderate liberals actually respect parents that embraces pregnant teens. The stereotype is Republicans are mean old farts that would have nothing to do with teens and their problems. Now we have a Republican face that shows love and compassion to teenagers and their real life issue. I say this will help McCain-Palin in the long run.

    The second missed play card is their “Palin bad mother” attack. How can a mother run for political aspirations when she has 5 kids, 1 with downs syndrome, and 1 pregnant daughter? Moderate liberals will see this as what it is: sexism. Had Palin been a man this would be a none issue, so why is it an issue with her? Again I predict in the long run this will hurt Obama more than McCain.

    It’s fun to see the Democrats and the liberals running scare. They believed that Bush alienated the nation so much that they can nominate anybody and win the election without much effort. They did not count on a bloody-divisive primary between Hillary-Obama, and they did not count on McCain to play the “Maverick” card – smartly distancing himself from Bush but retain most of Bush’s values that appeals to the Republican base (like tough on terror), and now they definitely did not count on Palin as the VP candidate and how she has totally transformed McCain and the Republican’s image (business as usual to fighting for the interests of the people.)

    I have to say so far so good for the Republicans, but don’t count out the liberals. They have the tenacity to stab you in the back when you least expected (like NY Times recently printed a story about Palin’s supposively affair, but did retract it and apologize ‘in small print that is’, but the damage is done.)

  11. Steven Carr said,

    September 4, 2008 at 10:43 am

    hmmm…Obama or McCain??? Some days I wish I was a post-millenial theonomist; then I could hope for the coming of the theocratic kingdom here on earth, instead of having to find some sort of satisfaction with one of two candidates who are from different parties but have essentially the same view of God.

  12. ray said,

    September 4, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Steven , is there another option (regardless the size) besides the big two in America for conservative Christians?

    In Canada we do. The Christian Heritage Party. From the sounds of it … we too will be going to the polls in late October. I am sincerely hoping that christians who voted for the Conservative party (2006) in the hopes that they would somehow promote christian conservative values, see yet again in 2 short years that this party is not interested and finally put their support where it belongs with the Christian Heritage Party.

    Do you have such an option?

  13. September 4, 2008 at 11:34 am

    Another bothersome thing is the way Hollywood gets involved with Palin bashing. I mean, who cares what Puff Daddy thinks about the moral integrity of Palin in regard to this pregnancy incident with her daughter. I wish I had a two minute spot on air to asked all these Hollywood stars about the moral integrity of their lives. It ok for them to have candidates who are pro-murdering babies, but its another story when a girl who had premarital sex (and should not be hailed for that) decides to keep a baby. What in the world has happened to ethical standards. Even pagans should know better.

  14. Ron Henzel said,

    September 4, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Ray,

    I suppose there have always been options other than the Republican and Democrat parties in the U.S. for people of just about every political stripe. At the local level, in fact, all kinds of little parties flourish in village, town, and county governments. The problem is, given the constitutional peculiarities of our presidential election process (viz., our Electoral College), I think that most American consider voting for an independent or third party candidate to be the surest way to waste one’s vote, and, given recent experience, sometimes even compounding the waste with disaster.

    The poster child for the formation of this attitude would have to be our last independent candidate to make it into double digits in the popular vote, although without carrying a single state in the Electoral College: Ross “I’m All Ears” Perot, who, despite a highly erratic campaign, garnered 18.9 percent of the popular vote 1992, and whose major contribution to the outcome was to thwart George H.W. Bush’s re-election, paving the way for the Clinton years. The only person ever to exceed that achievement did it way back in 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the Progressive (or “Bull Moose”) Party candidate and carried six states for 88 Electoral College votes (the only votes that actually matter in the final analysis) and 27.4 percent of the popular vote.

    Perhaps Perot thought that all he lacked was an actual third party like Teddy’s to do better. But in 1996, as the Reform Party candidate, he only grabbed 8 percent of the popular vote—which by typical third party standards is still fairly respectable—and helped Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole.

    Truly significant third party campaigns tend to emerge in the U.S. when the electorate is worried about the potential consequences of rapid social or political change, and a large voting bloc coalesces around the notion that neither of the two traditional choices are doing much to address those concerns. Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party was actually a feature of an entire “Progressive Era” that our nation went through when voters worried that the leaders of free-market capitalism (or “robber barons,” as many of them were called) were perhaps a little too free. The same wave of progressivism picked up steam again after World War I and helped Robert M. LaFollette take 16.6 percent of the popular vote along with Wisconsin’s 13 electoral votes in 1924.

    After progressivism, the next major wave in American politics to generate significant third party candidacies was the rise of the Civil Rights movement. In 1948, Southern fears of a nascent post-war anti-segregationist movement in the Democrat party birthed Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat candidacy which failed to help Dewey defeat Truman (the obvious goal after Hubert Humphrey’s anti-segregation speech at the ’48 DNC) despite the fact that Thurmond took 39 electoral votes from four states with only 2.4 percent of the popular vote. As the tumult of anti-Vietnam War protesters was stirred into a re-heated Civil Rights movement 20 years later with the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination, George Wallace stepped to the plate for the American Independent Party. He took 45 Southern electoral votes and 13.5 percent of the popular vote (including an impressive number of Northerners), arguably—and if so, ironically—helping Nixon defeat Humphrey in 1968.

    But Wallace was the last third party candidate to get any electoral votes. Perot’s run for the White House came at a time when our biggest worries centered on how to navigate through a world suddenly up-for-grabs (or so Saddam thought) with the demise of Eastern European Communism and the end of the Cold War. In terms of how it actually affects American presidential politics, these changes have proven to be far less of a tectonic shift than the ones that produced the more successful third party bids of the past. The only real confusion was over the extent to which we should remain focused on international threats, or leave them to tend the home fires, and that fog was beginning to dissipate with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. If Bush 41’s re-election campaign hadn’t been blind-sided by overly-distraught reaction to a short-lived recession in the Northeastern states, I think Perot would have done far less damage and Clinton probably would have lost.

    Which leads us to today, where perhaps the greatest brooding longterm angst at large in the population revolves around healthcare coverage and retirement accounts. Other than the question of when the troops come back from Iraq, I don’t think most people over 35 with a high school diploma really believe that Barak Obama or anyone else will bring real change to the American political system—even if they have a clue as to what change they really want, or what it should be. Nor do I think most people over 35 really believe that our current economic crunch will last longer then they can endure, or will require some kind of dramatic government intervention. If there’s something on the horizon other than dependence on foreign oil that either holds us back from improving or actually threatens our way of life at some deep level, most Americans (including myself) are oblivious to it. And since foreign oil dependence represents perhaps our deepest angst, and yet one that hasn’t generated a single third party candidacy since it first raised its ugly head with the 1973 OPEC oil embargo (unless you count John Anderson, the ex-Republican whose 1980 bid gave Ross Perot the idiotic idea to raise the national gasoline tax), I personally don’t see any third party candidate getting even 10 percent of the vote this November, if that.

    Now I’ll go back to grading middle school social studies homework.

  15. Bob Suden said,

    September 5, 2008 at 12:43 am

    The left has been beat at their own game, the stupid party candidate has taken a page from the race – gender politics of the evil party and run with it. A stroke of genius on the part of Benito Mussolini to upstage Roberto Mugabe, as if either opportunist had this country’s best interests at heart. As for John Knox’s point of view, never mind.

    Palin compromised herself to become the stalking horse on the Republican ticket. Though she’s no Evita yet, word is she stiffed Schafly’s reception to visit AIPAC with Lieberman. And Ashcroft was our last AOG federal official. Not good, if that precedent holds true. McCain picked her in order to put off the Republican civil war a little longer and suck in the Christian Right though Ron Paul has been conducting an offensive anyway ever since the beginning of the campaign. Neither Juan McBama or Barry O’Cain are genuine candidates by his lights and he’s right, regardless of what James Dobson thinks.

    In other words, the plot thickens and the Establishment’s candidates are now neck and neck going into the third turn, but regardless of that, in the end it’ll be Beatlebum for sure. As Harry Brown essentialy put it in 2004, all we’ll get is more tax and spend big government, more warfare/welfare, more bomb babies/abort babies. In short more conservative/liberal Democrat/Republican big government, if not tyranny.

  16. ReformedSinner said,

    September 5, 2008 at 7:22 am

    #16,

    Wow! Such deep hatred for any politicians.

  17. ray said,

    September 5, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Hi Ron, of all the third parties you mentioned, which of these had a solid conservative Christian platform?

    Is there any third party at present that has a solid conservative Christian platform?

  18. Zrim said,

    September 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    “IMO, these attacks on Sarah Palin are way out of line. To use a 17 year old pregnant girl to score political points is just plain despicable.”

    I wonder if that is anything like showcasing one’s special-needs newborn as a way to prove one’s pro-life politics? It seems like using family members to score political points is only poor judgment depending on what sort of points are being gunned for. But as long as one’s newborn is fair game to make a political point, are we really supposed to pat a woman’s back for doing what most women of means do?

  19. Kyle said,

    September 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Ray, re: 18,

    The closest thing might be the Constitution Party.

  20. ray said,

    September 5, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Hi Kyle, I have heard of this party somewhat. Do you support them?

    Will they have opportunity to voice themselves at the independant national convention next week … or is this something different?

    Does the Constitution Party have candidates in all ridings? This has been a problem for the CHP in Canada … having candidates for each riding. We do in our county and are thankful that we do.

  21. t haus said,

    September 5, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    I find it interesting and baffling to witness the viewpoints of “conservatives.” Do they REALLY think that Democrats control the media? Give me a break. Have they ever even heard of Rupert Murdoch? The Obama camp has made no comment about this whole thing other than, “Family matters are off limits.” But let’s just consider what might happen for a moment if the shoe was on the other foot. If this were a Democratic candidate, he or she would be paying hell. Probably because Democrats are so immoral (again, give me a break. Since when did Republicans corner the market on goodness and morality? I think it was Jesus, in fact, who said that we are all sinners, and he who is without sin may cast the first stone). And Republicans accuse the Democrats of vitriol. Additionally, it seems as though Republicans believe Sarah Palin to be the second coming of Christ. We just met her, folks.

  22. greenbaggins said,

    September 5, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    I think you are over-reading conservatives on this one. Just because conservatives finally have a candidate (and they have to settle for a VP candidate) that they can be excited about does not mean that they are under any messianic illusions. But, as I said, she is getting attacked for things that they would never attack a man for or a Dem for. I have never claimed, and no one here has claimed either, that Republicans have a corner on goodness and morality. But the vitriol at the moment is pretty much one-way from Dems attacking Palin. The issue of vitriol is not my concern. Vitriol is part of politics. What grabs my attention is how afraid the Dems are that Obama is going to lose. That is all I was saying.

  23. t haus said,

    September 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    I beg to differ. What if Obama had a teenage daughter that was pregnant? It wouldn’t just be labeled as a Democrat-thing, it would be labeled as a black Democrat-thing. Oh, not openly. No. The Republicans would just sadly shake their heads as if to say, “Well, we knew this would happen, didn’t we?” But since it is Ms. Palin’s daughter it’s, “Well gosh, these things happen, right? Shucks.” Never mind that she so fervently preaches abstinence. Who specifically amongst the Democrats is attacking Palin? Forgive my ignorance. And is questioning or commenting or making note of a situation the same as an attack? And actually, it has been countless times that I have listened to Republicans during the convention call Democrats, “immoral.” “Immoral, Do-nothing Democrats.” How dehumanizing. I think both sides are afraid of losing. And both sides feel very strongly about their beliefs. It’s sad that we are so polarized. And an aside–their are a good many Republicans in my life that I love and care about sincerely, regardless of the fact that we disagree about some things.

  24. September 5, 2008 at 3:37 pm

    #24, If Barak had a teenage daughter who was pregnant she would kill the baby so that she wouldn’t be punished with it. At least that is the answer he gave. So no one would find out about it.

    You are correct about the fact that the Republican party, just like the Dems. this year, do try to “corner the market on goodness and morality.” But shouldn’t rulers seek the good of the people (as that good is defined by our Lord)? I for one do not have a problem with any party expressing moral values. The problem comes in when they deviate from them. My prayer for both candidates is that they would truly have faith in Jesus Christ and put His word at the center of their actions and decisions.

    I also agree that we are too quick to look for messiah figures in someone like Sarah Palin. Steve Nicholas had a great blog post not long ago about the idolatry bound up with political hopes. We can trust in a government system more than in the living God who worked through such corrupt government leaders as Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.

    All in all, we, as Christians, must vote our conscience for the most righteous leaders. When you read Proverbs it seems that this is what is best in the civil sphere. So, we have the word of God to work with on this. Is it right to vote for someone who would further the killing of innocent babies? Is it right to vote for someone who wants to take money from hard working citizens and give it to lazy bums?

  25. t haus said,

    September 5, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Hmm. You ask some good questions. I’m not sure how Obama meant that, since I did not hear the statement, but he did not say that he would want his daughter to have an abortion. You might also ask if it is right as humans to electrocute others for certain acts. Or poison them. Or hang them. I think someone said that these kinds of things should be left up to God, as well. Also, how right is it for a leader to send young men and women off to be killed for wars based on false pretenses? But we’re protecting and defending Iraqi freedoms, right? Ask the Iraqis how they feel about that. Or does it not matter since they are muslim? Where were we when the people of Sudan were being slaughtered by the tens of thousands? What about their freedoms? Maybe those people are just “lazy bums (or maybe it had more to do with our nation’s business interests)?” All I have to say about that one is, “What would Jesus do?” Do you really think Jesus would EVER call someone a lazy bum? Maybe you think it’s better that people like the Waltons (Walmart) get richer and richer on the backs of Chinese that they treat as slaves in their Walmart slave labor camps. But I suppose that those people are just lazy bums who don’t pull themselves up by their boot straps, and so they deserve it. There is nothing perfect about politics, which is maybe the biggest reason I find it so exhausting that the right continues to hide behind a blind and false mother, which oddly seems to wear the mask of Christianity. It does not become the right, and it does not become Christians. Frankly, I think Jesus has probably had it up to his eyeballs in self-righteous nonsense. Good day to you, and I pray that there are better tomorrows for us all.

  26. September 5, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Jesus did call people lazy bums when His Spirit inspired the Proverbs and the book of Titus: “Cretans are always liars, evil beast, slow bellies (lazy bums)” Titus 1:12. Jesus also called Herod a “fox,” the Pharisees “offspring of vipers,” and the Scribes “hypocrites.”

    Jesus commanded Israel to destroy their enemies (since He is Jehovah we can safely say that the Son of God commanded war in the OT), and said “there will be wars and rumors of wars.” This is not to say that our being in Iraq is right, but there is such a thing as just war (see Martin Lloyd-Jones’ “Why does God Allow War?”)

    It sounds like you have some unchecked angern over Walmart and other independent businesses who rip their employees off. I don’t know if you worked for them and got burned or if you read that book that came out a couple of years ago, but I don’t think Marxism is the answer to solving Walmart’s bad employee policies. How about encouraging people to find a job where they can get a decent salary and good health care. Then the church can do its job and help care for the poor and needy. Last time I checked Jesus never said that it was the governments role to solve all the worlds problems. Maybe you could help me out on this one.

  27. September 5, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    P.S. My brother-in-law was in Fallujah fighting, in the midst of the most grave warfare for Iraqi freedom, and I asked him what the Iraqis thought about it all. He told me that the media does not show you how many poor, oppressed men and women are thankful we are there.

  28. Vern Crisler said,

    September 5, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    #22
    “I find it interesting and baffling to witness the viewpoints of “conservatives.” Do they REALLY think that Democrats control the media?”

    Yes, since the media is mainly Democrats.

    “But let’s just consider what might happen for a moment if the shoe was on the other foot.”

    In fact Republicans would be falling all over themselves to be supportive, so as not to appear mean.

    “Since when did Republicans corner the market on goodness and morality?”

    When they opposed Roe v. Wade and gay rights.

    “I think it was Jesus, in fact, who said that we are all sinners, and he who is without sin may cast the first stone).”

    And he also said go and sin no more, right?

    “And Republicans accuse the Democrats of vitriol. Additionally, it seems as though Republicans believe Sarah Palin to be the second coming of Christ. We just met her, folks.”

    I agree that we should not put our TRUST in princesses. All we need do right now is VOTE for her. If she doesn’t measure up, we vote her out. The main thing is that the liberal media has aided and abetted terrible and scurrilous personal attacks on a conservative (creationist) candidate, but say hardly anything negative about the Democrat ticket.

    I also just heard Sean Hannity reading a NYT’s editorial praising Geraldine Ferraro back when she ran for VP, and making light of her lack of experience. Talk about hypocrisy.

    Vern

  29. Deb said,

    September 6, 2008 at 8:43 am

    Do any of you worry that the Republican Party is playing us?

    I know that personnally still feel pretty duped from 8 years of the Bush Administration. In 2004 I voted for the Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party because i could see the writing on the wall – that Evangelicals were being used. I’m a bit skeptical, and have a fear that Rove and his buddies are pulling the strings to get McCain elected and McCain will “owe” them a role in his administration.

    Sarah Palin is awesome and an amazingly strategic pick – she accomplishes a lot for the ticket and I love what she stands for. However, I’m doubtful that she will even have a voice or influence on a McCain’s Neo-Con positions toward foreign relations or attitudes toward multinational corporations. From this angle, she probably will not be a threat to Rove and his buddies. I love her, but I’m still skeptical about what is REALLY going on. Any thoughts?

  30. Stephen said,

    September 6, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Sorry, # 11 but I do not think you understand theonomy at least in the classical sense. The kingdom only comes through the preaching of the gospel not through social reform. Theonomists certainly believe that the civil magistrate should be converted but as the Psalmist reminds some trust in horses or chariots but we will trust in the Lord our God. Christians should not be looking to Washington for change but more non-theonomists are guilty of this then theonomists.

  31. Stephen said,

    September 6, 2008 at 9:50 am

    In response to # 30 I say Amen. Sarah Palin has amazed many including Ron Paul. I am very impressed with her and like her stand on the issues, but remember she is McCain’s vice-President and must follow his liberal policies or loose her job. McCain only chose this woman in order to win conservatives and draw the female vote. She will have only an advisery position in the White House. It will be McCain leading the nation, not Sarah Palin. I am very cautious and do not think McCain will bring any real change to the nation. Deb, The Christian Heritage party is a great alternative for those of us who are life long Republicans and do not like the direction of the RNC. I still think that Ron Paul is a solid alternative, though.

  32. Kyle said,

    September 6, 2008 at 9:55 am

    Lane,

    It appears a comment of mine has disappeared? It should have been # 28, at least, that’s how it appeared last night.

  33. greenbaggins said,

    September 6, 2008 at 10:10 am

    Kyle, I’m not sure what happened. They appeared this morning as comments in need of moderation. I am quite certain I approved them. But then they disappeared. I have never seen anything like it. I’m not sure what’s going on. My profound apologies for the deletions, which were quite unintentional, I assure you.

  34. its.reed said,

    September 6, 2008 at 10:18 am

    Kyle:

    What have you done to irk the blog gods? :)

  35. Kyle said,

    September 6, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Lane,

    No worries, I just wanted to be sure that I’m not going crazy or doing something wrong!

    Reed,

    Undoubtedly my prolonged lack of participation has incited the powers of the Net. ;)

  36. Kyle said,

    September 6, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Ray, re:21,

    It appears my previous comment in response to you was swallowed up by the great black hole of blogdom.

    At any rate, to answer your questions:

    I have supported Constitution Party candidates in the past, and while I generally agree with their platform, I don’t find the current candidate for president to be a very compelling choice.

    I’m not aware of the independent national convention you mention, but I’m fairly certain that the Constitution Party held its own convention.

    I don’t know exactly what you mean by “ridings,” not being familiar with Canadian electioneering terminology. However, the Constitution Party does have candidates for both the offices of president & vice president. Whether they have congressional candidates (& how many) of course varies from state to state.

  37. Vern Crisler said,

    September 6, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    #5
    I had said Sarah Palan was more faithful to the Bible than some of our strict RPW and Westminster types. Ron adopts a skeptical attitude and asks: “Why, do you know some strict RPW or Westminster types that reject creationism? If not, then creation scores an equal point for both sides.”

    How about: Darryl Hart, Michael Horton, Richard Muether, R. Scott Clark? They defend RPW but will not defend the Bible’s six-day creationism.

    In saying this, I’m not knocking Intelligent Design, but I mean we’re talking strict RPW and strict confessionalists here. Why aren’t they as strict about Genesis 1-3 as they are about exclusive psalmody or not observing Christmas?

    I should add that I don’t really know if Gov. Palin believes in the Bible’s account of creation vis-a-vis some compromise position, but I can keep my fingers crossed, no?

    Vern

  38. Bob Suden said,

    September 7, 2008 at 2:11 am

    17, Read the post again. Harry Brown and Paul are politicians. When it comes to the mainstream clone candidates and carbon copies, I would think anybody with any discernment would be a little skeptical of the modern messianic state and all the promises that are being made.
    Though Rockwell is a papist, he nails it when he says both parties idolize power. (No, he’s not talking about the regulative principle of politics.)
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/longing-for-dictatorship.html

    30, The American voters are being played like a fiddle and that includes the evangelicals/Christians who don’t want to admit it/can’t see it.
    But socialism/big government is exactly that, whether the Repub fascist version or the Dem marxist version. Palin was a great pick strategically, but McCain is using her and those she will bring into the fold, if not that she buys into a lot of the Repub militarism/nationalism. On a personal level she’s a lot more real/refreshing than the other candidates, who are just as unqualified.
    An excellent evangelical critique of Palin can be found here:
    http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/palin.html
    Bill Anderson, of the PCA I believe, says this:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022660.html

    38 Off topic, but since you didn’t stipulate big names, FWIW – not much I’ll grant you – I believe in 6 day creationism and the WCF/RPW.

    And while Ussher was a royalist and amyrauldian that was called to the Assembly, though he never sat, he was still a tremendously influential theologian on the Assembly. In the 4th Head on creation in his recently reprinted Body of Divinity, after affirming 6 days and nights of creation, in answer to the question, why was God creating so long? he replies with penetration:

    “Fifthly, that we might observe, that many creatures were made before those which are ordinarily their causes, and thereby learn, that the Lord is not bound to any creature, or to any means . . ”

    Exactly.

    cordially

  39. September 7, 2008 at 9:06 am

    Hi Vern,

    Are you a six-day guy or a one-day guy? After all Gen 2:4 says, “…when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” As you may know, the noun (Yom) is used this verse is the same noun used in Gen 1. So, on the “yom= 24 hours” hermeneutic, God created the heavens and the earth in six 24-hour periods or he did it in one 24-hour period or perhaps we’re asking Moses to answer a question he wasn’t answering?

    Further, the story of what the divines intended by “in the space of six days” is a little more complicated than you suggest. Did most of the divines believe “six-day” creation? Probably, but their personal views are one thing and what they intended that the churches should confess is another. Further, that language of the WCF has not been received by American Presbyterians to require 6-24 creation.

    Being a “strict” confessionalist doesn’t require that one believe everything that the divines believed. After all, most of them were theocrats and it’s likely that many of them believed in geocentrism.

    Rather, faiithful subscription, honest subscription, requires that one believe what the confession teaches as received by the churches. The confession was received by the Scottish Church to teach Presbyterian Church government! It’s quite certain that at least two major significant groups at the Assembly did not intend to teach presbyterian church government.

    Finally, the confession is a an ecclesiastical summary of the system of truth taught in Scripture. It’s pretty easy to see how essential the RPW is to being Reformed. It’s a lot more difficult to see how 6-24 creation is essential to being Reformed; being fundamentalist yes, but not to being Reformed.

    I’m not saying that anyone who believes in 6-24 creation is a fundamentalist but I am saying that anyone who uses it as a boundary marker for the Reformed faith has picked a measure.

  40. ReformedSinner said,

    September 7, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    “Further, the story of what the divines intended by “in the space of six days” is a little more complicated than you suggest”

    It’s probably too complicated to write in a blog, but what did the divine meant and trying to accomplish with that phrase? To purposely make it vague enough to appease the 6-24 majority and leave room for non 6-24 minority?

    I’m personally more incline towards the Analogous View of Creation, but I am interested by this phrase in the Confessions.

  41. Bob Suden said,

    September 7, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Vern and Dr. Clark,

    Luther was supposed to have said – where I have never been able to find out – that:

    “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God
    except precisely that little point which the world and he devil are at that moment attacking, I am not
    confessing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be
    steady on all the battle field besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

    In other words, whatever our respective positions on 6 day creation or the RPW, the two issues really only serve as a red herring and distraction. The real point and issue with Palin’s candidacy is essentially Isaiah 3:12, is it not?

    “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.”

    In other words, was John Knox correct in his day or is John McCain today? Was the First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women just a sour note on a tin horn from a patriarchal misogynist or is it scriptural truth? That is the real question and I am waiting (yes, foolishly) to hear somebody speak to it.

  42. Vern Crisler said,

    September 7, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Hello Scott,

    I was simply responding to Ron’s charge that I was making things up. Personally I think there’s no real question that the Bible teaches a young earth and six day creationism (as does the WCF).

    It seems that those who tout a strict regulative principle of worship and strict confessionalism so much so that they exclude (say) Christmas from the life of the church, but are not strict on Genesis 1, are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

    IOW, they emphasize what most Christians would regard as the legalistic and cranky side of Presbyterianism, but downplay that very part of the Bible that is under constant and vicious attack by the world and the devil. For evolutionists have no problem at all in understanding what Genesis teaches about creation, even if some of our RPW divines have gone wobbly on the subject.

    Ron, I obviously disagree with you that 6 day creation is a distraction. In addition, I believe John Knox was horribly wrong about women as rulers, and did much damage to the Reformation at the time of Elizabeth by his monstrous book. His covenant theology was way too extreme.

    Vern

  43. Sean Gerety said,

    September 7, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Bob – great posts. At least some people are thinking of McCain’s pandering with Palin in biblical terms. Others like Dobson could care less.

  44. Vern Crisler said,

    September 7, 2008 at 7:48 pm

    43: correction, my last comment was directed to Bob, not Ron.

  45. September 7, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    To Bob Suden, back at post no. 42, the Luther quote can be found in volume 3 of his published Works. Weimar Edition. Briefwechsel [Correspondence], vol. 3, pp. 81f.

  46. Bob Suden said,

    September 7, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    45 Thanks Vern, you had me wondering.

    But if those that deny 6 day creationism fall in line with the world, the devil and evolutionists in attacking Genesis, what of those like John Frame or Mel Gibson who essentially attack the very idea of verbal revelation itself, when they argue and practice the doctrine that pictures of Christ are not only indifferent and lawful, but also expedient and necessary? One attacks a branch, the other tears up the root, not an even tradeoff in my book, call it cranky, legalistic or what you will.

    For that matter, as odd as it might seem, the only people on this forum of whom I have a mental image of, even before speaking of biblical characters, is those whose picture I have actually seen, Lane, Reed and Scott. (The jury’s still out on Sean, though arguably if there is a Reformed Sinner, so too there must be a Reformed Gargoyle. )

    Seriously Sean, there is some merit to your comments over at God’s Hammer that O just might be the best vote in order to wake people up. In your face racist marxism has a way of doing that better than a creeping and more subtle national fascism. Still are we to do evil that good may come (Rom.3:8)?

    For that matter, while I agree with Andree the black UPS driver, that O is just a liberal yuppie white boy with a black face, anybody that could outnegro “our first black president” and hasten the day Bill the Priapic and his consort Hillary the Shrill are unemployed and standing beside a lonely and abandoned offramp, somewhere out there in Red State America holding what used to be a cardboard box, can’t be all bad.

  47. Bob Suden said,

    September 7, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    46, Thank you, Wayne. I have been looking for that reference for quite some time and was beginning to think it was apocryphal.

  48. Deb said,

    September 7, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    #39 Thank you Mr. Suden. Both of those articles were helpful.
    #32 Stephen – I’ll be checking out your suggestion: The Christian Heritage party.
    By His Grace, dlw

  49. Vern Crisler said,

    September 7, 2008 at 10:57 pm

    #47, Bob said, “But if those that deny 6 day creationism fall in line with the world, the devil and evolutionists in attacking Genesis, what of those like John Frame or Mel Gibson who essentially attack the very idea of verbal revelation itself, when they argue and practice the doctrine that pictures of Christ are not only indifferent and lawful, but also expedient and necessary?”

    Did Frame say that pictures of Christ are expedient and necessary? Permissible yes, but necessary? It is simply a non-sequitur to say that a picture of Christ is a denial of verbal revelation. Where do you come up with this stuff?

    Here’s an interesting quote from R. J. Rushdoony, “If the incarnation is real, it can be portrayed; an unreal incarnation, one which is ‘merely phantastic,’ cannot be depicted. Put in modern terms, a true and real Christ can be photographed; a mythical one cannot….[T]he tabernacle had its carved images, i.e., of the cherubim on the ark, pomegranates, etc., and the Bible forbade the worship, not the decorative use of these figures. But the carvings of the tabernacle were NEVER the object of religious bowing, of incense, lights, or anything else.” (The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church, pp. 157-158.)

    Rushdoony agreed with the theology of the 7th ecumenical council, but not with its orthopraxy. I think he was right in this.

    Vern

  50. Sean Gerety said,

    September 8, 2008 at 7:53 am

    Seriously Sean, there is some merit to your comments over at God’s Hammer that O just might be the best vote in order to wake people up. In your face racist marxism has a way of doing that better than a creeping and more subtle national fascism. Still are we to do evil that good may come (Rom.3:8)?

    That wasn’t my argument at all. A vote for Obama will result in less liberalism (marxism), not more. The real power is still in the Congress, and, even there, all you need are 41 Americans in the Senate.

    Obama will help drive the Republicans to the right and will achieve very little on policy. A net plus. Whereas McCain will get most Republicans and virtually all the Democrats. McCain/Feingold, McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Kennedy were just warm-ups.

  51. September 8, 2008 at 8:03 am

    […] good biblical reading is why we highly recommend them to our readers. Their recent post, “Sarah Palin and the Media: Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much,” is a must-read.  We would also suggest checking out their excellent commentary on recent […]

  52. Scott said,

    September 8, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    This is a remarkable campaign in several ways:

    1) In the space of a few days, life issues have been elevated to key campaign promises by both candidates on one campaign ticket. This has not happened in this generation.

    2) Head-to-head comparisons between a presidential candidate of one party and a vice presidential candidate of another party are made the focus of the campaign

    3) A dignified silver haired lady leaps to her feet to applaud the nomination of her son, that mother being 96 years of age

    Lest we are tempted to lean on our own understandings, look at the Providence of God. We suddenly have high profile life issues centered on a five month old Downe Syndrome baby and a 17 year old daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock, both being loved by their parents before the nation. To our guilt, to our shame, to our hope, to our amazement.

    None of this seemed possible a few months ago.

  53. Bill Stephens said,

    September 9, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Interesting video interview of author Andrew Klavan that touches on the media, political correctness, and distortion (see chapter 2).

    http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

  54. RBerman said,

    September 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Dr Clark, don’t we usually use context to help determine what part, of a word’s semantic range, is appropriate at a given moment? The days of Genesis 1 have not only sequence but mornings and evenings, and Exodus 20 seems to see them as identical to the days of our week. “In the day” is a commonplace expression to denote some event in the past without commenting on duration, and reading it otherwise would conflict with any reasonable reading of Genesis 1. What is it in the text of Genesis 1 that points away from a 24 hour yom?

  55. ReformedSinner said,

    September 9, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    #54,

    Read the argument for Analogous View. Quick summary is that Moses wrote Genesis 1 to pattern after the “work week” that Israelites are already doing by the time of Exodus (and the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch): 6 days working, 1 day rest. If we recognize that Pentateuch is meant to be read as one work, and Exodus is the climax of Pentateuch, then this view, in my opinion, is the most convincing. But I do not want to dismissed the force of 6/24, Framework views as well.

  56. Bob Suden said,

    September 10, 2008 at 1:29 am

    49. Y’r welcome, Deb. I thought the hypothetical letter to Dobson was to the point. The worship or quest for illegitimate political power being what it is among the evangelicals, nobody will question her appointment. FWIW here’s Buchanan critique of the left’s animus on the new princess.
    http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/080908_one.htm

    50. Hi Vern,
    Habakkuk 2:18,19, one of the prooftexts for the Heidelberg on the 2nd Commandment says:

    What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?
    Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach!

    The Bible says images are dumb and cannot teach. Frame not only says they can, he says he knows of no reason not to include them in the church’s pedagogy. Who are you going to believe?

    Rushdoony likewise is weak/lame on the 2nd Commandment (and that only to make common cause with papists in reconstructionism, the golden calf in his eyes. When I asked him about the RPW, much more the WCF’s statement re. the pope and antichrist, my subscription to Chalcedon was dropped after his third hand signed letter to me in ‘88 telling me again that there were reconstructionists in both protestantism and romanism and to let the dead bury the dead.) He not only fails to acknowledge the distinction that God commanded the images in the ceremonial worship of the OT, but that that ceremonial OT temple has been done away with in Christ. To return to it, is to return to the bondage of the childish era of the church. It is to judaize. Further that God has done something, does not make it lawful for those of us who are not God, to go and do likewise. It is as best incompetent, if not arrogant and proud.

    IOW the dilemma remains for both F and R. They say that the existence of images in the temple, the Second notwithstanding, is an approved example that we may follow today. But then so too, God’s command to Abraham to kill Isaac, the Sixth notwithstanding, is an approved example that justifies evangelical abortions today. It is not and neither may we break either commandment today contra F&R’s sloppy arguments appealing to God’s example and ceremonial OT worship.

    But what does all this have to do with politics and the new queen of neoconservatism, Palin?
    As the unattributed titlepage quote of Anarchy in Worship by James Begg (1875) puts it:

    When nations are to perish in their sins,
    Tis in the Church the leprosy begins.

    As a champion of the RPW in the Free Church of Scotland, Begg would include among the leprosy the more sophisticated violations of the Second Commandment, including the addition of uncommanded elements to the worship and service of the church. But not only does Frame fail to find in Scripture a command to preach in worship, he also fails to find a command to instruct by images, which means that leprosy also includes incompetent ignorance re. the first and gross hubris/delusion re. the second.

    51. Hi Sean,
    A vote for Obama might result in less liberalism (marxism), but we don’t know that. The Dems were elected in ‘06 to stop the war and the spending. After the latest and biggest socialist bailout in US history of Freddie and Fannie Mae this weekend, and both candidates pledging troth to the war in Iraq/Against Terror what has changed?
    The real power is not in Congress, but with the Lord. For that matter, my understanding was that Machen always voted his conscience, regardless of the outcome. Neither O or McC are worthy of a vote and neither could take the oath to uphold the constitution, such as it is, without crossing their fingers and with less than a clear and knowledgeable conscience, i.e without sin.

  57. Sean Gerety said,

    September 10, 2008 at 10:20 am

    A vote for Obama might result in less liberalism (marxism), but we don’t know that.

    Yes we do and I explained why on my blog with the help of Bill Clinton. The scary thing is Bill gets it, even if for the wrong reasons. Whereas the so-called “religious right” remain as clueless as ever and still does not understand how the game is played . . . which of course explains why folks like Dobson are now ready to vote for McCain.

    The real power is not in Congress, but with the Lord.

    While I thought that went without saying, I was referring to our system of government which is why the fixation on the presidential race is misplaced. Besides, I would consider the current political climate a good sign of God’s forsaking America. After all, it’s hard to see the choice before us as a blessing.

    Neither O or McC are worthy of a vote and neither could take the oath to uphold the constitution

    We agree on that much, which is why a vote for someone like Chuck Baldwin, while certainly preferable than either choice and easy on the conscience, is still a De facto vote for Obama. That will work. :)

    As for Freddie and Fanny I heard an interesting speech W gave back in ’02 that shed considerable light on the current mess. I’ve reprinted excerpts here.

  58. Vern Crisler said,

    September 10, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Re: #57

    Bob said: Habakkuk 2:18,19, one of the prooftexts for the Heidelberg on the 2nd Commandment….

    Vern: I agree. Idols should not be made. What in your view, however, is an idol? Is a decoration an idol? Flags, Christmas trees, bronze serpents? Or,is something an idol depending on how one USES it? To call any piece of art an idol per se is merely to beg the question at issue.

    Bob: The Bible says images are dumb and cannot teach. Frame not only says they can, he says he knows of no reason not to include them in the church’s pedagogy. Who are you going to believe?

    Vern: Frame says idols can teach? Where?

    Bob: Rushdoony likewise is weak/lame on the 2nd Commandment (and that only to make common cause with papists in reconstructionism, the golden calf in his eyes. When I asked him about the RPW, much more the WCF’s statement re. the pope and antichrist, my subscription to Chalcedon was dropped after his third hand signed letter to me in ‘88 telling me again that there were reconstructionists in both protestantism and romanism and to let the dead bury the dead.)

    Vern: Since I don’t have access to the letters, I cannot comment on what Rushdoony may or may not have said to you, or whether you are misinterpreting him or not.

    Bob: He not only fails to acknowledge the distinction that God commanded the images in the ceremonial worship of the OT, but that that ceremonial OT temple has been done away with in Christ. To return to it, is to return to the bondage of the childish era of the church. It is to judaize. Further that God has done something, does not make it lawful for those of us who are not God, to go and do likewise. It is as best incompetent, if not arrogant and proud.

    Vern: You do not understand the argument. RPW types are claiming that the 2nd commandment forbids all decorative objects in a worship context. Rushdoony is pointing out that this is a contextless interpretation. Taking into account ALL that the Bible says on the subject rather than mere fundamentalist proof texting, it is clear that the 2nd commandment is QUALIFIED. Obviously, no concrete images of God can be made since he was never seen. But what about images of things in heaven, or on the earth, or in the water? The 2nd commandment seems to rule them out on first reading. Yet we find an image in the tabernacle, a concrete representation of beings who exist in heaven, i.e., cherubim. In other words, you are guilty of the notorious text-without-context fallacy. What the 2nd commandment goes on to say is “[Y]ou shall not bow down to them nor serve them.” That is the basic principle that defines an idol – how you use a piece of artwork. Art and decoration are not in themselves idolatrous (unless one attempts to make a concrete image of God), but it is how they are USED that makes all the difference. Clearly, while the cherubim were right there at the center of worship, they themselves were not bowed down to, nor given adoration. Their purpose was to TEACH the Israelites that God was holy.

    Bob: IOW the dilemma remains for both F and R. They say that the existence of images in the temple, the Second notwithstanding, is an approved example that we may follow today. But then so too, God’s command to Abraham to kill Isaac, the Sixth notwithstanding, is an approved example that justifies evangelical abortions today. It is not and neither may we break either commandment today contra F&R’s sloppy arguments appealing to God’s example and ceremonial OT worship.

    Vern: These are specious comparisons. The cherubim were not approved exceptions to the 2nd commandment. They help us to interpret it correctly.

    Bob: As a champion of the RPW in the Free Church of Scotland, Begg would include among the leprosy the more sophisticated violations of the Second Commandment, including the addition of uncommanded elements to the worship and service of the church. But not only does Frame fail to find in Scripture a command to preach in worship, he also fails to find a command to instruct by images, which means that leprosy also includes incompetent ignorance re. the first and gross hubris/delusion re. the second.

    Vern: Bob you are grossly in violation of the spirit of Christ in your accusations against Frame, a godly man (despite my disagreements with his multi-perspectival method). As I intimated earlier, you appear to be trying to fill the mantle left by John Robbins, another man given to making mean-spirited comments about other godly men in the Faith.

    Bottom line: we can make pictures of Jesus, even use them in a worship context because a) Unlike God at Sinai, Christ was seen and can be depicted, and b) the 2nd commandment IN CONTEXT only forbids the worship of art, not its instructional or decorative use (cherubim, pomegranates).

    I accept a moderate RPW (what is permissible is not necessarily wise or appropriate), but I don’t think a strict RPW is biblical, in that one can come up with several reductios of it, as Frame has already shown.

    Cordially,

    Vern

  59. RBerman said,

    September 10, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    #56 RS, thanks for the summary. I have two questions.

    1) If Exodus 20 is the climax of some Pentateuchal narrative superstructure, isn’t the denouement rather lengthy?

    2) If Moses wrote Genesis 1 specifically to bolster the fourth commandment in Exodus 20, doesn’t that make the claim of Exodus 20:11 an empty one? If I wrote, “You should do X because Y happened,” but then I have to doctor my account of Y so that it supports X, that seems to beg the question. Worse, it relegates Genesis 1 to the role of manipulative propaganda if it contains false details which were included just to suit an agenda that surfaces elsewhere. That’s not how I think of Scripture.

  60. Bob Suden said,

    September 11, 2008 at 12:25 am

    58 No, we still don’t know that God will bless a pragmatic vote for the worse of two evils that will in turn provoke the lesser of two evils. We surmise and hope, but if God wants to turn this country over it will happen.

    59 “Frame says idols can teach? Where?”

    Why else would he include them in the church’s pedagogy? F. tells us some people have visual learning styles which necessitates what else?
    Contra 2 Tim 3:16,17 which says Scripture is perfect in equipping a man of God for every good work, Frame wants to bring images into the picture. They can teach us something Scripture can’t or at least help. But again Scripture tells us that it needs no help. Who are we going to believe?

    “You do not understand the argument. RPW types are claiming that the 2nd commandment forbids all decorative objects in a worship context. Rushdoony is pointing out that this is a contextless interpretation.”

    Rather Frame and Rush don’t understand the RPW. The confession explicitly says ‘whatever is not commanded is forbidden/any way not appointed’. God commanded images in the temple, an exception, but normally we are not to make them and bring them into worship. All Frame can do is claim that God didn’t command the images on Solomon’s throne in order to deny the uncommanded aspect of the reformed exposition of the 2nd. Unfortunately for F tho, Solomon’s throne is civil, not religious, but he is still off and running.

    “Taking into account ALL that the Bible says on the subject rather than mere fundamentalist proof texting, it is clear that the 2nd commandment is QUALIFIED.”

    Rather you have a fundamentalist take on the Second and deny the reformed confessional position, i.e. the Second only explicitly and literally says we are not to make images in order to bow down to them.

    “Bob you are grossly in violation of the spirit of Christ in your accusations against Frame, a godly man (despite my disagreements with his multi-perspectival method). As I intimated earlier, you appear to be trying to fill the mantle left by John Robbins, . . .”

    Again an abusive ad hominem assertion. F. may be a godly and sincere man personally, but what he writes is confused and contradictory to Scripture, the confessions and reason.

    “Bottom line: we can make pictures of Jesus, even use them in a worship context because a) Unlike God at Sinai, Christ was seen and can be depicted”,

    Possibility and lawfulness are two different things and that’s just for starters.

    “b) the 2nd commandment IN CONTEXT only forbids the worship of art, not its instructional or decorative use (cherubim, pomegranates).”

    Likewise the Sixth on the same basis forbids self defense, a just war and the death penalty. “Thou shalt not kill”

    “I accept a moderate RPW (what is permissible is not necessarily wise or appropriate), but I don’t think a strict RPW is biblical, in that one can come up with several reductios of it, as Frame has already shown.”

    Frame couldn’t frame a reductio ad absurdum argument if his life depended on it from what we read in DoCL. Read his “argument” restricting the reading of Scripture to 3 epistles for just one example in trying to refute Bushell.

    And another thing, the one piece Shroud of Turin is bogus from the get go, regardless of what F asserts, that if it is “authentic, “it could reveal much more information.”

    John 20:6,7  Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
     And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

    Begg’s quip is again applicable. When God judges nations, it begins in the church 1 Pet. 4:17 and that is exactly what F’s theology of worship is, a judgment.

    As for Palin’s candidacy, another judgment, Norman Griggs says

    “It’s hardly a surprise that Dobson and his comrades endorsed Palin, given that she was their creation: The Council on National Policy, a secretive and sinister network of GOP kingmakers, essentially dictated to McCain the selection of Palin as a condition of earning Evangelical support.”

    Does the lust for power stinketh any more than this? Or is it called the human condition?
    http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/09/behold-palin-horse.html

    The left hates her because she is an apostate (twice) to the sacred idol of a woman’s right to choose abortion and the right loves her because now they can participate in the secular religion of voting and vote for pre-emptive wars to bomb babies.

    sadly yours

  61. Stephen said,

    September 11, 2008 at 7:53 am

    Come on gentlemen, please stick with the original discussion on Sarah Palin. Several of you are discussing issues unrelated to Lane’s original thread. Frankly it is causing confusion and it is difficult to figure out what you are discussing.

  62. its.reed said,

    September 11, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Ref. #63:

    A moderator’s dittos.

  63. ReformedSinner said,

    September 11, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Ok, back to the original purpose.

    The liberal media really doesn’t know how to smear… er… I mean “evaluate” her. They tried to attack Palin’s inexperience (Obama addresses her as ‘former mayor’ instead of sitting governor), but that only exposes Obama’s own inexperience, and trying to compare ‘community organizer’ with ‘governor’ is simply absurd.

    Then it’s the “can she be a good mother” routine, which turns off most women that sees Palin as the fulfillment of the years of hardwork of the feminist movement: a woman that can stand on her own, supportive husband, and manages both work and family successfully. It’s no surprise that before Palin 52-41 of women supports Obama, after Palin it’s 52-40 supports McCain!

    Then they tried to play the “pregnant daughter” card, as in implying she’s a bad mother that can’t even take care of her own house. But instead people see nothing but love and support from Palin to his teenage daughter/mother. Of course the danger is Obama’s also a product of teenage mother…

    Next is the Palin’s a “wild girl” in her younger days, which most Americans simply responded, “who isn’t?”

    Liberal media is frustrated. They can’t play the “out of touch with America” card because Palin’s from blue-collar family with her husband still in blue-collar industry. Obama on the other hand has spent his days since college in elite, urban areas, and really don’t know how to handle non-elite country-side Americans (which might be why Obama made the infamous ‘clings to God and guns’ speech.)

    They can’t play Palin’s a Christian card because Obama’s a professed Christian. They can beat on Palin’s church speaks in tongues (and thus a radical extremist bunch), but Palin doesn’t have a pastor that screams “God damn America” or US government created the AIDS disease to commit genocide against black people.

    All in all, the Dems and liberal media is going crazy that they can’t really touch Palin. The more they tried (see above) the more they push moderate votes to McCain-Palin ticket (recent USAToday poll show McCain up 10 points over Obama, a miracle if you ask me.)

    If I’m the Dems strategist I would scream at Obama to stop worrying about Palin and focus on McCain. This election is embarrassing turning into a Dems-President candidate going against the Reps-VICE-President candidate. A big mistake. Obama should gracious applaud the fact that Palin’s on the ticket, and say something like “let us make history in this election: the first AA-Prez or first lady-VPrez.”

  64. Bob Suden said,

    September 14, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    62 Stephen,
    I will agree it is somewhat confusing, but not 4 or 5 paragraphs above yours, the connection is again made: If judgment begins in the church, Frame precedes Palin, the religious precedes the political. I affirm, Vern denies in at least the specific examples.

    Or is it that just as too many P&R see nothing wrong with Frame’s theology, so too many P&R see nothing wrong with Palin’s candidacy?

    Granted the left has not only been upstaged by a successful conservative woman who quoted St. Hillary and the parable of the glass ceiling in her acceptance speech, but worse, she has committed the unforgivable sin in choosing life not once, but twice. For this they howl, rage and gnash their teeth.

    Still that said, Palin is the slaughter cow, is she not, that will lead conservative evangelicals (and the P&R?) to vote for the fascist arm of the Big Government Party as opposed to the marxist version? A choice in effect between Juan McMussolini and Barry Mugabe is not much of a choice IMO.

    And let not appeal to the example of Deborah be made. Across the river from where the Brown Shirt Convention was held, the only genuine constitutional candidate held a rally, in part because he wouldn’t support the unconstitutional “war on terror” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Georgia etc. Not that Paul is a pacifist, but that the commander in chief of the armed forces can now also determine who we go to war with due to Congress’s delinquency is the epidome of the consolidation of power and thereby fulfills the definition of tyrannical.

    All the above of course, a far cry from the confessional and covenanter Second Reformation position that the civil magistrate is one of the two sons of oil.

    In short, Christian pray for your country. Neither Palin, McCain, Obama, the Dems or the Repubs can be its savior.

  65. Bob Suden said,

    September 14, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    “In short, Christian, pray for your country. Neither Palin, McCain, Obama, the Dems or the Repubs can be its savior.”

    Nor Paul.
    In his keynote address at his recent convention, he thanks not only the Christians, but the Jews, Muslims and non religious/atheists who sent him prayers and best wishes for the recovery and return home of his wife from the hospital. ‘Freedom is what draws everybody together.’ But not Christ Jn 8:36.

    IOW as Calvin said, the mind of man is a perpetual idol factory. No good thing is exempt from being abused, even freedom. He goes on later to talk about morality as being the necessary basis for liberty and a nation’s capacity for it, but is civil morality and pragmaticism the Christian solutions? At least he’s honest about it, but if God still judges nations in their sins, IMO it is not enough.

  66. RBerman said,

    September 14, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Just so we’re clear, Bob, when a Muslim tells a Christian that he prayed for the Christian’s health to improve, the proper answer from the Christian is, “I spit on your idolatry”?

  67. Ron Henzel said,

    September 14, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    Ray,

    I apologize, but just now I remembered that I hadn’t responded to your comment 18, where you asked,

    Hi Ron, of all the third parties you mentioned, which of these had a solid conservative Christian platform?

    Of course, the third party candidacies that I focused on where those that made significant showings by achieving double-digit percentages in the popular vote and sometimes gaining electoral votes. As for which of them may have “had a solid conservative Christian platform,” that’s kind of like asking which African nation has sent the best hockey teams to the Winter Olympics. Contrary to what D. James Kennedy used to proclaim, or what David Barton of Wall Builders still teaches, the U.S. was founded as a self-consciously secular state by men who were at least as influenced by the French Enlightenment (many of them more so) than by the Bible. When the U.S. Senate ratified and John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, no one could possibly miss Article XI in that document, which informed the Muslim state that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” and it wasn’t mere window dressing to make the agreement more palatable. And despite the saturation of religious rhetoric and constant presence of Christian themes in virtually every election since, Americans have taken its status as a nation without an established church rather seriously ever since, if for no other reason than to avoid the kinds of debilitating wars of religion that Europe had previously experienced. The U.S. began with the heaviest of Deistic and Enlightenment influences, and even as Christianity revived in the early 19th century it was of a very strongly Arminian character that took the nation on progressively secularist course.

    Modern Western governments are built on constantly-shifting coalitions of disparate interest groups, and the U.S. is no different, except for the fact that where most parliamentary systems build those coalitions at the executive level of government, the U.S. builds them at the political party level. Not knowing what you have specifically in mind by the phrase “a solid conservative Christian platform,” but realizing that there are probably at least a half-dozen discrepant definitions of that idea floating around today, all I can say is that if you want to guarantee defeat for your party in a national election, one sure way to do it is to make its platform so narrow that it only appeals to one particular interpretation of the Christian faith.

    While some Christians have contemplated and even organized around the idea of transforming American government according to their supposed uniquely Christian agenda, over the span of our nation’s history most Christians have settled for dealing with hot button moral issues like slavery and abortion as opportunity has allowed. And even then, conservative Christians have often been extremely divided on the moral issues of the day, as for example was the case with slavery.

    Is there any third party at present that has a solid conservative Christian platform?

    I notice that Kyle offered the Constitution Party as a possible example. I don’t want to come off as criticizing that organization, since I know next to nothing about it, but I would urge a high degree of caution when it comes to identifying the Constitution with conservative Christianity. I don’t intend to imply that Kyle is doing that, because, again, I know hardly anything about the Constitution Party. But we need to keep in mind that the most important influences on that document came from the pens of John Locke, Charles-Louis Baron of Montesquieu, and the League of the Iroquois nations. The Constitution was the product of political and moral compromises (viz., regarding slavery) from the very beginning, and when Alexander Hamilton was asked why it failed to mention God he is said to have replied, “We forgot.”

  68. Vern Crisler said,

    September 15, 2008 at 12:18 am

    Man, this place is getting nuttier and nuttier. Attacking the Constitution, calling the Republican convention a Nazi meeting, supporting the crazy Ron Paul. I’m not sure why the average Christian (much less American) would want to have anything to do with you guys. What losers you are.

    Vern

  69. Ron Henzel said,

    September 15, 2008 at 5:07 am

    Vern,

    I did not “attack” the Constitution. I believe it is in most respects a wonderful document, even though it did in its original form count each African Americans as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, and, contrary to 1 Timothy 1:10, agreed not to interfere with the slave trade until 1808. Today it stands as the most successful republican constitution in existence, and even if it originally contained a moral compromise, its political compromises were downright brilliant making it worthy of emulation, and I am a strong proponent of both it and the original intent of the framers.

    But I agree with C. Gregg Singer, who, although noting that the Constitution was a more conservative document than either the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation, and can be viewed as a reassertion of America’s Puritan heritage (although I believe that can be easily overstated), still observed,

    In 1787 no revival had yet taken place and Calvinism did not command the loyalty of the majority of the classes over the states as a whole. Thus, it is not possible to find the origins of the Federal Constitution in a popular return to the Bible as the infallible rule of faith and practice.

    {A Theological Interpretation of American History, revised ed., (Phillipsburg, NJ, USA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964, 1981), 43.]

    Thus it is wrong to assert that the Constitution is a distinctly Christian document, or as I heard one preacher say in a church service, “It has the Bible written all over it.”

    I do, however agree with you that it was more than a bit over the top (in fact, I believe it was a wicked and despicable violation of the ninth commandment) for someone here to refer to the Republican convention as a “Brown Shirt Convention,” and I further agree that Ron Paul doesn’t have all his dogs on the same leash, at least with respect to his political views. But I also think you’re quite out of line in your use of the “L” word.

  70. Bill Stephens said,

    September 15, 2008 at 8:12 am

    I thought I would elevate the discussion some by mentioning actress Reese Witherspoon. She is a descendant of John Witherspoon. Below is a link to a Wall Street Journal article about John Witherspoon, the American Revolution, and the US Constitution. I found it quite enjoyable.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008512

  71. Sean Gerety said,

    September 15, 2008 at 9:09 am

    I believe it was a wicked and despicable violation of the ninth commandment) for someone here to refer to the Republican convention as a “Brown Shirt Convention,” and I further agree that Ron Paul doesn’t have all his dogs on the same leash, at least with respect to his political views

    I love this. It’s a “wicked and despicable violation of the ninth commandment” to call Big Gov’t Republicans “Brown Shirts,” whereas claiming the only man in Congress who has consistently voted based on the document he vowed to uphold doesn’t have “all his dogs on the same leash” is somehow just fine. LOL!

  72. greenbaggins said,

    September 15, 2008 at 9:19 am

    I think this thread has run its course of usefulness. I am closing the thread.


%d bloggers like this: