| Oh foolish Kinists, who hath bewitched you |
|
 |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:55 am
|
  |
|
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel" (Galatians 1:4)
Recently, my post on the Westminster Confession and Kinism has been responded to on one of the most vicious, hate-filled, and unapologetically racist websites that I have ever seen. To protect the reader from their heresies, I have not provided a link. However, those in the know will no doubt have a good idea what I am talking about.
| Quote: |
| Daniel Ritchie of New Geneva argues that Kinism contradicts Chapter 24 of the Westminster Confession. This is a pleasant surprise. I could count on one hand the number of men who have even attempted flailing rebuttals of Kinism, so Ritchie should be recognized for his contribution to the debate. |
First error to notice here is that I am not of New Geneva Academy, or the seminary of the same name. Second, who permitted this writer to address me as "Ritchie" - do me the courtesy of addressing me by my proper title.  Since he has failed in this respect, I shall refer to him by the name "Racist Idiot" (RI, for short).
Before quoting WCF 24:3-4, RI says this:
| Quote: |
| With these in mind, here is the passage that allegedly contradicts what was believed to be true by every Christian who ever lived prior to 1950 |
This seems like a rather sweeping assertion. What evidence is there that the early church fathers, Reformers, Puritans, Covenanters, etc, etc, completely disapproved of inter-racial marriage, made it an absolute prohibition and condemned it as a sin. They would have condemned people for marrying foreign pagans, but that has nothing to do with prohibiting anyone from marrying someone of a different skin-colour.
RI then makes the following comments on the two paragraphs of the confession:
| Quote: |
| There is no dispute over part 4, where “the degrees of consanguinity” refer to incest. The dispute is over Ritchie’s interpretation of part 3, especially when read in the context of part 4. Notice the general words “or affinity forbidden by the Word.” Is it really acceptable for all Christians to intermarry, as long as the relationships are not prohibited by Leviticus 18? Clearly not. There are many good reasons for forbidding marriages between old men and young girls, between those of radically different stature or temperament or class, or others who are dissimilar. |
Yeah, the reasons for forbidding marriage between people who are dissimilar are so clear that God forgot to forbid it in his law-word. RI needs to learn that if God does not forbid something then he ain't got no right to either. God forbade incestous marriages, he did not forbid inter-racial, inter-class, or inter-temperament marriages. Knowing the Kinists views on these things, are they seriously going to forbid people from marrying someone of a different class, call it an illegitimate marriage, and demand that the church discipline and the state punish those who marry others of different temperaments? (This is what they propose doing with whites who marry blacks). Somehow I do not think so, what this is all about is their insane hatred of black people and atoning for their idolatry of the South.
| Quote: |
| What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Typically, the question is answered in the way that Ritchie has answered it, by citing the words “only in the Lord” from 1 Cor. 7:39. But this doesn’t really answer the question since “only in the Lord” means “only according to the will of the Lord,” not “only for those who believe in the Lord.” The larger question is, What is the will of God for Christian marriage? What sort of affinity is forbidden by the Word? |
To be unequally yoked in the context of marriage means marrying someone of a different religion. "Only in the Lord" means that you are free to marry an unmarried Christian who does not fall under the categories forbidden by God, i.e. Lev. 18, not those invented by a lot of Kinist idiots whose heads are stuck up their asses.
| Quote: |
| Therefore, the wrong way to approach the subject of unequal yoking is to go to the WCF to see if there is any “condemnation of marriage between people of different skin colours” or other “super-added qualifications.” Since confessions take shape via controversy, why would anyone assume that an act that was universally unpracticed in the 17th century would be formally denounced by clerics of the time? Why would anyone attempt to project a modern pathology on the deliberations of the Westminster Divines? This is quite irresponsible. |
Haha. This is an excellent way of evading the point. The WCF explicitly condemns this viewpoint, as 24:3 says that it is lawful for all sorts of people to marry and only adds the qualification degrees of consanguinity [proof-texts, Lev. 18; 1 Cor. 5:1; Amos 2:7]; the only other thing which the WCF forbids is Christians marrying 'infidels, papists, or other idolaters'. The qualifications for Christian marriage are religious; RI is kidding himself if he thinks the WCF leaves the door open for his seditious views, nay, it shuts it bang in his face.
| Quote: |
| Ritchie asserts: “The marriage of foreign wives was condemned, not on the basis of skin-colour, but on the basis of religious affiliation.” This desperately needs to be proved by him, as the question of whether qualifications for the covenant of marriage besides “religious affiliation” are not merely “prudent” but binding, makes or breaks the entire case. No evidence is presented, no proof is attempted. Without biblical or historical justification, Ritchie asserts that any two Christians who wish to marry each other may do so, and they have “no right to prohibit other people from so doing or to accuse them of being in sin.” This is libertarianism, not Christian doctrine. |
It is proved by reading the proof-texts upon which the Westminster divines based their condemnation of inter-religious marriage - did RI manage to totally miss my reference to Gen. 34:14; Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3; 1 Kings 11:4; Neh. 13:24; Mal. 2:11? Moreover, the Westminster divines understood these in the light of 2 Cor. 6:14, which makes it clear that the Divine basis for condemning foreign marriage in the OT was that it was inter-religious. I could also refer to the fact that Rahab and Ruth married into the Israelite nation upon conversion, but I best not in case I make the South look bad.
Moreover, this can be further substantiated by referring to David Dickson's Truth's victory over error, the first ever commentary on the WCF. Read his comments on chapter 24 and you will find there is not one word condemning inter-racial marriage. Why, because unlike these asses the Westminster divines and their contemporaries knew their Bibles, and they knew that the word of God does not condemn marriage between those of different skin-colours, ergo they did not forbid it.
| Quote: |
| The correct way to approach this subject is to first consult the Fifth Commandment and recognize that we are obligated to willfully obey the lawful commands and counsels of our parents. While Ritchie four times in two paragraphs attempts to divert attention by using the superficial term “skin color,” the Fifth Commandment goes to the core of our duty in marriage. |
What has the fifth commandment got to do with an absolute prohibition on marrying someone of a different skin-colour? Answer, nothing. Is RI telling us that if someone's parents are fine with a white woman marrying a black man that that is fine by him? No, look at what he says later:
| Quote: |
| In other words, don’t pretend that you’re obeying the Fifth Commandment if you fail to honor your parents in the most important choice of your life. To reject their wisdom for the kind of person you should marry, who will carry your name and heritage to succeeding generations, is to sin. And here’s the key point: There has never, in all the ages of this earth, been a white man who wants his son or daughter to marry into the black race, or any other race for that matter, except the white race. To ignore this salient and incontrovertible fact, as Ritchie does, is to play fast and loose with the truth. |
And here the mask slips. How does he know that the assertion in bold is true? Moreover, what does he do about cases where people have been happy to allow their children to marry blacks. This is nothing but a hate-filled supposition to justify an abominable sin. The fact this guy is able to write long posts on a blog does not prove that he is a critical or coherent thinker, all it proves is that he loves the sound of his own voice, repeating some of the most absurd and irrational rubbish I have ever heard. Take the following comment for a classic example of RI's idiocy:
| Quote: |
| And now you know why we seldom see anyone rise to the challenge of placing substance behind their constant accusations about the “heresy” of Kinism. It’s because, on the subject of race, our side agrees with most of the Christians who have ever lived while the other side agrees with every sort of contemporaneous Christ-hater imaginable. |
People rarely refer to it because it is not worth their time, as it is a heresy adhered to by a few impressionable and credulous idiots who lack the discrimination to discern between good and evil, and who lack the ability to seriously engage in critical-analytical thought. For instance, consider the argument that non-Kinists agree 'with every sort of contemporaneous Christ-hater imaginable'. Yeah, just as the Kinist argument agrees with the views of fine Christians like Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the KKK.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin
Last edited by Reformed Covenanter on Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:39 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| |
|
 |
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:39 am
|
|
|
I am not wasting anymore time on this garbage. If they respond, someone else can answer them.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin |
|
| |
|
|
Christusregnat
Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1203
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:33 am
|
|
|
Ritchie,
This response is well crafted.
BUT, you neglect the great fact that nobody's parents for six thousdand years has every wanted anyone anywhere by any means to oppose the holy Kinist Bullshit (HKB)!! You are in serious violation of the Fifth Commandment Brother! Accept the HKB, or I'm quitting this board
I mean, I know that Moses's wife, Salmon's wife, Boaz' wife, some of David's wives, some of Solomon's wives, and even one of Abraham's wives (at least) were not from the same family, but as we all know, each one of these marriages was forbidden by their parents!!! It's clearly in the text of Scripture.
Also, a later anti-Fifth-Commander who does not honor the HKB inserted the following text into Scripture in the 7th Century AHKB (Anno Holy Kinist Bullshit):
Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
I mean, clearly, the redactor had the almighty gall to add such a positive permission to marry a woman from among "their enemies." Obviously, though, this would have been overriden by the Fifth Commandment which prohibits this sort of marriage by a universal law of HKB. I mean, duh!
Oh, and congrats on the new job at the New Geneva Academy! When are you moving to the United States from Northern Ireland in order to take this job? That must be quite a commute!!! Obviously, the HKB proponent who wrote that post is a most excellent researcher!
Cheers,
_________________
Adam
Whisky may not cure the common cold, but it fails more agreeably than most other things. |
|
| |
|
|
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:34 pm
|
|
|
Kinism is a doctrine of demons. The reference above to Deut. 21 is interesting, because I once read something by one of the HKB fathers to the effect that "many theonomists are in gross violation of the law of God" by advocating miscegenation. Of course, the fool in question just forgot that GOD AUTHORISED SUCH MARRIAGES IN THE MOSAIC LAW ITSELF. That seems like a rather big thing to miss by those who are oh so committed to upholding biblical standards of marriage.
There is another problem with their argument that unequal yoking includes differences of age, temperament, social class, race, etc. The problem is that if such differences constitute unequal yoking, then, taking this assumption (that you cannot marry those with whom you have social or physical differences with) to its logical conclusion, surely a divergence as great as that of sex would also constitute unequal yoking. Consequently, by employing the unequal yoking argument to include differences beyond that of religion, the advocates of HKB have undermined the very foundations of marriage itself. Next thing you know these fools will all be divorcing their wives and "marrying" other white male farmers.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin
Last edited by Reformed Covenanter on Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| |
|
|
Christusregnat
Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1203
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:45 pm
|
|
|
| Reformed Covenanter wrote: |
| Of course, the fool in question just forgot that GOD AUTHORISED SUCH MARRIAGES IN THE MOSAIC LAW ITSELF. |
It is funny how God blinds people's eyes at times for their wickedness.
| Reformed Covenanter wrote: |
| Next thing you know these fools will all be divorcing their wives and "marrying" other white male farmers. |
ROFLMAO 
_________________
Adam
Whisky may not cure the common cold, but it fails more agreeably than most other things. |
|
| |
|
|
JTB
Joined: 25 Sep 2009
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:46 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. |
And with the above stated, must not God sit upon His throne in Heaven and derisively laugh at the foolishness of men? Woe to them, for their wrath will reap wrath for themselves and for their children; poisoned by their folly.
| Quote: |
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being a priest to me.
And since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children.
(Hosea 4:6 ESV) |
_________________
Joshua Butcher |
|
| |
|
|
JTB
Joined: 25 Sep 2009
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:49 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Next thing you know these fools will all be divorcing their wives and "marrying" other white male farmers. |
The ancient Greeks thought it best to reserve intense eroticism for those who are most like oneself in nature, hence homosexual pederasty seemed an appropriate form of apprenticeship.
But seeing as these men are dogs, as Scripture justly refers to false teachers, I think you've missed the mark on whom they would be bedding in their most consistent moments,
_________________
Joshua Butcher |
|
| |
|
|
Christusregnat
Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1203
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:52 pm
|
|
|
| JTB wrote: |
And with the above stated, must not God sit upon His throne in Heaven and derisively laugh at the foolishness of men? Woe to them, for their wrath will reap wrath for themselves and for their children; poisoned by their folly.
| Quote: |
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being a priest to me.
And since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children.
(Hosea 4:6 ESV) |
|
Indeed, this sort of idealogy will lead to ruin, and has already blinded their minds. May God grant sincere repentance to those that push such things.
Also, it could be noted that Paul says "There is no longer Jew nor Greek" in the body of Christ. In the HKB Authorized Version, it reads: "There is no longer Jew nor Greek, but now there is black, white, hispanic, Eastern Asian, Western Asian, Latino of Southern American Origin, Northern European, Southern European," and on and on.
Cheers,
_________________
Adam
Whisky may not cure the common cold, but it fails more agreeably than most other things. |
|
| |
|
|
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:59 pm
|
|
|
| Shotgun wrote: |
...who wishes that Christians would cease their self-conscious reliance on Marx to inform their anthropology and systematically make Christ lord over every aspect of their thinking. |
I wish you would cease your self-conscious reliance on Hitler to inform your anthropology and systematically make Christ lord over every aspect of your thinking.
If we are going to throw pejorative arguments around, then two can play at that game.
If your view was merely a private opinion it would be bad enough, but what really makes it seditious is your pathological zeal to promote it and your condemnation of a man like Greg Bahnsen - who apparently promoted a "Satanic worldview" for defending miscegnation - which is downright divisive.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin |
|
| |
|
|
Christusregnat
Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1203
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:23 pm
|
|
|
Indeed, the irrational appeal to Marx demonstrates the weakness of this particular error: it is a reaction to a truly evil thing rather than a positive statement of truth.
The facts of the Bible do not allow a condemnation of miscegenation as sinfuly; point blank. The actions of Abraham, David, Solomon, Boaz, Mahlon and Chillion, Salmon, and the Mosaic institution of miscegenation in Deuteronomy cited above militate against this jejune position.
Consider this: our Lord Jesus Christ was miscegenated, and yet still qualified as the King of Israel. All of the Davidic kings were miscegenated through Ruth (not to mention Rahab).
_________________
Adam
Whisky may not cure the common cold, but it fails more agreeably than most other things. |
|
| |
|
|
Johannes Althusius
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:19 pm
|
|
|
Any reliance on an -ism is necessarily going to lead to inconsistency with biblical truth. Ethno-nationalist is a word that makes me laugh.
We at Kinism.net believe that our White peoples have an inalienable, that is God-given, right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as distinct nations, apart from all other genetic and ethnic families. We believe the cultures of our European ancestry to have achieved a similarity which allows them to seek unity, where unity is conducive to the glorification of God, and to the reform of secularized and degenerate cultures that have succumbed to the satanic religion of materialism. We believe this right extends to all other genetic and ethnic families, be they Oriental, African, or otherwise. And while we are concerned primarily with the prosperity of our own genetic extended family, we recognize the universality of the catholic Christian Church, and seek its prosperity, wherever it arises, to the extent it remains faithful to the orthodox Gospel of Jesus Christ as put forth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Enough said. This is some serious goof ball stuff.
_________________
“We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose again from the dead.” - Barnabas |
|
| |
|
|
Christusregnat
Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1203
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:22 pm
|
|
|
| Johannes Althusius wrote: |
| Any reliance on an -ism is necessarily going to lead to inconsistency with biblical truth. |
The 'ism schism?
What about biblical truthism?
_________________
Adam
Whisky may not cure the common cold, but it fails more agreeably than most other things. |
|
| |
|
|
Confessor
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:23 pm
|
|
|
Johannes, what do you mean by "Any reliance on an -ism is necessarily going to lead to inconsistency with biblical truth"? I mean, there are doctrines like predestinarianism, paedobaptism, etc., so I'm not sure which doctrines you're speaking of "relying" on.
_________________
Cheers, but no QUEARS,
Ben Maas
In college, attending Belle Center RP (RPCNA)
At home, attending Covenant (OPC)
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels." - John Calvin |
|
| |
|
|
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:26 pm
|
|
|
| Johannes Althusius wrote: |
Any reliance on an -ism is necessarily going to lead to inconsistency with biblical truth. Ethno-nationalist is a word that makes me laugh.
We at Kinism.net believe that our White peoples have an inalienable, that is God-given, right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as distinct nations, apart from all other genetic and ethnic families. We believe the cultures of our European ancestry to have achieved a similarity which allows them to seek unity, where unity is conducive to the glorification of God, and to the reform of secularized and degenerate cultures that have succumbed to the satanic religion of materialism. We believe this right extends to all other genetic and ethnic families, be they Oriental, African, or otherwise. And while we are concerned primarily with the prosperity of our own genetic extended family, we recognize the universality of the catholic Christian Church, and seek its prosperity, wherever it arises, to the extent it remains faithful to the orthodox Gospel of Jesus Christ as put forth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Enough said. This is some serious goof ball stuff. |
According to the bit in bold, they place the prosperity of their race above that of the church - this is idolatry.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin |
|
| |
|
|
Johannes Althusius
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:37 pm
|
|
|
This is why I get into trouble. I left this sight and saw the word Baptism and knew I had not clarified what i meant. I mean of course Socialism, moralism, Kinism, communism etc. or other isms that inappropriately categorize your allegiance or dichotomize things that are distinct but united. Things like Kinism is ignorance that becomes an idol as if its doctrines are THE TRUTH.
Even Calvinism can be something that confuses people's ultimate allegiances if their reliance on it supersedes Christ.
_________________
“We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose again from the dead.” - Barnabas |
|
| |
|
|
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:48 pm
|
|
|
Here is another example of another absurd question that a Kinist put to someone recently:
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself one telling question- would your views be give[n] tacit agreement by Barack Hussein Obama, or Dabney? You have your answer whom you serve, sir! |
Let's rephrase that:
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself one telling question - would your views be given tacit agreement by Hitler, the KKK, the National Front, or Greg L. Bahnsen? You have your answer whom you serve, sir! |
Fools! You may as well say that because Stalin outlawed abortion [in 1936 in order to promote population growth], that we should not oppose abortion lest we agree with Stalin.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin |
|
| |
|
|
JTB
Joined: 25 Sep 2009
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:20 pm
|
|
|
| Reformed Covenanter wrote: |
Here is another example of another absurd question that a Kinist put to someone recently:
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself one telling question- would your views be give[n] tacit agreement by Barack Hussein Obama, or Dabney? You have your answer whom you serve, sir! |
Let's rephrase that:
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself one telling question - would your views be given tacit agreement by Hitler, the KKK, the National Front, or Greg L. Bahnsen? You have your answer whom you serve, sir! |
Fools! You may as well say that because Stalin outlawed abortion [in 1936 in order to promote population growth], that we should not oppose abortion lest we agree with Stalin. |
In my profession, we call such statements by the name "non sequitur," "red herring," "ignoratio elenchi," or "irrelevant reason."
_________________
Joshua Butcher |
|
| |
|
|
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:25 pm
|
|
|
In fairness to Scott, I will say this: I thank him for the humility and teachableness displayed in the above post. I would add that the only reason we have adopted such a strident tone is because this issue is a very serious matter and has the potential to become extremely divisive.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin |
|
| |
|
|
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:26 pm
|
|
|
| JTB wrote: |
| Reformed Covenanter wrote: |
Here is another example of another absurd question that a Kinist put to someone recently:
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself one telling question- would your views be give[n] tacit agreement by Barack Hussein Obama, or Dabney? You have your answer whom you serve, sir! |
Let's rephrase that:
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself one telling question - would your views be given tacit agreement by Hitler, the KKK, the National Front, or Greg L. Bahnsen? You have your answer whom you serve, sir! |
Fools! You may as well say that because Stalin outlawed abortion [in 1936 in order to promote population growth], that we should not oppose abortion lest we agree with Stalin. |
In my profession, we call such statements by the name "non sequitur," "red herring," "ignoratio elenchi," or "irrelevant reason." |
That is exactly what it is: a relevance fallacy of the highest order.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin |
|
| |
|
|
Reformed Covenanter
Retired Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: Saintfield, Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:05 am
|
|
|
WRT R. J. Rushdoony, Bret McAtee wrote a piece a number of years ago which suggests Rush's position was not much more nuanced than the Kinists like to suggest. His first comment is imprudent in my opinion, however, his second one shows more maturity of thought:
In a recent entry at a different site it was written,
Reverend Bret McAtee does his best to show that Rushdoony approved of miscegenation, but alas, Bret’s pole snaps in the middle of the vault.
The author comments that I was trying to prove that Rushdoony approved of miscegenation. That is a misrepresentation. What I was trying to prove and that which I suceeded in proving is that the great Rushdoony spoke with more than one voice on the subject of inter-racial marriages. The person in question doesn’t like that but if one reads the two quotes in question there can be no doubt that Rev. Rushdoony sent mixed messages on this subject.
Then the person in question quotes Rushdoony from a earlier writing,
“Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman is the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). ‘Helpmeet’ means a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association. Cross-cultural marriages are thus normally a failure. A man can identify character within his culture, but he cannot do more than identify the general character of another culture.”
And I offer again a quote from the later Rushdoony work,
“Paul uses these laws (The Laws of Diverse Kinds) to show their application to the realm of human relations. He makes clear that mixed marriages between believer and unbelievers are forbidden. It is unequal yoking. For Paul, the meaning of mixed marriages is religious. Men have often opposed marriages which bridge class barriers, i.e., the nobility and commoners, or upper classes with lower classes. Again, the mixed marriage problem is viewed racially. Paul concerns himself with neither; these he leaves to the realm of historical considerations. It is the religiously mixed marriage of believers with unbelievers that is forbidden as an unequal yoking. “The unclean thing” is a yoking with an unbeliever where it is done by an ostensible believer. Paul’s comments in I Corinthians 7 deal with the marriages of couples who were originally both unbelievers and subsquently one becomes a Christian. In such cases, the believer is not to break the bond, but, if the unbelieving partner departs, the believer is free.”
R.J. Rushdoony
Systematic Theology Vol II. — pg. 971
I offer this quote here that I might be cleared of accusations of sanitizing. I also offer it here and note as we compare the two quotes that it is pretty standard interpretative behavior to read the writings of a author in his earlier days in light of his later more mature reflections.
My only goal is to give the reader the WHOLE Rushdoony and not seize on to any one part of him and ride it as a hobby horse for some not so hidden agenda.
_________________
Daniel
"Men make us believe that Chalk is Cheese" John Calvin |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
You can post calendar events in this forum
|
|
phpBB skin developed by: John Olson
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
