Reformed Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem speaks on the Bible and capital punishment.
About Wayne Grudem:
Grudem holds a BA from Harvard University, a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. In 2001, Grudem became Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Prior to that, he had taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic Theology.
Grudem served on the committee overseeing the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and in 1999 he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He is a co-founder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. He is the author of, among other books, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, which advocates a Calvinistic soteriology, the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the body-soul dichotomy in the nature of man, and the complementarian (rather than egalitarian) view of gender equality.
what does it mean that man is made in the image of God?
is CP just about taking revenge?
what does CP say about the value of human life?
does CP apply to animals, too?
could the statements supporting CP be understood as symbolic?
one purpose of CP is to protecting the public
another purpose of CP is to deter further wrongdoing
but the Biblical purpose of CP is to achieve justice by retribution
does the Pope make a good argument against CP?
what is the role of civil government in achieving retribution?
do people in Heaven who are sinless desire God to judge sinners?
should crimes involving property alone be subject to CP?
is the Mosaic law relevant for deciding which crimes are capital today?
should violent crimes where no one dies be subject to CP?
is CP widespread in the world? why or why not?
what are some objections to CP from the Bible?
how do you respond to those objections to CP?
should civil government also turn the other cheek for all crimes?
what is the “whole life ethic” and is it Biblical?
what do academic studies show about the deterrence effect of CP?
how often have innocent people been executed in the USA?
should there be a higher burden of proof for CP convictions?
The Bible is awesome because it gives us knowledge about God’s character. How are we supposed to act in a way that is pleasing to God if we don’t know what he thinks of the issues of the day? We won’t know how we are supposed to act unless we know who God is first. And that’s why when we read the Bible we should be looking to find out the truth about who God is.
Man helping a woman with proper handgun marksmanship
So, I have about a half-dozen older and/or experienced Christian women who advise me and assist me in various ways. The wisest and most experienced is calm and thoughtful Dina. She has a very stressful job dealing with demanding women, and what she admires most in men is “masculinity”, which she defines as a man’s ability to tell a woman what is right and wrong, what God expects from her, what she should be doing with her life, and guiding her and providing for her through the steps to get there.
What makes Dina angry is when a man makes a fool of himself for youth and beauty, abdicating his role as moral and spiritual leader because of attraction / lust. According to Dina, men who have self-control think about what a woman should do that is morally right, with the goal of her producing a return for God. Men who are swayed by youth and beauty are willing to give up that leadership role in exchange for attention and/or sex.
So, with that said, Dina asked me to watch a recently-made movie called “Far From the Madding Crowd“, based on a novel by Thomas Hardy. I immediately said “no” because I know about Thomas Hardy from Tess of the D’Urbervilles, where he presents Tess as the helpless victim of Providence. I really hate that view of women, where they can do reckless, selfish things and then blame everyone but themselves for the destructive consequences of their own free-will decisions. But Dina said “wasn’t I right about the debate between David Robertson and Matt Dillahunty?” I said yes, and watched the movie. And of course, she was right, as she almost always is. This movie is a punch in the face to the radical feminism that seems to have infected so many young women, even in the church.
Here is a review of the movie by Rebekah, posted at her blog. Unfotunately, the post has been deleted, but here is an excerpt.
Rebekah writes:
What does this 19th century tale offer to modern audiences? This latest rendering emphasizes something actually surprising and unexpected given that it is made in our age of radical feminism. It is Gabriel Oak’s character that shines the most, not the proto-feminist Bathsheba. […]In Bathsheba and Gabriel we see how men and women support one another in such a way as to ensure a flourishing in any role that fate might thrust on them.
[…]The relationship between Gabriel and Bathsheba, though unequal in earthly terms of authority and wealth, is one of mutual dependence. We see Oak taking on a role of both counselor and conscience with Bathsheba – roles that in her striving towards independence she struggles to admit her need for. She is not unlike the modern feminist in this regard, nor is she unlike all of us in our relationship with the Lord. Her struggle is best seen in the various times she repels Gabriel only to find herself in desperate situations in which only he can help. The filmmakers’ clever use of a recurring theme of Bathsheba galloping after Gabriel on a horse when he is needed is particularly moving (and surprising) here. In the end, the film resists the urge to pander to our more extreme modern views on what women require to thrive.
Gabriel Oak also seems to be an embodiment of the biblical virtue of selflessness. We see in his actions towards Bathsheba the Philippians admonition to refrain from “being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity,” but rather “in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself.” Indeed, vanity itself can be seen as a fateful character flaw of every major character apart from Gabriel. He alone is able to move past rejection and carry on. In fact, he is required to go so far as to be under the authority of the very woman who rejected his offer of marriage and, despite his continuing affections for her, witness her being courted and then married by another far less worthy man, Frank Troy. No other major character is able to accomplish this challenge to their pride. Though Bathsheba does eventually overcome the rejection of her husband, she only does so after tremendous tragedy and with the selfless and steady support of Gabriel.
Gabriel respects her independence, but, like a good shepherd, stays close by to protect and guide her. Though he cannot protect her from her free-will choices, he does warn her. He then remains faithful to her in the midst of the trouble she brings upon herself. In this, he is not unlike our God, for he allows her to stray, all the while letting her know of a better course when asked. And, she does ask.
In an important scene at a party, where Bathsheba must decide whether or not to marry a particularly obsessive suitor, when she asks, “Tell me what to do, Gabriel,” he simply tells her to “Do what is right.” Is that not like our Lord? Gentle shepherd, indeed, for our wild, independent hearts. In this, I see Gabriel as most suitable for the role as the husband written of in the epistle to the Ephesians. He loves Bathsheba “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her…”
Men and women both struggle with self-centeredness, but men usually work themselves out of it by studying hard things in school, and doing hard work that pays. Men have a natural desire to provide for others, and it is actually a duty laid out for them in the Bible. As a result of studying and working at things they don’t like, men typically are better at resisting their feelings and desires. In fact, if you ever want to make a woman less self-centered and emotional, leading her to study STEM and work a demanding job is a good plan. Dina has multiple STEM degrees, and a very difficult, challenging work history.
I would be suspicious of men who don’t prioritize providing, (as in 1 Tim 5:8), because working and saving gives a man practical experience at self-denial. When a man gets accustomed to working to share with others, it helps helps him to lead a woman to do the same: deny her feelings and desires, and make prudent decisions that will allow her to love and serve others – including God – in a sustainable way. Over the long-term, this practice of effective, self-sacrificial love will be worth more to the woman than the short-term pursuit of fun and thrills. To provide for a woman means to look into her future, and make a decision today to set aside something that will help her to deal with what the future has in store for her.
Dina’s advice to young women
I asked Dina to take a look at the draft of this post before I hit “Schedule” and Dina said:
What I would advise to all young women is not to expect a Gabriel Oak to be waiting for you at the end of your reckless years of hooking up, partying and wasting your youth on fun and men who have no desire to lead you to God or guide you to goodness. Don’t expect the hot stud that your friends approve of to turn into someone with the character of Oak with the magic powers of your premarital sex life. Find a man who doesn’t give in to your every whim, because if he does, you will only resent him for it, and blame him, for being what you thought you wanted him to be. Find a man who leads, one who demonstrates self control, self denial, who can provide and protect. And most importantly, respect him for doing it.
Emphasis mine.
Sound advice from the Dina, young ladies. By the way, Dina’s favorite drama is the BBC production of “North and South” from 2004. I also give it a 10/10.
It’s going to be Ted Cruz, because that’s who Republican voters want
So, there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and since we don’t have a wuss in the Oval office, we’re going to get a nominee and a vote on that nominee in the Senate. The process of nominating someone to the Supreme Court requires the president to nominate, and the Senate to advise and consent. The Republicans control both the White House and the Senate, and there is time to get it done.
The Federalist explains that short-time nominations have happened before:
Three Supreme Court Justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away on Friday due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer, were confirmed by the Senate within 45 days of their formal nomination date.
According to Senate records, Justices Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O’Connor were all confirmed in a short period of time. Stevens’s confirmation in 1975 took 19 days, O’Connor’s confirmation in 1981 took 33 days, and Ginsburg’s confirmation in 1993 took 42 days.
[…]Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Trump’s nomination would receive a vote on the floor, adding the Senate will keep their promise to “support [Trump’s] agenda “particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”
“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he stated.
I love this news story, because if there is anything that can get the conservative base out, it’s a conservative Supreme Court nominee. We care about judges, and now everyone is going to be reminded why we elected Trump in the first place. It’s hard to get a perfect nominee through the Senate when we have a few moderate senators who won’t support a social conservative. We need 50 votes for a real social conservative, and we don’t have that. There are at least 3 moderates: Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney. Murkowski and Collins have already come out and said they don’t want to vote on a judge until after the election. Still, we might be able to get someone right of center in there who would give us most of what we want, and get him or her through with a few votes from moderate Democrats.
Trump brought up Cruz in the context of speaking about Cruz’s last Senate victory. “I helped a lot too. I was with Ted all the way, and I think Ted appreciated it. Even said I’m putting Ted Cruz as one of the people for the Supreme Court,” Trump said. He continued:
You know why I did it, because I wanted to make sure I had somebody on the list of about 45 unbelievable people, the smartest, the best, the absolute crème de la crème, the best minds in the country, conservative, they believe in the Constitution. Little things like that. But I said I have to add somebody that we’re going to make sure we could get approved. The only one I could think of was Ted, because He’s going to get 50 Republican votes and 50 Democratic votes. They’ll do anything to get him out of the Senate. But I joke when I say that to Ted, and I say that all the time, Ted’s only one I know that will get 100 votes in the Senate.
Trump added of Cruz: “He’s a great guy; he’s a brilliant guy.”
I think it would be a smart move for Trump to drive turnout by having a fight over someone the base really wants – like Ted Cruz. Not only is Ted Cruz brilliant and conservative, but his replacement in the Senate would be picked by Greg Abbott, the conservative governor of Texas.
Ted Cruz is Hispanic, and that is a very useful thing to put in the news 45 days out from an election. It reminds Hispanic voters that Hispanics can be conservative, and fit into the Republican party. We need to counter the narrative that the Democrats spread about racism from the right. It’s ironic, because people like Ted Cruz and Thomas Sowell are our best conservatives.
