I think this might turn on the distinction between the moral and political. Believers are personally obligated to that which is moral in faith and practice. But that doesn’t mean they are obligated to a political outlook or conclusion. So, Christian Jane mayn’t herself have an abortion, but she may vote or even make legislation contrary to this. As someone opposed both morally and politically to abortion, I’ll certainly grant that there is something obviously wrong with the sort of logic that opposes abortion morally but protects it politically (paging John Kerry). But the personal obligation a believer has is moral, not political or logical.
i) What is this "distinction" between the moral and the political? What is meant by these crucial terms? Considering that people vote and think according to political philosophies (whether they are good philosophies or well-worked-out ones is not guaranteed), it is interesting to note what one respected political philosopher says: "What is distinctive about political philosophy, however, is its prescriptive or evaluative concern with justifications, values, ideals, rights, obligations--in short, its concern with how political societies should be, how political policies and institutions can be justified, how we and our political office holders ought to behave in our public lives. . . .Political philosophy can thus be aptly characterized as a branch or an application of moral philosophy" (Simmons, Political Philosophy, Oxford, 2, emphasis original).
ii) In response to the claim that it is a sin to have an abortion (because it is murder?) but not to vote for other people to legally have one, this seems confused. May she drive her friend to the clinic and pay for the abortion? If so, may she pay for a hit man to kill her parents so long as she doesn't pull the trigger?
iia) Is not the 2K out of WSCAL "confessionalist?" Do not the Westminster Catechisms define what a violation of the 6th commandment looks like, to wit:
Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
How can the 2Ker claim voting to make or keep legal the murder of children is not a sin??? Is their talk of "Confessionalism" mere lip service? Since I don't believe that it is, here's an argument from the Catechism:
[1] If you violate the sixth commandment, then you have sinned.
[2] Anything that tends to the destruction of the life of any human is a violation of the 6th commandment.
[3] Voting to make or keep legal the murder of children by abortion tends to the destruction of human life.
[4] Voting to make or keep legal the murder of children by abortion is a violation of the 6th commandment.
[5] Therefore, voting to make or keep legal the murder of children by abortion is a sin.
Now the 2Ker needs to deny the validity of this argument or the truth of one of the premises. If they can do neither, the conclusion follows of necessity.
iib) One way to see if a position is logically valid is to use the same form of reasoning and simply switch out some terms. Suppose there is an island with 20 Christians on it and 20 non-Christians. 19 of the non-Christians are taken in by an argument for the criteria of personhood that has as a troublesome consequence that one of the non-Christians does not meet the criteria. So they decide to kill this guy, call him Bob. So, they put it to a vote. 19 non-Christians vote to kill, 19 Christians vote to not kill (holding to Christian teaching about man). One Christian, Ruben, is a 2K guy, he finds it a good compromise to vote to kill Bob. What should the local church say of Ruben? What does this say of Ruben? Is Ruben morally guilty? Was Ruben's vote sinful? Furthermore, in keeping with what Steve Zrimec said, suppose Ruben believes, indeed is obligated to believe, that Bob is a human. What say ye of Ruben?
If the above is rejected and no relevant disanalogy is pointed to (and if that's your approach, try to think ahead because it won't be too hard to switch up elements of the above story to get around the points raised showing it's disanalogous), then one must reject the argument that voting for the murder of children isn't sinful. If one denies he must, and one finds no logical flaw, then one must deny logic. If so, then that's another defeater for the position. If a position denies validity, then that is a good reason to deny that position.
iii) What does it even mean to claim that a Christian has an obligation to be moral but not logical? That is just odd. First, there are rational obligations to be logical. Second, one has a moral obligation to be logical, to think rationally, to be consistent. This is why the Bible can speak of people sinning in their reasonings.
iv) I wonder what role Natural Law plays in all of this. Natural Law has been the 2Kers only response to the Theonomists who wonder how 2K can escape relativism. Governments are not the highest law that rules the kingdom of common grace, natural law is. If natural law entails some position on a matter, then do not both governments and Christians have a moral obligation to honor and bring about and maintain that position? If not, just what the heck is Natural Law? Something I know not what? What is its use? Is it simply a boiler plate platitude used to escape the charge of relativism but not really something to be taken seriously?
Paul, Zrim is often a discredit to Reformed 2K theology. I would heartily affirm that while the political sphere does indeed inhabit the secular kingdom, that doesn't mean that Christian ethics are left at the door when one crosses out of the sacred kingdom. That is nowhere taught by the major proponents of 2K.
ReplyDeleteMany reductio ad absurdum examples come to mind (one could, for example, vote for the Nazis party under Zrim's premise). But I fear that such a tactic wouldn't work because he would be willing to embrace the absurdum part.
Have any of the major proponents of R2k written a book? Not a snarky comment. Seriously wanting to read somebody's book-length elucidation/justification.
ReplyDeleteDavid, thanks for your comments. I always appreciate your sensible 2K thoughts :-)
ReplyDelete"(one could, for example, vote for the Nazis party under Zrim's premise). But I fear that such a tactic wouldn't work because he would be willing to embrace the absurdum part."
Yes, I raised that point. He indeed embraced the absurdity. He now calls reductio ad absudums reductio ad naziums. :-)
Gordon,
DVD recently wrote a book on Nataural Law and the Two Kingdoms.
Hi Paul -- I'm glad that you've posted this, and brought this subject up. I know Zrim, and I like him, and I wouldn't even say that he's "a discredit to Reformed 2K theology," though I do disagree with his pro-choice views.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, looking at your citation of Q136 on "whatsoever else tends else tends to the destruction of the life of any," I can plainly see where a Christian in America, as a voter, is frequently put in a situation to vote for two politicians who are distinctively bad.
And I'll point to my own experience in the 2004 election, when I rather publicly supported Kerry over Bush.
What motivated me to do this at that time was the fact that my wife was still in the military, having served a tour in Iraq in 2003, under all kinds of bad circumstances. But it wasn't only the personal dimension that led me to oppose Bush. It was the very cloudy circumstances under which the decision to go to war was made, and the very cloudy way that that decision was then sold to the public.
My contention at the time was that, even though Kerry was pro-choice, the Bush administration had played fast-and-loose with very many "facts," in order to create a case to sell the war. I don't believe there is any question that Cheney "cherry-picked" intelligence, while playing down evidence to the contrary,
The way that I've characterized this might be debated, and I don't wish to do that here, but I think that a very good case could be made, in this instance, that President Bush, in his decisions, "tended to the destruction of life" in a far more direct way than Kerry *might* have "tended to the destruction of life" through legislation (which, at the time, and with a Republican congress, wasn't likely to happen), or through the nomination of Supreme Court justices. But in that event, we do see that Bush nominated Roberts and Scalia, but that was no guarantee given other recent Republican nominees, or that Kerry wouldn't have nominated someone more moderate in that regard.
In other words, any danger to life from Kerry was merely theoretical, whereas, Bush was a known danger, having started a war that brought a different kind of misery to millions in Iraq, in a situation in which it may have been entirely able to "win" by merely having waited out Saddam and kept up the political pressure. Kerry violated the Catechism on point [4], but Bush violated it at point [2].
Now, in what very much seems to be a backlash against Bush's actions, we have seen in two elections the Republicans thrown out of power in Congress, and the election of Obama, who seems to be far worse than Kerry ever would have been.
I believe that Bush's appropriation of God and righteousness as he sold the war to a largely gullible Christian population who believed him was reprehensible. We will be living with the consequences of that for a long time, in the form of a damaged movement and damaged credibility.
So while Kerry was a bad choice, recent history now appears to be showing us that a Bush win in 2004 was the poorer choice.
And I do think those individuals are correct when they say that the biggest discussion Christians need to have is on the topic of "Christ and Culture." I don't know that we've ever really been able to get this right.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteI both like Zrim and think he's a discredit to 2K theology, if by "discredit" we mean "not presenting a coherent and persuasive and morally viable 2K case."
As far as your comment, let me leave alone the particularities for the moment, it seems that you agree with my argument but think the facts bear out a that certain premises should go into that argument. So, we agree on the moral principle, but you're saying you disagree with the facts (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree at the moment).
Similarly, we may think that there is a mile of moral difference between the Hindu and us. You think it is morally permissible to eat cow, the Hindu does not. However, it would be a mistake to consider this a *moral* difference rather than a *factual* difference. You see, the Hindu thinks the cow is grandma! I dare say that *both* you *and* the Hindu think agree on the moral premise: "Thou shalt never eat grandma."
However, as I think my quote from Zrim bears out, he doesn't even think this. So, while you may believe that the moral thing to do in accord with my argument from the 6th commandment is to vote for Kerry since, *ceteris paribus*, it was the moral thing to do given the providential cards that you've been dealt. Okay, let me grant that and save the debate on whether you have the logic or the facts right, and let me make this point: rationality would constrain you from saying that both options were moraly acceptable. Given your *considered* judgment, you must think that those who didn't vote for Kerry sinned. Just plug in "vote for Bush" into the premises and you'll see why. If you don't have a problem with the validity of the form of my argument, then you are bound to accept the new conclusion, "voting for Bush is a sin."
Zrim, on the other hand, treats the situation as a relativist and is downright incoherent, as I think my quote from his suggests. Believers do not just have "political" obligatins but not rational or moral ones when they enter the voting booth.
Paul, thanks for your clarifications here. Please, I hope you understand that we are very much on the same side in this. I agree with you that Christians have moral obligations when they vote, but I don't think you've made an open-and-shut case.
ReplyDeleteI think where I would want to challenge the argument is at points 3 and 4. When someone votes for a candidate, it is not specifically a vote to "neglect or withdraw" anything. It is a vote according to the US political process. So it seems as if you need to firm up that apparatus somehow -- "a vote for candidate A == a certain vote for his stated position". A vote for Kerry was not specifically a vote to "neglect or withdraw" anything. I think you have to prove that Kerry (or any candidate) is fully capable of fully conforming to his stated positions.
(And I don't know how you would do that. Bush's full intention was to have "a humble foreign policy, and yet, he did not keep to that intention -- rather, he did a Clintonesque "flip" that was quite acrobatic! Clinton himself, with a Republican congress, enacted much of the Republican "Contract with America." He signed it and then took the credit away from the Republicans. But that's another story.)
And further, in Zrim's defense (as I understand his position to be), abortion is not the only policy position which "neglects or withdraws lawful and necessary means of preservation of life." Bush's "Bush Doctrine" seemed certainly bound to "withdraw the lawful and necessary means" somehow. [He was changing the definition of "lawful war," for example.]
So a vote for a representative, I don't think, can be equated with a vote to "make or keep legal the murder of children" or a vote for any specific policy, for that matter. It's not a ride to the abortion clinic. Sure, we're dealing in political philosophies, and there are probabilities involved, but they aren't certainties.
I'm sure I'm missing something. But in terms of constructing an argument from which the conclusion follows of necessity, I think the original argument is lacking at that point.
Hi John,
ReplyDeletePremises 3 and 4 did not have the terms "vote for a political candidate" in them. It had the terms "vote for abortion." So you haven't denied any premise, you've denied premises of another argument. I said that voting to make or keep legal abortion is a sin, are you denying that?
John,
ReplyDeleteThis may help. Leave out the candidates. I'm not calling your vote for Kerry (or Obama?) into question in this post. not all votes are for candidates. For example, when I voted last they had a proposition that would make medical pot legal, I voted for it. By doing so I did not cast a vote for a politician. Similarly, if instead of medical marijuana they had "abortion" on the ballet, I am claiming that my argument shows that voting to keep or make it legal would be a sin. So, if you deny the conclusion, then you either deny its validity or a premise. I suggest no self-professed confessionalist (let alone, Christian) can rationally deny the premises.
You said, "Now the 2Ker needs to deny the validity of this argument or the truth of one of the premises."
ReplyDeleteWe in America then don't "vote for abortion. Unless we are in office, we citizens just don't do that. When we vote, there are whole packages of things in play. I think Zrim made it clear that if, as you say, there were a straight up-or-down vote on "keep abortion legal," he would vote against that.
Yes, then I agree with you that to "vote for abortion" has the consequences as you've outlined them. But I don't see then how your specific argument here can be applied to what Zrim has said.
John,
ReplyDeleteI am aware of what I said and what I'm saying is you didn't deny a premise. You denied a premise of another argument that you thought I was making.
I gave an example of a vote that didn't include "whole packages." Indeed, there are many cases of this. Indeed, if a libertarian got into office and made abortion a state's right deal, then we could easily see it as a single issue on a ballet. Zrim says in that situation a Christian isn't morally obligated to vote down abortion.
Zrim made it clear that *he* would vote against abortion, but he *also* made it clear that it would not be a sin if *she* did. he said,
"Believers are personally obligated to that which is moral in faith and practice. But that doesn’t mean they are obligated to a political outlook or conclusion. So, Christian Jane mayn’t herself have an abortion, but she may vote or even make legislation contrary to this."
Indeed, John, Zrim made it clear that if somehow after a couple years of Hitler's reign it came down to an election whether to keep him in office or not, Christians would not be morally obligated to vote him out of office.
So it seems to me that there are two difficulties you're having, (1) you attributed to me an argument that wasn't made and argued against that; (2) you didn't understand or read Zrim's claim. I hope I have cleared this up?
And keep in mind, I am aware of the spin Zrim is giving now, shifting the goal posts to claims about voting for "pro-abortion candidate when other issues are weighed," which is unhelpful because I can imagine scenarios where a pro-lifeer would vote for a pro-choicer and be morally justified in doing so. The claim about doing the morally weightier of two positions is in fact my argument.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as Zrim's comment makes clear, his goal post shifting worn't work; but not only that, he has a paper trail out there. For example:
For example, I am morally and politically opposed to abortion. I don’t understand how some can claim to be morally opposed but not politically opposed. But I also don’t understand how those who share my moral and political opposition can claim that those who are morally opposed but not politically opposed are also being immoral..
He doesn't mind if someone is politically opposed *to abortion*, that is. That is *different* than claiming that one *is* politically opposed by votes another way *ceteris paribus*. Do you see the distinction?
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI am a 2K advocate and I disagree with Zrim. Actually we had a brief debate on this topic on John Bugay’s forum a while back. I think it is clear that supporting candidates that support abortions is sinful as it is equivalent to not loving your neighbor (i.e. the defenseless baby ) and more specifically, implicitly you are supporting murder.
With that being said I think the more serious discussion is over the lesser of two evils. In some sense we are always supporting sin when we vote for secular (probably most Christians also) candidates. The issue becomes the severity and explicitness of the sin. In reference to severity there is no moral equivalence between a candidate that has told a lie about something vs. another candidate that supports the slaughter of millions of innocent babies. Likewise, in reference to explicitness, there is no moral equivalency between us making a judgment against a candidate based on reading their heart(e.g. I think they are liars ) and another candidate’s explicit affirmation that murdering of innocent babies is a woman’s right and they will protect that right.
Paul -- Sorry for being so dim here. I recall some time ago saying that I needed training wheels, and I appreciate your patience. And I think I've got you now.
ReplyDeleteLooking at his statement, So, Christian Jane mayn’t herself have an abortion, but she may vote or even make legislation contrary to this is certainly a situation to which your argument applies. If Jane is confessional, to use his words, she may not vote in favor of legislation that permits it.
So in my intervening comments, I've introduced another dimension into this -- and that would be the question of whether voting for a "pro-choice" politician is a sin. And just to try and understand what I think I am saying, the argument you presented here [1-5] is not applicable. Premises 3 and 4 would need somehow to be "beefed up" in order to make that argument. But I don't know that such beefiness exists.
Hi Ronnie -- it's good to see you.
ReplyDeleteI think you and Paul are saying essentially the same thing then:
Paul: I can imagine scenarios where a pro-lifeer would vote for a pro-choicer and be morally justified in doing so. The claim about doing the morally weightier of two positions is in fact my argument.
Ronne: With that being said I think the more serious discussion is over the lesser of two evils. In some sense we are always supporting sin when we vote for secular (probably most Christians also) candidates. The issue becomes the severity and explicitness of the sin.
Do I have this right so far?
Ronnie,
ReplyDeleteThat is good to hear. I agree with your position, though I could imagine some situations where voting for a pro-choice candidiate would the moral thing to do. I'll assume you can imagine said (rare)scenarios.
John,
I agree with your claim and can only say that I wasn't trying to make an argument against what you're talking about. I think such an argument could be made (which would be similar but not identical) to the argument given here, but that's for another day. So, yes, you'd need "beefed up" premises, as well as access to the relevant empirical data, etc.
Thanks Paul. I'm glad that you're looking at 2K and I'll be looking forward to what you've got coming.
ReplyDeleteI've been looking at it for the past 2 years :-)
ReplyDeleteYeah, well, I mean here, in public, on Triablogue :-)
ReplyDeleteIf you've got other stuff published in other places, I'd love to look at it.
I saw some reviews of Carson's "Christ and Culture" and also Van Drunen's work -- I thought Steve did an excellent job of showing the weakness of "natural law" that you mentioned here in point iv).
Hey John ...
ReplyDeleteI'm normally lurking/reading in the shadows. It doesn't take a lot of time to read here and there vs responding :)
Paul, yes I would agree that I could come up with a few.
Ronnie
Hi Ronnie. I'll have to try that some time :-)
ReplyDeleteJohn B, when I read this:
ReplyDelete"...On the other hand, looking at your citation of Q136 on "whatsoever else tends else tends to the destruction of the life of any," I can plainly see where a Christian in America, as a voter, is frequently put in a situation to vote for two politicians who are distinctively bad.".
I thought about Alexander Hamilton's promotion of Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr because Burr was so ungodly even though Thomas Jefferson wanted a weaker centralized government.
I also thought of an incident I experienced one early morning years ago at the small regional airport in my area about an hour before my Assemblyman was to board a plane. I was confronting this district "representative", who was going back to our State's capital, about some up and coming heated issues in our State that he was going to have to vote on.
I knew his leanings on some of these hot topic issues like "pro-choice" or "pro-life" and gun control and more or less government control with lower or higher taxes. He was sitting there in the waiting room by himself waiting to board the plane. I came to him and sat down next to him and began engaging him about his views. I pressed him to tell me which way he would vote in the next session on those issues. I wanted him to be unequivocal and state his position. He would not. I pressed him again and again as he waited to board the plane, to state clearly which way he was going to vote. He simply would not do that. Finally, after a bit of time, in frustration, he explained his reasonings about how he votes.
He said, "look, here is how I vote. When the majority is leaning to the right, I vote to the right. When the majority is leaning to the left, I vote to the left. When there is a even steven trend in the district, split down the middle, I vote whichever way I want too because my vote won't matter one way or another".
Hmmmmm, I thought to myself, "how spinless he is". I suppose all politicians are like that since all politics is local? Either it's a party line vote or it's a local political vote for the majority of the constituency one way or the other or it's a safe bet vote that tarnishes the politician the least and gives him a better chance of being re-elected to continue the voting reasonings!
Do Christians have a responsibility then, to vote for the lessor of two evils when it comes to either the person being voted for or the issues that would impact the Kingdom work most, when we do our civic duty and vote?
I raise the question in light of your reasonings and these Words of Scripture:
Psa 46:8 Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has brought desolations on the earth.
Psa 46:9 He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the chariots with fire.
Do Christians have a responsibility then, to vote for the lessor of two evils when it comes to either the person being voted for or the issues that would impact the Kingdom work most, when we do our civic duty and vote?
ReplyDeleteHi Natamllc, I don't have an answer to your question. I have the idea that the "We the people" in the preamble of the constitution somehow changes the Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2 kinds of calculations that we all need to make. This is one area where I definitely feel the need for more study.
That's why I'm looking forward to seeing more of this type of discussion here.
natallmc asked:
ReplyDeleteDo Christians have a responsibility then, to vote for the lessor of two evils when it comes to either the person being voted for or the issues that would impact the Kingdom work most, when we do our civic duty and vote?
I’ll bite.
What do you mean by Kingdom work? Remember this post was about "Two" Kingdoms. Is living consisting with biblical principles kingdom work? Is resisting evil and fighting for justice kingdom work? If so, then doesn’t it follow that resisting the greatest evil actually doing more to advance at least one of the kingdoms?
Ronnie,
ReplyDeletethanks for your question.
I have to ask first that you "define" for me what you are talking about when you are talking about when you are referring to the "two kingdom" doctrine?
Thanks again.
natallmc,
ReplyDeleteI have to ask first that you "define" for me what you are talking about when you are talking about when you are referring to the "two kingdom" doctrine?
Well that is the context of the entire discussion so I was assuming you were familiar with it when you asked the question that you did. With that being said of course it is a big topic, but here is a brief definition.
God has established two kingdoms for the ruling of human affairs. One Kingdom is the church, it is spiritual and God rules it as redeemer. So when Jesus says, “… my kingdom is not of this world …”(john 18:36), he is talking about the spiritual kingdom/church which He rules as savior and redeemer. On the other the kingdom of the world does exist and God rules it, but in a different way. He rules it not as redeemer, but as creator and sustainer. The two kingdoms have different methods, means, and ends. So when you asked the question about advancing the kingdom via voting a Two Kingdom advocate would assume you are talking about the secular kingdoms. Therefore, how is that kingdom advanced? I would say by righteousness and justice, which would entail resisting the greatest injustices. In my mind there is no greater injustice than the slaughter of innocent and defenseless babies by the millions.
Ronnie
Ronnie
ReplyDeleteguess one should not assume things, then, ?.
Let me make this statement.
Based on what Paul has presented, and my ability to comprehend what his position is and what Zrimec's position is, I too can be considered a counted out one along with Paul. Would you consider yourself counted out or in, based on Zrim's position?
So that we can come closer together for the purpose of edification, which was the sole purpose of my offering comments to John Bugay, for his edification, I would put over a couple of passages of Scripture that seem to define for me the "two kingdom theory".
Tell me if these passages reflect a "Biblical" sense for you of what you would define the two kingdom theory is?
Luk 17:1 And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
Luk 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
Luk 17:3 Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,
Luk 17:4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."
and
Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
Dan 2:45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."
And to add a little log on the fire to burn the Light brighter, I will state, "I am a born again Christian, a work of God's grace not man's and I confess the Lord Jesus, believe in my heart God raised Him from the dead and I am "pro-choice".
ReplyDeleteBased on what Paul has presented, and my ability to comprehend what his position is and what Zrimec's position is, I too can be considered a counted out one along with Paul. Would you consider yourself counted out or in, based on Zrim's position?
Have you been reading the comments? If so I made my position clear in them.
So that we can come closer together for the purpose of edification, which was the sole purpose of my offering comments to John Bugay, for his edification, I would put over a couple of passages of Scripture that seem to define for me the "two kingdom theory".
Tell me if these passages reflect a "Biblical" sense for you of what you would define the two kingdom theory is?
Luk 17:1 And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
Luk 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
Luk 17:3 Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,
Luk 17:4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."
and
Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
Dan 2:45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."
I’m not sure what your point is here.
And to add a little log on the fire to burn the Light brighter, I will state, "I am a born again Christian, a work of God's grace not man's and I confess the Lord Jesus, believe in my heart God raised Him from the dead and I am "pro-choice".
I’m not here to judge your heart, but confessing to be a Christian and claiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in one breadth, while affirming the right of a mother to murder defenseless babies is just a blatant contradiction.
Ronnie
ReplyDeleteoops, sorry if I have offended you?
I was asking you to rehash more succinctly your position. If you don't want to, fine, let's move on then, if you want to?
The Luke passages and the Daniel passages establish that there really is "One" Sovereign Authority, Our Triune God.
As for my pro-choice comment, that was a trick comment. Since you were assuming I had an understanding of the two kingdom theory Paul made the thrust of this thread I assumed you might find my comment contradictory, being a Reformed Christian and being pro-choice? I assumed you would comment something the way you did: "... while affirming the right of a mother to murder defenseless babies is just a blatant contradiction. ". I assumed correctly! Do I get cookies and milk now? :)
I was not affirming the right of a mother to murder defenseless babies. But using a normative moniker for abortion, "pro-choice", you assumed I was.
When I say I am pro-choice and a Spirit filled Christian at the same time then defining myself according to the promise from Roman's 10, it gets a few raised eyebrows from both camps.
What do I mean then? Well, my assertion is based on "natural law"; and based on the Sovereign's power to open the womb and close the womb according to His purposes. I have found it a good tool to open up a conversation with truly pro-choice proponents.
When two "choose" to join together and there is a pregnancy, they have an obligation to let nature have her course and not interrupt it seeing God is the one who oversees the womb, opening it and closing it.
I will affirm completely my disdain and sorrow for the ungodly law that allows abortion.
As for what I can do in the civic realm to see Congress overturn the laws permitting abortion in this country, let me know and I will be a willing participant.
I live in California. I voted for Prop. 8. I see today in the news that the will of the majority of people of the State who voted for Prop. 8 doesn't really matter when the proponents against Prop. 8 have money and good lawyers to fight for their minority position against the majority in court to argue why the views of a slim minority should overturn the legal majority vote of the people of the state of California. That being the case, with do we vote?
So,there is no hostility here on my part, just a kind invitation to exchange one another's views and let iron sharpen iron with regard to understanding what each means when using the idea of a two kingdom theory and develop some Godly sense about what to do in this country when Godly views are contrary to the world's? I am of the same view as John that I need more study and understanding about these things to be better equipped to respond to any eventuality that happens upon us in the coming days.