The civil use of the law

Ed Dingess

I could not agree more. The educational institutions play a strategic role in the liberal indoctrination of our children and in my view, that is beyond dispute. I wish the church were as focused on our own indoctrination as the secular university is on their own.

Your position is incoherent. If you reject Christian political activism, then you have no effective means of opposing the secular education establishment.

We know the purpose of the law was to hold mirror up in front of the unrighteous to show them/us their/our hopelessly sinful condition. It drives men to Christ.

You’re disregarding the three uses of the law in Reformed theology. Since you have a blog called Reformed Reasons, I shouldn’t have to remind you of that. For instance:

(2) Civil Use: The Law restrains evil through punishment. Though the law cannot change the heart, it can inhibit sin by threats of judgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offences (Deut 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom 13:3-4). Although obedience out of the love of God is the ideal for which every Christian should strive (1 John 4:18), society still benefits from this restraining use of the law.

http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40602

The communities containing reprobates has little to do with my contention that the holy writings were directed to the holy community…

It has everything to do with your claim that “The Scriptures are given to the regenerate, to the church of Jesus Christ.”

Of course the unregenerate can engage in parsing, syntax, and even analyze a text. There are a number of them in the seminaries today who do that very thing. But that does not change the fact that true understanding involves appropriation and appropriation requires God’s Spirit.

Unbelievers can grasp the meaning of Scripture. And that makes their disobedience to Scripture all the more culpable. They are in a position to know better.

The holy writings were not given to make a godless culture more moral.

Why not? Biblical law wasn’t given for just one purpose. The Mosaic law was, in part, a civil and criminal law code. Many Jews were impious. The law restrained them. It made them more moral in their behavior.

People can be outwardly moral in their conduct even if they lack a moral motive. The law rewards lawful behavior and punishes unlawful behavior.

There is nothing equivocal in my statement that political activism does not fall within the mission of the church.

I never said political activism falls within the “mission of the church.” That’s your reductionistic framework, not mine. 

The mission of the church includes a respectable work ethic in the broadest sense.

If you think the mission of the church in the “broadest sense” includes a work ethic, then you’ve defined the mission of the church so broadly that it can easily encompass political activism. 

No one is suggesting that work ethic does not fall within the Christian ethic. There are specific commands given regarding work. You cannot make an exegetical case for broadening the scope of the church’s mission to political activism.

I’m not framing the issue in terms of “the church’s mission.” I’m discussing the social responsibilities of individual Christians.

Yes, we are to provide for our children and our families. However, God instructs us specifically about how we are to do that. We are to work, to care for our own, etc.

Actually, it’s not specific. To say we’re supposed to “care for our own” doesn’t specify how we are supposed to care for them.

Having a duty to honor your parents doesn’t specify how you’re supposed to honor your parents. When Jesus says honoring your parents includes supporting them financially if they are too poor or enfeebled to support themselves, he’s not appealing to a specific command. Rather, he’s drawing a specific, common sense inference from a general command.

Defending my family against a burglar is one thing. Defending it against a godless culture is entirely different.

No, it’s not entirely different.

Anyway, I wasn’t discussing how Christians (Christian Americans, to be specific) should defend their family against “a godless culture,” but how they should defend their family against the encroachments of government.

If I may have to take the burglar’s life if he forces the matter. Should I do the same to a doctor who is about to commit an abortion? Should I do the same to a politician who is soft on pedophilia? You take a huge leap when you extend family protection to political activism.

That’s a wooden, irresponsible way of handling an argument from analogy. The analogy operates at the level of the basic principle: taking proactive measures to protect your family from harm.

The specific means depend on the specific nature of the threat as well as the specific countermeasures at your disposal. Christian Americans have a variety of lawful, nonviolent means to defend their family against expansive, intrusive gov’t.

We can vote. We can run for office. Some of us can become lawyers. Or teachers. The list is long.

Of course, if we don’t exercise our rights, we will lose our rights.

To deny the trend toward secularism, toward social liberalism is essentially to bury one’s head in the sand with all due respect of course.

The trend is imposed from the top down by a tiny elite. It doesn’t come from the bottom up. The very fact that liberals so often resort to coercion rather than persuasion reflects the unpopularity of their secular policies.

I never argued that there was once a consistent ban on abortion in the past. What I stated was that the American legal system will never outlaw abortion again.

“Again” in contrast to what?

Moreover, it’s possible to ban some types of abortions even if you can’t ban them all.

Furthermore, legally outlawing abortion isn’t the only way to drastically reduce abortion. Filing malpractice suits against “abortion providers” can make their insurance premiums unaffordable. That will drive them out of business.

Likewise, when “abortion providers” like Planned Parenthood break the law by refusing to report cases of statutory rape to the authorities, that leaves them vulnerable to prosecution. 

One needs to exercise a little ingenuity.