I could not agree more. The educational institutions play astrategic 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 ownindoctrination as the secular university is on their own.
Your position is incoherent. If you reject Christianpolitical activism, then you have no effective means of opposing the seculareducation establishment.
We know the purpose of the law was to hold mirror up infront 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 Reformedtheology. Since you have a blog called Reformed Reasons, I shouldn’t have toremind 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 ofjudgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishmentfor proven offences (Deut 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom 13:3-4). Although obedienceout of the love of God is the ideal for which every Christian should strive (1John 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 withmy contention that the holy writings were directed to the holy community…
It has everything to do with your claim that “The Scripturesare 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 whodo that very thing. But that does not change the fact that true understandinginvolves appropriation and appropriation requires God’s Spirit.
Unbelievers can grasp the meaning of Scripture. And thatmakes their disobedience to Scripture all the more culpable. They are in aposition to know better.
The holy writings were not given to make a godless culturemore moral.
Why not? Biblical law wasn’t given for just one purpose. TheMosaic 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 theylack a moral motive. The law rewards lawful behavior and punishes unlawfulbehavior.
There is nothing equivocal in my statement that politicalactivism does not fall within the mission of the church.
I never said political activism falls within the “mission ofthe church.” That’s your reductionistic framework, not mine.
The mission of the church includes a respectable work ethicin the broadest sense.
If you think the mission of the church in the “broadestsense” includes a work ethic, then you’ve defined the mission of the church sobroadly that it can easily encompass political activism.
No one is suggesting that work ethic does not fall withinthe Christian ethic. There are specific commands given regarding work. Youcannot make an exegetical case for broadening the scope of the church’s missionto political activism.
I’m not framing the issue in terms of “the church’smission.” 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 towork, to care for our own, etc.
Actually, it’s not specific. To say we’re supposed to “carefor our own” doesn’t specify how we are supposed to care for them.
Having a duty to honor your parents doesn’t specify howyou’re supposed to honor your parents. When Jesus says honoring your parentsincludes supporting them financially if they are too poor or enfeebled tosupport themselves, he’s not appealing to a specific command. Rather, he’sdrawing 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 (ChristianAmericans, to be specific) should defend their family against “a godlessculture,” but how they should defend their family against the encroachments ofgovernment.
If I may have to take the burglar’s life if he forces thematter. 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 hugeleap when you extend family protection to political activism.
That’s a wooden, irresponsible way of handling an argumentfrom analogy. The analogy operates at the level of the basic principle: takingproactive measures to protect your family from harm.
The specific means depend on the specific nature of thethreat as well as the specific countermeasures at your disposal. ChristianAmericans have a variety of lawful, nonviolent means to defend their familyagainst expansive, intrusive gov’t.
We can vote. We can run for office. Some of us can becomelawyers. Or teachers. The list is long.
Of course, if we don’t exercise our rights, we will lose ourrights.
To deny the trend toward secularism, toward socialliberalism is essentially to bury one’s head in the sand with all due respectof course.
The trend is imposed from the top down by a tiny elite. Itdoesn’t come from the bottom up. The very fact that liberals so often resort tocoercion rather than persuasion reflects the unpopularity of their secularpolicies.
I never argued that there was once a consistent ban onabortion in the past. What I stated was that the American legal system willnever outlaw abortion again.
“Again” in contrast to what?
Moreover, it’s possible to ban some types of abortions evenif you can’t ban them all.
Furthermore, legally outlawing abortion isn’t the only wayto drastically reduce abortion. Filing malpractice suits against “abortionproviders” can make their insurance premiums unaffordable. That will drive themout of business.
Likewise, when “abortion providers” like Planned Parenthoodbreak 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.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder