Posted on 12/09/2014 7:17:40 AM PST by wagglebee
“There is no right and wrong!” the angry university student said loudly, storming up to our campus pro-life display.
“Is that right?” my friend Caleb said slowly. The student came to an abrupt stop, realizing, perhaps for the first time, that his worldview was, in philosophical terms, an “argument to commit suicide.”
That anecdote is illustrative of how we’ve been letting the Cultural Left get away with murder. I’m not just referring to the institutionalized destruction of life in the womb or the “mercy-killing” of the old, but also the broad cultural acceptance—including among Christians—of two stupid and dangerous ideas that have allowed the Left to dominate the cultural discussion for decades.
Christians have not been losing in the public square because we do not have the arguments to respond to the New Moral Revolution of the Cultural Left. We have been losing because we have not been making those arguments, or have not been making them articulately enough.
First, Christians are told loudly, we can’t legislate morality.
I could point out that this argument is inevitably used to justify the legality of something blatantly wicked and immoral, like abortion. Yet, I’ve heard countless Christians tell me that while they are pro-life and do believe in Christian ethics, they don’t think trying to impact public policy or bring our message to the public square is useful because “we can’t legislate our morality.”
They’re forgetting something: All laws legislate morality. All laws are put in place because of a value judgement that something should be permitted, restricted, regulated, or banned. When Christians leave the discussion, all we’re doing is ensuring that it is someone else’s code of morality that is being enshrined into law, and someone else’s values are being used as the guiding principle for governance.
If we don’t fight for the lives of pre-born children and demand legal protection for them, for example, we’re not ensuring that the government won’t legislate morality; we’re allowing those who claim that the right to destroy human life at whim exists and is moral to seize and win the day. Eventually, the government will be paying the butchers with our own tax dollars—because a New Morality has been legislated, and ours has been definitively replaced.
A very brief look at the news cycle reveals that the Cultural Left, while silencing Christians with the demand that we cease trying to “legislate our morality,” is attempting to do precisely that. When they howl that gay marriage should be legal and accepted, they are demanding this because they say it is right and good and moral. They are stating that to deny marriage to homosexuals is discriminatory, and therefore wrong. And the solution to this, they tell us, is for the government or the courts to step in and ensure that this wrong is righted, that this injustice is corrected.
It is not that they don’t think morality should be legislated. They simply think that Christian morality should not be legislated.
Which brings me to the second argument the Left has used to silence Christians: That morality is subjective, if it even exists at all. In other words, it’s okay if you believe that, but that only means its right for you. Other people must remain “true to themselves” and do “what’s right for them.”
This is obviously nothing short of profound stupidity, but a brief jaunt on to any university campus will show you that the number of those who believe that morality does not exist (while simultaneously calling fracking and Christian ethics evil) is staggering. I’ve engaged in dozens of debates that went something like this:
Student: “Well, there is no morality.”
Me: “Okay. Do you think rape is wrong?”
Student: “Of course rape is wrong!”
Me: “Why?”
Student (nervously): “Because…you can’t just force yourself on someone.”
Me: “Says who? You’re appealing to a moral law, which necessitates a lawgiver. Who says that is wrong?”
Student (relieved to have found an answer): “The government! It’s illegal!”
Me: “While I’m glad you’ve found your source of morality, wouldn’t you agree that laws have been wrong before? What about slavery? Segregation?”
This is to illustrate, of course, that morality cannot be subjective, or it is not morality. Right and wrong cannot be subjective, or they cease to exist. Appalling crimes like rape and murder should be illegal, because they are immoral. Christians would argue that they are immoral because God, the Lawgiver, has said they are. The Cultural Left cannot claim that banning abortion, for example, is immoral—because they cannot claim anything is immoral. Inevitably, their claims that something is or is not immoral is based on one thing: How they feel about something. (When they appeal to science, they are again being fallacious: Science, of course, can only tell us what is, not what ought to be. Science can reveal to us observable truths, but cannot provide us with correlating value judgements.)
Christians have not been losing in the public square because we do not have the arguments to respond to the New Moral Revolution of the Cultural Left. We have been losing because we have not been making those arguments, or have not been making them articulately enough. We’ve often bought the laughable lies that morality simultaneously does not exist, and cannot be legislated. Both of these lies are simply a means of keeping us from fighting for what is right in the public square. In many cases, we’ve vacated the battlefield. It’s time to engage like never before—because as we see with abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia, lives literally depend on it.
Face it, everybody sins...daily! You do well to quote Romans 7, because till the day Paul was executed he was the living embodiment of it as we all are. (Rom 7:15) I am never going to make excuses for sinning, I am deeply sorry for it because it wounds Christ (as you should be too when you sin daily). Flesh will sin.And no, Christians who have been born again as described by the Apostle Paul in Chapter 8 of Romans do not sin daily.
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.Furthermore, if you truly are deeply sorry for your sins and will not make excuses for your sinning, why are you still excusing your sin of voting for a man(Romney) who supports both Abortion (whole-heartedly, I might say) and what God calls an Abomination, Sodomy, as he did during the election season of 2012 and still does?
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
I John 1, Verse 9
If we confess our sins - If, from a deep sense of our guilt, impurity, and helplessness, we humble ourselves before God, acknowledging our iniquity, his holiness, and our own utter helplessness, and implore mercy for his sake who has died for us; he is faithful, because to such he has promised mercy, Psalm 32:5; Proverbs 28:13; and just, for Christ has died for us, and thus made an atonement to the Divine justice; so that God can now be just, and yet the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.
And to cleanse us from all unrighteousness - Not only to forgive the sin, but to purify the heart.
Observe here,
(1.) In guilt, which requires forgiveness or pardon.
- Sin exists in the soul after two modes or forms:
(2.) In pollution, which requires cleansing.
- Guilt, to be forgiven, must be confessed; and pollution, to be cleansed, must be also confessed. In order to find mercy, a man must know and feel himself to be a sinner, that he may fervently apply to God for pardon; in order to get a clean heart, a man must know and feel its depravity, acknowledge and deplore it before God, in order to be fully sanctified.
- Few are pardoned, because they do not feel and confess their sins; and few are sanctified or cleansed from all sin, because they do not feel and confess their own sore, and the plague of their hearts.
- As the blood of Jesus Christ, the merit of his passion and death, applied by faith, purges the conscience from all dead works, so the same cleanses the heart from all unrighteousness.
- As all unrighteousness is sin, so he that is cleansed from all unrighteousness is cleansed from all sin. To attempt to evade this, and plead for the continuance of sin in the heart through life, is ungrateful, wicked, and even blasphemous; for as he who says he has not sinned, 1 John 1:10, makes God a liar, who has declared the contrary through every part of his revelation; so he that says the blood of Christ either cannot or will not cleanse us from all sin in this life, gives also the lie to his Maker, who has declared the contrary, and thus shows that the word - the doctrine of God is not in him. Reader, it is the birthright of every child of God to be cleansed from all sin, to keep himself unspotted from the world, and so to live as never more to offend his Maker. All things are possible to him that believeth; because all things are possible to the infinitely meritorious blood and energetic Spirit of the Lord Jesus.
Whatever that is, it's not Calvinism.
It may be fatalism.
I have no desire to get into an argument over Reformed doctrine but this simply cannot stand without reply. Anyone who thinks John Calvin was not involved in politics has never read Book IV of Calvin's Institutes or even secular historians writing about politics at the time of the Reformation. The political nature of historic Calvinism really is a matter of crystal clear black-and-white facts about which there can be no serious historical dispute.
I agree with you in not wanting to argue, but I must ask, what is the practical difference between Calvinism and “Christian” determinism/fatalism?
As to politics, you’re right that Calvinists have always been involved politically, but I don’t understand how Calvinists can theologically or philosophically support political activism. It seems they would be going against God’s ordained will because God is totally in control at all times and in all things so whatever government exists is God’s will.
On the other hand, I have also run into reformed thinking Christians in my own church who think getting involved with politics is a waste of time and even theologically unsound because, in their view, whatever is has been ordained by God. And, that was my point in the original post. I didn’t mean to say that ALL Calvinists were of that mindset, only that there is that view out there that what is IS God’s will and working for change is “unChristian” and a lack of faith in God.
I'm going to try to limit my answer to something that can be discussed without getting into details of theology.
I am sincerely sorry you have “run into reformed thinking Christians in (your) own church who think getting involved with politics is a waste of time and even theologically unsound because, in their view, whatever is has been ordained by God.”
Put bluntly, that makes as much sense as a Roman Catholic saying it's okay to have three popes at the same time, or a Baptist saying people need to be fully immersed in milk. Nobody would claim that someone advocating such strange ideas, even if they still affirm the institution of the papacy or the need for baptism by immersion, are accurately teaching what it means to be Roman Catholic or Baptist.
Calvinism is much more than the Five Points. If people want to call themselves Reformed, they don't get to pick and choose what parts of the system of doctrine they affirm while rejecting others or adding strange new ideas.
Without knowing what denomination your church belongs to, I can only assume from the fact that there is doctrinal diversity on this issue that your church is not part of an explicitly Reformed denomination, but that it is part of a denomination which is not explicitly opposed to Calvinism, or perhaps it is a nondenominational church. That's one of the problems of broadly evangelical American churches which may not have a strong set of detailed doctrinal standards as part of a historic confession of faith, as opposed to a brief “statement of faith” which covers only a few key items. Apart from clear confessional standards, diversity can develop due to an honest lack of knowledge of doctrine or due to a deliberate desire to get away from sound doctrine. Either way, it can create confusion which helps nobody.
I do not know these church members, but here's what I would say to them if they said the things to me you are reporting that they have said to you.
I would tell them that Calvinism has a definition which is much, much more than the Five Points. A person who calls himself a Calvinist needs to identify himself with one of the major Reformed confessional standards, whether that means the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort), the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, or perhaps one of the lesser-known confessions such as the Savoy Declaration or Helvetic Confession which were once much more important than they are today.
While Lutherans, Anglicans, and other historic branches of Protestantism understand the importance of what I just wrote even if they are not in agreement with Calvinism, a question often comes up from modern American evangelicals of why we need confessions. That is a very big question, but a very short answer is that it is arrogant for us to assume that modern American evangelicals living in the early 21st century somehow have a monopoly on truth. Can any of us really claim that the modern American church is doing well, or that it is doing better than it has at previous periods of church history? That, quite bluntly, is an attitude that often comes from a spirit of arrogance. We need to submit our own views to scrutiny, not only of our local church but also those throughout history who we believe have correctly understood the key teachings of Scripture. When a modern believer comes up with some new idea that has no foundation whatsoever in the core doctrines he claims to affirm — which seems to be the case for these professing Calvinists in your church — that modern believer needs to ask some hard questions about why nobody else in church history has ever come up with those new views. Or if those views are not new but have historical precedent, that believer needs to see what fruits were borne from the beliefs he holds.
I know there are differences within the Reformed faith on a number of secondary issues, and there have been differences of emphasis on which items are considered more or less important, but there is no part of the Reformed tradition which has **EVER** taught what you say these people are telling you.
I'm going to try to answer a different part of your question which is necessarily theological without trying to argue for my own views.
Yes, Calvinism teaches predestination. But a key difference between being Reformed and teaching “fatalism” is where one places the emphasis. A Reformed person begins with the doctrine of total depravity — that since the Fall of Adam, there has been no such thing as a “good person” walking the earth. The one exception was Jesus, who was sinless, and we killed him because of that.
A Reformed person, when asked questions like “why do bad things happen to good people,” responds by asking who the good people are. Reformed doctrine teaches that we are not just sick or weak but rather **DEAD** in sin, that we deserve ten thousand times worse than whatever we get in life, and the only reason we are able to breathe the air and drink the water and live another minute is God's grace to undeserving wicked sinners. Jonathan Edward's famous sermon illustration of the loathsome spider being held over a fire by a thin thread which could be snapped at any moment is an accurate example of how Reformed theology views the unregenerate nature of mankind. Total depravity really **IS** total, and that teaching has consequences for the rest of life.
If one starts with the twin doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election, the rest of Reformed doctrine falls into place. It leads not to fatalism — i.e., “whatever will be, will happen anyway” — but rather saying that because we are sinners who deserve damnation, we are supposed to respond in gratitude for our undeserved salvation.
I realize this is far away from the original topic of the post. But I sense you are asking a sincere question, and I want to answer it.
I'm PINGing Nobdysfool, Gamecock, Alex Murphy, and PieterCasparzen from the Great Reformed Ping List, as well as Springfield Reformer, not because I want to derail the thread, but rather because most of them are more active Freepers than I am and I think they may be better equipped to answer further questions on this, perhaps via a new thread in a different forum.
I sincerely hope this helps, Rusty.
First, as the original topic title said, “Christians have abandoned politics. And millions are DYING because of it.”
Rusty is dealing with people in his own church who are advocating aberrant views and saying it is somehow un-Reformed or sub-Christian to be involved in politics. That teaching truly **IS** dangerous and needs to be refuted.
Second, I believe it is possible to refute that false teaching without getting into the broader Calvinist-Arminian conflict. These people in Rusty's church call themselves Calvinists but they apparently are advocating things which have no foundation whatsoever in the Reformed faith.
To get into a Calvinist-Arminian conflict would be derailing this thread. I hope nobody will do that.
But I do think it is both appropriate and important to make clear that people who call themselves Calvinists and want Christians to exit from politics can claim no support from historic Calvinism.
Your patience with my post will be appreciated. And I agree that if this subject gets into details of theology, a new thread needs to be started on the religion forums. I'm up to my arms in alligators and I simply do not have the time such a discussion would require and which it would deserve.
Re: “If one starts with the twin doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election, the rest of Reformed doctrine falls into place. It leads not to fatalism — i.e., “whatever will be, will happen anyway” — but rather saying that because we are sinners who deserve damnation, we are supposed to respond in gratitude for our undeserved salvation.”
I appreciate your sincere and genuine attempt to reconcile for me that Calvinism is not fatalism , but I still do not see the difference.
When you say,”because we are sinners who deserve damnation (which I agree with), we are supposed to respond in gratitude. . .” - isn’t it God who produces the “responding” in us? And, isn’t it God who produces the non-responding in those whom He has chosen for damnation according to His will? We have no ability to change or alter God’s will, we have no ability to respond or not respond outside of God’s ordained purpose and call - right?
It is God who “determines” all outcomes - it is He the produces the gratitude, the courage, the love, the hardness of heart, the unwillingness to believe - so how is this not fatalism or determinism? The only difference is that God does all the determining outside of any act we may or may not do - it is He that ordains any and all acts we “do” or “don’t” do. There is, in reality, no human will outside of God’s ordained will. I just do not see how Calvinsim avoids this fatalistic viewpoint. My denomination is Southern Baptist, by the way. I attended seminary back in the 1970s and have been both part-time and full-time in music ministry. That doesn’t make me an expert, just giving some background.
The Calvinistic viewpoint is distressing to me for the reasons I mentioned above. I very nearly lost a longtime friendship over this issue until we just decided not to discuss it anymore. I have dear Christian brothers and sisters who call themselves Reformed Calvinists and I am only relaying to you what they have said to me. You may very well be correct that they are mistaken, but not being an expert on Calvinism myself, I really don’t know.
We should, of course, just prove the answers to our questions directly from the Bible.
Though Jean Calvin was a great scholar, and I’m partly descended from Huguenots, I’m not a Calvinist, I’m a Christian.
We should read up on the dominion mandate and the Great Commission.
If we have a good understanding of those things and apply some sound reasoning, we see that we should be not only participating in life, but leading to the extent that we are blessed to be able to come into leadership positions. Leaders don’t come into leadership positions by hanging back. In any case, of course, we should always be living as examples, i.e., salt and light.
Please let me know if you need more info on Great Commission / dominion mandate. Reformed Christians should not be on the sidelines of life.
Why has Satan made such advances in America over the last two centuries ? He has some wealthy powerful people working as leaders of his minions, and they have stepped in and acquired power - because... Christians first rejected the true Gospel message, thus have rejected Christ. This apostasy started in the late 18th/early 19th century and has steadily gotten worse, and as it did, more and more evil people in America became more and more powerful and hatched schemes that became increasingly diabolical.
Re: “As far as we can sense - we have our own minds, we have the freedom to say and do as we please. We thus are responsible for our own actions or lack thereof.”
But, that isn’t really the case is it? We really do not have “freedom” to do as we please.
Re: “It’s childish of us to make excuses for what we want to do or not do and feebly attempt to blame God for our own wrongdoings.”
Childishness or blaming God or any other verb ascribed to human behavior is meaningless according to Calvinism - whatever we do or don’t do has been ordained by God according to His sovereign will.
Re: “We have God’s Word being preached and published. We have it available to us. THUS: we have no excuse for not accepting it as true, and repenting before God of our sins, availing ourselves of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.”
But, we cannot “accept” or “repent” unless God permits it. Salvation has nothing to do with us, we cannot resist it nor receive it without God’s sovereign choice. There is no human will.
And, this brings up something that puzzles me - how do WE know that we are one of the chosen? How do we really know whether we are saved or not? Just because we THINK we believe? Because we THINK Jesus is God’s Son? Remember that the scripture says that even Satan and his demons “believe” in God - yet are not saved. It does not matter what we think we believe or feel we believe - our thoughts and emotions can be very deceptive - so what assurance do we have that we are really saved? We cannot depend on our own thoughts as being from God - we are so depraved that all of our thoughts are suspect.
Further. When we talk with our children or our friends, how can we honestly tell them that God loves them when WE don’t know if they are one of God’s chosen for salvation or one of those whom God will reserve for damnation? How do we know?
You are asking some very good questions about the difference between Calvinism and fatalism. I sense that some of the people who were PINGed by me on this will take up your questions and will probably do a better job.
My primary concern here is not to defend Reformed doctrine — that's not the topic of this post — but rather to make clear that a person who says he's a Calvinist and cites his Calvinism as grounds for somehow abstaining from participation in politics has come to a position which has no basis whatsoever in Reformed history.
That's why confessions are important. If I want to know what the Reformed faith teaches about something, I should check what the historic confessions teach on that issue and look up the Scripture proofs they cite.
I am quite aware there are nuances of difference between the major Reformed “families.” The Dutch Reformed, the Anglo-American Presbyterian tradition, the Puritan tradition of Reformed Congregationalism, and the Particular Baptist tradition which has been embraced by the Founders movement within your own denomination are not identical on all points.
But rejection of political involvement as being somehow incompatible with a Reformed view of divine sovereignty is utterly foreign to Reformed theology. It's not what Calvin taught, it's not what Knox taught, it's not what Owen or Cromwell taught, it's not what Kuyper taught, and it certainly is not what any of them practiced.
I'm trying to be gracious to people whose views I have not heard firsthand. But based on what you have described, these people seem to have completely misunderstood some important parts of what it means to be Reformed.
My guess — and without hearing them directly this is only a guess — is that these people were some sort of world-flight pietists before they became Reformed, and after they became Reformed, they accepted the Five Points of Calvinism without realizing that being Reformed is much more than just the Five Points. Or maybe they were in a highly politicized church which placed culture wars before sound doctrine, and when they became Reformed they failed to comprehend that Christianity is supposed to be lived seven days a week, not just one day.
What counts for my purpose here is to say, with respect, that these people in your church are doing no favors for the doctrines they defend if they cause people like you to believe Calvinism leads to a withdrawal from the world.
There are people out there who advocate a world-flight mentality. Most make no claim to be Reformed. Any who do make such a claim have to deal with the plain and simple historical fact that nearly all Calvinists have taken the opposite approach.
I hope this helps, Rusty. Others may and probably will respond to you on the question of whether Reformed doctrine is right or wrong. My concern is not so much to argue the question, but rather to say these people in your church have wrongly understood what it means to be Reformed, and they really ought to spend more time reading Reformed history and theology before presenting themselves in ways that bring discredit on the doctrines they seek to defend.
I don't have the time to do this justice, and there are others who are more active Freepers and can do a job which will be at least as good and probably better than I can do.
Rusty, I do not know you personally, but based on what you have written, I believe your questions are sincere. I've watched enough Calvinist-Arminian debates to tell when someone is asking real questions and when they're just trying to “score points.”
Also, I know your questions are important, and as is always the case with these online discussions, others are watching and listening who don't speak up but have the same questions.
For that reason, I trust you will accept my response not as “ducking” questions, but rather as saying they deserve to be answered by people who have the time to answer them properly. I am not in the habit of doing things halfway, and I'm the wrong person. Starting things I can't see through to their conclusion is not following Christ's warnings in Luke 14:38-30 about counting the cost before beginning a project, and a theological debate on this issue, while it is clearly important, is not something I should be getting into now.
I wish you well in your music ministry and other aspects of your church work.
No problem, darrellmaurina. I really appreciate that our discussion stayed on a friendly and Christ honoring level. I pray, too, that your ministry and church also continues to serve our Lord. Our first priority as believers is to love, serve. and honr Christ and proclaim His Gospel as best we can. Though we may not have all the answers, we know that all truth originates in God. And, His Word will reveal all truth and serve His good purpose.
God bless you.
Ephesians 1
“3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”
To get into a Calvinist-Arminian conflict would be derailing this thread. I hope nobody will do that.
Darrell, as you noted, this thread is about how many Christians have abandoned politics (or, more precisely, adopted a perverted belief system that they call Christianity, but is actually leftist moral relativism with Sunday morning meetings).
As a Catholic I obviously have issues with certain tenets of both Calvinism and Arminianism, but love adherents of both as fellow Christians. I am familiar with the doctrinal disputes among the Reformed, but I have nowhere near the level of understanding of the others pinged. I don't mind you debating this, though the moderators may move the thread.
Rusty is dealing with people in his own church who are advocating aberrant views and saying it is somehow un-Reformed or sub-Christian to be involved in politics. That teaching truly **IS** dangerous and needs to be refuted.
I believe that my faith should guide my political beliefs, not the other way around.
I believe, as a matter of faith, that abortion is a sin no matter what and I cannot accept as Christian any church which teaches otherwise.
I believe, as a matter of faith, that engaging in homosexuality is a sin no matter what and I cannot accept as Christian any church which teaches otherwise.
What I see today are far too many people who have succumbed to moral relativism and found a group of like-minded people who share their satanic beliefs, meet on Sundays and falsely label themselves Christians.
Actually only a few of our criminal statutes are based on the decalogue. And none of those are based on the first five and none are based on the last one. Other than murder, adultery, stealing and beating false witness, none of the commandments have been incorporated into the common law penal codes. Adultery has been removed from all criminal codes, so there are only 3 commandments that remain the basis for our criminal codes. There are millions of laws that are not based on anything other than the whims of politicians over the centuries. And those politicians all tend to violate the 9th commandment every time they open their mouths.
http://www.reformedprolifer.com/about-us/jonathon-van-maren
For those who don't know, the Netherlands Reformed Congregations are about as strictly hard-core Calvinist as you can get. This is the American wing of the Dutch denomination which back in the early 1900s thought Abraham Kuyper wasn't politically conservative enough. On theological matters, their Puritan piety would be familiar to Jonathan Edwards but their ecclesiastical practices are quite a bit stricter than what Edwards practiced or advocated.
I trust that biography makes pretty clear that, at least for the author of the article we're discussing, being Reformed is in no way contrary to political activism.
Back to lurking...
A comment needs to be made about Jonathon Van Maren's reference to “many” being uncomfortable with pro-life activism. That needs to be understood in the context of some pretty militant stances Van Maren has taken — public displays of graphic images of aborted babies, for example — and the fact that his own denomination does have an element within it which draws accusations of “hypercalvinism.” I think Van Maren’s article, though it is written with his own denominational context in mind, may be of use to Rusty in giving to the members of his church who oppose political activism on supposedly Reformed grounds.
No matter how strict the Reformed members of Rusty's church may be, as members of a Baptist church, unless they are “hardshell Baptists” or “Primitive Baptists,” they are not going to be anywhere near as strict in their Calvinism as the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. So maybe Van Maren’s article will help them “see the light” on this matter of political activism from a Reformed perspective.
_____
http://www.reformedprolifer.com/pro-life-activism/item/the-reformed-case-for-pro-life-action
The Reformed Case for Pro-Life Action
Written by Jonathon Van Maren on Saturday, 26 November 2011.
We live in a culture where openly sinful behaviours are increasingly becoming the norm while opposing them is labelled “judgemental.” It is therefore good to consider whether or not those who hold to objective Christian principles are morally obligated to act out in defence of Christian beliefs. Of the many public sins that plague North America, abortion, the decapitation, dismemberment and disembowelment of unborn children throughout all nine months of pregnancy by the millions is undoubtedly the most horrific—and the most prevalent. (Example: At least 25 percent of unborn children are slaughtered every single year.)
The idea of public pro-life action, however, seems foreign and somehow “un-Reformed” to many. While it can safely be assumed that none of us would at least openly claim to be pro-abortion, many find themselves ill at ease with decisive action on behalf of the unborn. Here I do not refer to good pro-life events such as “Walks for Life” etc., but rather witnessing on behalf of the unborn children to the public at large—actions that will directly save the lives of children and will also involve contact with non-Christians. After examining the Bible and our Reformed heritage, however, it becomes very clear that speaking out to defend the Christian idea that all life is sacred is one that is not only encouraged, but demanded.
What does the Bible Say?
Reformed people are generally quite familiar with the Bible verses confirming the child in the womb as a human created in God’s image. (See Isaiah 46:3-5, Psalm 127:3-5, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 119: 73, Luke 1:41-42 etc.) In contrast, consider how God speaks in Scripture of the sin of child sacrifice, of which abortion is a clear form. While ancient people sacrificed their children to Molech, we sacrifice our children on the altar of our own lusts, ambitions, pleasure, or convenience. In Jeremiah 7:31, after decrying the wickedness of the people, the prophet writes: “And they have built the high places of Tophet…to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart.” The act of child sacrifice, whether in ancient or modern times, is so evil that it never even entered God’s mind that people could do this to their offspring. God further condemns this sin in many places in the Bible—see Deuteronomy 12:31, Ezekiel 16:20-43, Psalm 106:37-42 and Jeremiah 19:3-11.
The Bible clearly confirms the unborn child as a human being requiring protection, and condemns child sacrifice in the harshest terms. At the same time it demands that we intervene on the behalf of the helpless. Jesus commanded His followers to love their neighbour, which by the biblical definition of human life unquestionably includes unborn children. Consider also the Good Samaritan, who helped the wounded man regardless of the sacrifice and inconvenience towards himself, while the religious people of the day walked on by. The most explicit command God gives us to intervene on behalf of the helpless is found in Proverbs 24:11-12. There He states: “If thou forebear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? Doth he not know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?”
These texts from Scripture show us that abortion is not only evil, but also that sacrificing children to the idol of one’s own lust is considered to be an especially grave evil, and one which God is not willing to tolerate. It is impossible to deny that children are being brutally slaughtered in North America. It is equally true that we cannot pretend that we are ignorant of this fact. The Bible clearly states that we have a duty to protect our unborn neighbours—and that God will judge nations and peoples who “forbear” from this duty. The question is: are we willing to do so publicly?
What does our Reformed Heritage say?
Both John Calvin and Martin Luther, who were unquestionably the “radicals” of their day, spoke out against abortion specifically. Luther commented on the greatness of “the wickedness of human nature” that would cause people to “kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God.” John Calvin stated in his commentary on Exodus that “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”
Is there, however, precedent among our forefathers for action which takes us into contact with the world at large, using avenues that fall outside of the Christian community? The answer to this question is an emphatic yes. While a careful examination of our past reveals that the majority of our most esteemed forefathers were willing to face the outside culture—Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, to name the most obvious ones—the writings and actions of our forebears also show that taking action against worldly public sins is not only right, but required. The idea that speaking out publicly against murder is somehow “un-Reformed” would have been very foreign to these men.
Reverend John Newton was a proponent of public advocacy as well. After his conversion, the former slave trader wrote many hymns such as “Amazing Grace” and an autobiography entitled Out of the Depths, but also encouraged others to take action against sinful injustices against the weakest members of society in the public sphere. William Wilberforce, the British Parliamentarian who spent his whole life crusading against (and eventually abolishing) slavery, was one of them. He approached Rev. Newton at the age of 26 to explain that he had undergone a religious conversion and felt he should perhaps leave politics. Instead of giving his blessing, John Newton urged him not to leave politics—but rather to use his position in Parliament to fight against evil. It was Rev. Newton who urged Wilberforce to take up the fight against slavery, and even assisted him by testifying against the slave trade in front of Parliament. Both Newton and Wilberforce knew it as a Christian’s duty to take decisive action, against all opposition, on behalf of the weakest members of society.
The founder of the NRC denomination, Rev. G.H Kersten, also advocated against ‘putting our candle under a bushel,’ but rather to fight for Christian principles in the public square. He said that “there is a withdrawal from the world, non-involvement in politics, and a lack of Christian schools. Thus we are going further and further astray.” His well-known biography by Rev. Golverdingen states that Rev. Kersten himself felt drawn into politics because “he could not resign himself to the passivity he observed in the congregations.” Rev. Golverdingen notes that “Rev. Kersten also berated the indecisiveness and indifference toward national interest by some members of his own circles,” even preaching a sermon where he compared those who refused to defend Christian principles in the public square to the tribe of Reuben refusing to join Deborah in going to battle against Sisera and the Canaanites. As we know, Rev. Kersten himself eventually became a politician in order to defend Reformed principles in the public sphere.
To close, I note how J.C Ryle deals with Christian interaction with the world in his well-read work Practical Religion. Ryle states: “When St. Paul said, ‘Come out and be separate’, he did not mean that Christians ought to decline all intercourse with unconverted people, and refuse to go into their society. There is not warrant for such conduct in the New Testament.” He further noted: “To know nothing about what is going on among mankind, and never to look at a newspaper,—to care nothing about the government of one’s country, and to be utterly indifferent as to the persons who guide its counsels and make its laws—all this may seem very right and proper in the eyes of some people. But I take leave to think that is an idle, selfish neglect of duty…Christians who plume themselves on their ignorance of secular things are precisely the Christians who bring religion into contempt.”
Defending the Sanctity of Life
It seems that there is an increasingly prevalent attitude among Christians that it is somehow wrong to ‘offend’ people, and that since pro-life activism will inevitably offend people, it should therefore be avoided. First, I must point out that a message that involves telling the culture at large that they are murdering their children isn’t going to be popular. If it was, we wouldn’t have the problem. Second, it is an extremely un-Christian and un-Reformed idea that just because our message of truth might not be welcomed by the world, and thus persecution may result, that we should avoid it. If Christians are so at peace with those who believe that killing unborn children is permissible that offending them is “un-Reformed”, it is perhaps necessary to take a second look at this unholy alliance and consider whether or not it is right in the eyes of God who values all life created in His image. If churches are indeed the consciences of nations, and those consciences have fallen silent, we can scarcely be surprised that things have gone horribly wrong.
The Bible demands that we protect our unborn neighbours. Our Reformed heritage shows us that our forbearers did not feel that it was in any way sinful to oppose evil in the public square. Abortion is the greatest evil in our society, an evil where the innocent blood of millions cries out for justice. We cannot withdraw ourselves from our biblical mandate laid out with such clarity in Scripture to protect unborn children with weak excuses that ignore the demands of Scripture and the examples and writings of our forefathers. Hence, Christian pro-life advocates should not have to defend their action. Apathetic Christians should have to defend their inaction.
FYI Darrell, I would very much prefer, as a Reformed Christian, to not be labeled as a Calvinist. He was just ONE of the Reformers, he was just a man. I would think many Reformed Christians would feel this way.
John Knox was a very important Reformer - why is no one called a Knoxite ? I think because anti-Reformed folks find more material on Calvin that they falsely use to attack the Reformation itself, using Calvin’s life and writings as a straw man in lieu of attacking the actual principles of the Reformation.
I do not play into that and call myself a Calvinist - because I’m not a Calvinist, I’m a Christian.
Reformed Christians do not blindly follow the views of ANY SINGLE Reformed preacher or scholar.
The Reformation was all about every Christian studying the Bible directly instead of blindly following the views of any one man. It certainly makes sense to read the writings of theologians such as Knox as a help to our personal study, but it’s obviously completely nonsensical to then label the Christian a Knoxite.
In the very few short years since my conversion, the only Bible commentary I have read much of is the Matthew Henry commentary, and even at that I have not read all of it. I guess then to some this would make me a Henryist. Sounds silly, right ?
Thank you for your posts on this thread.
To the reader / lurker:
There’s another much more fundamental point at work in this issue.
Abortion is happening on a massive scale in the US because so many Americans reject, oppose and hate Jesus Christ.
Unbelievers and believers are both fallen men, sinful, but the unbeliever is unregenerate - unrepentant. They therefore routinely commit grave sins. Given that all men are fallen, it is no surprise that depraved sins are committed by unbelievers. But for the Grace of God, believers would be doing the same things on much the same scale.
Thus the key element in stopping abortion is conversion of souls; spreading the Gospel message is the only real way to make a serious change, combined with fervent prayers to God that he draw more men to him and to belief in his Son, Jesus Christ.
Without Christian revival, there will be no significant, lasting reduction in wickedness.
Put plainly, amongst an unregenerate population who loves their lust of the flesh, calls for ceasing abortion will bring only hatred and mockery. Such activism is like trying to get Sodom to stop its perversions without spreading the Gospel. A wicked and perverse people will be wicked and perverse. Spread the Gospel, it will not be in vain. Teach people about the “whole counsel of God”, get them studying the WHOLE Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.