Comments on: Christians and Politics (Part 4) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:54:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John S http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-1267 John S Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:24:03 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-1267 Hi Puritan Lad, I read the article by Gary Demar; point well taken. "CASTING DOWN IMAGINATIONS, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" 2 Cor. 10:5. The word "imaginations" in the Greek is "logismos" meaning "reasoning." Any kind of reasoning opposed to the knowledge and obedience of Christ cannot be morality of any kind. The governemt makes civil laws but not moral laws. For example, killing is against the civil law. If it was a moral law, then we would have to read the "thoughts and intents" of the heart. Just hating your brother is murder according to the moral law of God. Therefore, we are only "imagining" when we say, as many do, and want to enforce, the moral law as the law of the land. Moral law and civil law are infinitely apart. Blessings Hi Puritan Lad,
I read the article by Gary Demar; point well taken. “CASTING DOWN IMAGINATIONS, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” 2 Cor. 10:5. The word “imaginations” in the Greek is “logismos” meaning “reasoning.” Any kind of reasoning opposed to the knowledge and obedience of Christ cannot be morality of any kind. The governemt makes civil laws but not moral laws.
For example, killing is against the civil law. If it was a moral law, then we would have to read the “thoughts and intents” of the heart. Just hating your brother is murder according to the moral law of God. Therefore, we are only “imagining” when we say, as many do, and want to enforce, the moral law as the law of the land. Moral law and civil law are infinitely apart. Blessings

]]> By: Puritan Lad http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-1253 Puritan Lad Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:54:16 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-1253 Gary Demar has written an excellent article dealing with this. "Conservatism Without God is Dead" http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/10-24-06.asp?vPrint=1 Gary Demar has written an excellent article dealing with this.

“Conservatism Without God is Dead”

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/10-24-06.asp?vPrint=1

]]> By: John Sheffield http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-1039 John Sheffield Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:02:16 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-1039 Dear Brian M. You wrote,"Christians on an individual level are responsible to vote and participate (Rom. 13) in the process as a good citizen. I don’t hear anyone saying we should forsake this responsibility." I agree with your premise to a certain point. There are issues to vote that do not involve a particular man/woman. However, should we ever vote for "the lesser of two evils?" In other words, should we vote for any person that is contrary to the word of God? For example, the war spirit, abortion, homosexual rights, more rights and tax breaks for the rich,the overwhelming favor of more bombs and missles vs. taking care of the less fortunate. The list of sins against God's law and kingdom go on and on. God's 10 commandments go much deeper and infinite than a set of rules. The list of corruption against God's kingdom effects both political parties. There were two groups in the days of Christ, the Pharisee's (conservative) and Sadducees (liberal). Both joined together to hang Christ on a cross. We need to think through this with much prayer when casting a ballot. Are we legislating sin? No political party has a claim on righteousness, this would be a very imature cartoonish approach that many have adopted because of "worldly influence." Through my study of God's word I have not found anywhere God has told me to vote. One's explanation or "meaning" of scripture does not mean that gives him or her final authority, that belongs to God alone. Often we misrepresent God by our very own meaning, instead of letting the scripture speak for itself. Brian, thanks for your input, perhaps would like to discuss this further. blessings in Christ, John covenant-promise@comcast.net Dear Brian M. You wrote,”Christians on an individual level are responsible to vote and participate (Rom. 13) in the process as a good citizen. I don’t hear anyone saying we should forsake this responsibility.”
I agree with your premise to a certain point. There are issues to vote that do not involve a particular man/woman. However, should we ever vote for “the lesser of two evils?” In other words, should we vote for any person that is contrary to the word of God?
For example, the war spirit, abortion, homosexual rights, more rights and tax breaks for the rich,the overwhelming favor of more bombs and missles vs. taking care of the less fortunate. The list of sins against God’s law and kingdom go on and on. God’s 10 commandments go much deeper and infinite than a set of rules.
The list of corruption against God’s kingdom effects both political parties. There were two groups in the days of Christ, the Pharisee’s (conservative) and Sadducees (liberal). Both joined together to hang Christ on a cross. We need to think through this with much prayer when casting a ballot. Are we legislating sin? No political party has a claim on righteousness, this would be a very imature cartoonish approach that many have adopted because of “worldly influence.”
Through my study of God’s word I have not found anywhere God has told me to vote. One’s explanation or “meaning” of scripture does not mean that gives him or her final authority, that belongs to God alone. Often we misrepresent God by our very own meaning, instead of letting the scripture speak for itself.
Brian, thanks for your input, perhaps would like to discuss this further. blessings in Christ, John covenant-promise@comcast.net

]]> By: John Sheffield http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-1037 John Sheffield Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:43:46 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-1037 An author over a century ago stated: "The kingdom of God comes not with outward show. The gospel of the grace of God, with its spirit of self-abnegation, can never be in harmony with the spirit of the world. The two principles are antagonistic. 'The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' 1 Cor. 2:14 But today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority....The establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ. They would have received Jesus, had He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His will and the agents of His authority. But He said, 'My kingdom is not of this world.' John 18:36. He would not accept the earthly throne. The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppresive; on every hand were crying abuses,--extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example kept aloof from earthly governments. Not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart. Not by the decisions of courts or councils or legislative assemblies, not by the patronage of worldy great men, is the kingdom of Christ established, but by the implanting of Christ's nature in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit. 'As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' John 1:12, 13. Here is the only power that can work the uplifting of mankind. And the human agency for the accomplishment of this work is the teaching and practicing of the word of God. ... Paul began his ministry in Corinth, that populous, wealthy, and wicked city, polluted by the nameless vices of heathenism, he said, 'I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.'" 1 Cor. 2:2 (EGW, The Desire of Ages, pp. 509, 510, Copyright, 1898). An author over a century ago stated: “The kingdom of God comes not with outward show. The gospel of the grace of God, with its spirit of self-abnegation, can never be in harmony with the spirit of the world. The two principles are antagonistic. ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ 1 Cor. 2:14
But today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority….The establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ. They would have received Jesus, had He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His will and the agents of His authority. But He said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world.’ John 18:36. He would not accept the earthly throne.
The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppresive; on every hand were crying abuses,–extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example kept aloof from earthly governments. Not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart.
Not by the decisions of courts or councils or legislative assemblies, not by the patronage of worldy great men, is the kingdom of Christ established, but by the implanting of Christ’s nature in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit. ‘As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’ John 1:12, 13. Here is the only power that can work the uplifting of mankind. And the human agency for the accomplishment of this work is the teaching and practicing of the word of God. … Paul began his ministry in Corinth, that populous, wealthy, and wicked city, polluted by the nameless vices of heathenism, he said, ‘I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.’” 1 Cor. 2:2 (EGW, The Desire of Ages, pp. 509, 510, Copyright, 1898).

]]> By: jsb http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-976 jsb Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:10:39 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-976 I'm largely in agreement w/John on this issue. The church has become too political and party oriented, it seems to me. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson wrote a book about that some time ago, Blinded by Might. OTOH, three positive goods for society (and surely God has clearly expressed his desire for collective justice in the prophets) have come about via Christian activism: abolition of slavery, civil rights and fewer abortions. Indeed, a faithful expositor of the Word could not come to Psalm 139, say, and not assert anything about the pro-life position. This would have to be part of the "application" side of preaching. Still, all this must be done with much wisdom. I am not in favor, for example, of political flyers in church bulletins, etc. I’m largely in agreement w/John on this issue. The church has become too political and party oriented, it seems to me. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson wrote a book about that some time ago, Blinded by Might.

OTOH, three positive goods for society (and surely God has clearly expressed his desire for collective justice in the prophets) have come about via Christian activism: abolition of slavery, civil rights and fewer abortions. Indeed, a faithful expositor of the Word could not come to Psalm 139, say, and not assert anything about the pro-life position. This would have to be part of the “application” side of preaching.

Still, all this must be done with much wisdom. I am not in favor, for example, of political flyers in church bulletins, etc.

]]> By: David http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-974 David Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:04:11 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-974 Debi's comment is hilarious. The whole point of these four postings is to focus on the lordship of Jesus - and not the "lordship" of the worlds way. It is unsuprising that some would rebel against Dr. M's words (which I agree as being our direction from the Bible). Too much of what passes for "Christian" World View Training wraps themselves in a pseudo patriotic, american flag waving, corporate capitalism, vote republican jihad Can I plug "Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcey at this time? It is not an "easy" read, but well worth the doing. Plus, she has a free study guide! Debi’s comment is hilarious. The whole point of these four postings is to focus on the lordship of Jesus – and not the “lordship” of the worlds way.

It is unsuprising that some would rebel against Dr. M’s words (which I agree as being our direction from the Bible). Too much of what passes for “Christian” World View Training wraps themselves in a pseudo patriotic, american flag waving, corporate capitalism, vote republican jihad

Can I plug “Total Truth” by Nancy Pearcey at this time?

It is not an “easy” read, but well worth the doing. Plus, she has a free study guide!

]]> By: D. Disney aka alyfireman http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-953 D. Disney aka alyfireman Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:58:49 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-953 Debi, Maybe you should go back and read part 3, the first pargraph says: My point is not that Christians should remain totally uninvolved in politics or civic activities and causes. They ought to express their political beliefs in the voting booth, and it is appropriate to support legitimate measures designed to correct a glaring social or political wrong. Complete noninvolvement would be contrary to what God’s Word says about doing good in society: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10; cf. Titus 3:1-2). It would also display a lack of gratitude for whatever amount of religious freedom the government allows us to enjoy. Furthermore, such pious apathy toward government and politics would reveal a lack of appreciation for the many appropriate legal remedies believers in democracies have for maintaining or improving the civil order. A certain amount of healthy and balanced concern with current trends in government and the community is acceptable, as long as we realize that that interest is not vital to our spiritual growth, our righteous testimony, or the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. Above all, the believer’s political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel. This is an issue I to have struggled with polical view, but thanks to an interview with Os Guinness, to which John MacArthur's views are similar to, I struggle with it less and less. Debi,

Maybe you should go back and read part 3, the first pargraph says:

My point is not that Christians should remain totally uninvolved in politics or civic activities and causes. They ought to express their political beliefs in the voting booth, and it is appropriate to support legitimate measures designed to correct a glaring social or political wrong. Complete noninvolvement would be contrary to what God’s Word says about doing good in society: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10; cf. Titus 3:1-2). It would also display a lack of gratitude for whatever amount of religious freedom the government allows us to enjoy. Furthermore, such pious apathy toward government and politics would reveal a lack of appreciation for the many appropriate legal remedies believers in democracies have for maintaining or improving the civil order. A certain amount of healthy and balanced concern with current trends in government and the community is acceptable, as long as we realize that that interest is not vital to our spiritual growth, our righteous testimony, or the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. Above all, the believer’s political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel.

This is an issue I to have struggled with polical view, but thanks to an interview with Os Guinness, to which John MacArthur’s views are similar to, I struggle with it less and less.

]]> By: Tim J. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-932 Tim J. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:25:21 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-932 Thank you Dr. MacArthur for shining the light of truth on the smoky back-room of political affiliations. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the true work of the Church suffers and is diluted when it makes alliances with a political or secular organization whereby it is coerced or duped into supporting people and policies which have no concern for the furtherance of the gospel other than receiving the votes of those who truly believe the gospel. Christian faith does not mandate membership in a politcal party or movement. It doesn't disallow it either but faith and politics are not synonymous just as the Church and America aren't. We can have allegiance to both but our eternal citizenship is in heaven. Thank you Dr. MacArthur for shining the light of truth on the smoky back-room of political affiliations. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the true work of the Church suffers and is diluted when it makes alliances with a political or secular organization whereby it is coerced or duped into supporting people and policies which have no concern for the furtherance of the gospel other than receiving the votes of those who truly believe the gospel.

Christian faith does not mandate membership in a politcal party or movement. It doesn’t disallow it either but faith and politics are not synonymous just as the Church and America aren’t. We can have allegiance to both but our eternal citizenship is in heaven.

]]> By: Brian M. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-927 Brian M. Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:55:16 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-927 Debi, Pastor MacArthur has never encouraged Christians to forsake their civic duties. Obviously, Romans 13 makes this responsibility clear to believers. I've heard Pastor John talk about this responsibility many times. The real question is "What is the purpose of the church?" The purpose of the church is not political. The purpose of the church is to worship God, equip the body etc. Christians on an individual level are responsible to vote and participate (Rom. 13) in the process as a good citizen. I don't hear anyone saying we should forsake this responsibility. When you talk about ramifications of Pastor MacArthur's premises, think about what ramifications have taken place because of the approach of "evangelicals" over the years. It's pretty clear that by using the church and the office of Pastor to promote politics, the world usually associates churches with "right wing politics." The unsaved world should think of compassionate people who exalt the Word and Jesus Christ! On your last question, not sure where you are going with that one. What part of the gospel would make a christian indifferent to any kind of abuse? Debi,

Pastor MacArthur has never encouraged Christians to forsake their civic duties. Obviously, Romans 13 makes this responsibility clear to believers. I’ve heard Pastor John talk about this responsibility many times. The real question is “What is the purpose of the church?” The purpose of the church is not political. The purpose of the church is to worship God, equip the body etc.

Christians on an individual level are responsible to vote and participate (Rom. 13) in the process as a good citizen. I don’t hear anyone saying we should forsake this responsibility.

When you talk about ramifications of Pastor MacArthur’s premises, think about what ramifications have taken place because of the approach of “evangelicals” over the years. It’s pretty clear that by using the church and the office of Pastor to promote politics, the world usually associates churches with “right wing politics.” The unsaved world should think of compassionate people who exalt the Word and Jesus Christ!

On your last question, not sure where you are going with that one. What part of the gospel would make a christian indifferent to any kind of abuse?

]]> By: Debi Chesson http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/comment-page-1/#comment-925 Debi Chesson Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:17:17 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/20/221/#comment-925 Interesting that you interrupt the series on Lordship Salvation to present a poltiical position. Is that in hopes of influencing the election by causing Christians to be confused about their civic duties and to sway them on issues regarding morality? Furthermore, you interrupt the series on politics to announce MacArthur's appearance on a political program to discuss a political issue, on which he does take political sides. And the guy (Sheldon) who supposedly was breaking all of MacArthur's political rules did not act in the ways this series charges he would act. It is not a sin to have political opinions, to be a politician, to be active in poltics, or to think that morality, virtue, honesty, integrity, and character matter even in the poltiical arena where no one will be saved from hell with or without it. Politics, like many things, is a noble calling. In America, some participation is even our duty before God. I have stuggled with this for a long time because of MacArthur. I couldn't see how someone who was so great on theology could be so off on politics. I figured it must be my fault. I desire to be in agreement with him and to support his gospel preaching efforts. But MacArthur seems completely unable to see his mischaracterizations or the ramification of some of his premises when he starts talking poltiics. I will ask one question and then I will leave you to your beliefs and never return. Does the gospel render us indifferent to child abuse? Too bad you ruined the Lordship series with this odd interruption. Interesting that you interrupt the series on Lordship Salvation to present a poltiical position. Is that in hopes of influencing the election by causing Christians to be confused about their civic duties and to sway them on issues regarding morality?

Furthermore, you interrupt the series on politics to announce MacArthur’s appearance on a political program to discuss a political issue, on which he does take political sides. And the guy (Sheldon) who supposedly was breaking all of MacArthur’s political rules did not act in the ways this series charges he would act.

It is not a sin to have political opinions, to be a politician, to be active in poltics, or to think that morality, virtue, honesty, integrity, and character matter even in the poltiical arena where no one will be saved from hell with or without it. Politics, like many things, is a noble calling. In America, some participation is even our duty before God.

I have stuggled with this for a long time because of MacArthur. I couldn’t see how someone who was so great on theology could be so off on politics. I figured it must be my fault. I desire to be in agreement with him and to support his gospel preaching efforts. But MacArthur seems completely unable to see his mischaracterizations or the ramification of some of his premises when he starts talking poltiics.

I will ask one question and then I will leave you to your beliefs and never return. Does the gospel render us indifferent to child abuse?

Too bad you ruined the Lordship series with this odd interruption.

]]>