promoting intelligent piety in the city of angels
typical for a theonomist to say
Thanks for the link.
Well...when my freedoms start to get taken away, I'll be there with the rest of the militia members, armed to the teeth telling those commies to "just try to take them away."Does that sound radical enough for you??
Okay, Robbie, but what's your righteous, alternative approach to the election? Or does righteousness matter in this sphere? Chuck
As a principled pluralitst... no it does not matter. At least not to the extent not to vote, forfeiting our right to political action. So I am not going to listen to my brother Spurgeon (or Ritchie) by not doing either. If you cannot in good conscience vote, then dont. For myself McCain is the most prolife candidate ever to be on the GOP ticket. Obama is the antithesis of that. I am a single issue voter to the core. Saying these things do I like big governments? No way. But I live in a country that has a big government, and I am not moving so I vote. Saying all these things I do not find scripture condemning me for my political activism.
"Principled" Pluralism would have us believe that idolatry is acceptable in the civil realm. In short, it is political polytheism. Psalm 2 does not sound like a pluralist manifesto to me; and if righteousness does not matter in this sphere, then why even bother protecting the unborn?To see how far Principled Pluralism departs from Reformed Politics,quit listening to latent antinomian idealogues like R. Scott Clark and others at Westminister Seminary, and start reading the Puritans and Covenanters.
I believe Christianity favors the separation of church and state as Hart puts it. The church has no say in the civil realm except through the Christian's vote. (in the USA's political system). So on that note I will continue to listen to Clark and other brothers. And you are right principled pluralism allows idolatry at the civil level. I knew that when I called myself a principled pluralist...
You are right that the Church should not run the State, but what does that have to do with the State submitting to Christ.Personally, I would not give antinomians like RSC the time of day on this issue; they are leading the nations into apostasy rather than calling them to righteousness.
Ps 72.10,11: Specific earthly kings, as kings, are to serve Jesus Christ--Him who said "All authority in Heaven and on EARTH has been given to Me."And who said anything about not voting? I'm going to vote, just not for McBama.Chuck
Clark and CO. @ WSC are far from antinomians. BY you identifying them as such reveals you do not know the label you are giving them. Should the state submit to Christ? Yes. But the question is how. Even if a state does not it is far from sinful to engage in voting and other political practices. Even on the great occasion that a saint is in office the Scriptures have little to say about state gov'ts in the New Cov't. How is a monarchy, republic, democracy, etc, to do so in a way that glorifies God? Is it wrong for the state to care for the poor and others (like the democrats say).. no, for the Bible commands such endeavors.
Actually they are SOCIAL antinomians, not personal antinomians. They are NOT really Reformed, but more like Lutherans.I never said it was sinful to vote, I only said it was sinful to vote for ungodly candidates. The Scriptures have little to say in the New Covenant about statecraft, because the matter has largely been dealt with in the OT. Moreover, caring for the poor is NOT the job of the civil government but of the Church and family. Latent antinomian, principled pluralists are really just promoting the Messianic State by their failure to adopt a Christian view of the State, and their failure to submit to Biblical civil law.
Robbie wrote:Is it wrong for the state to care for the poor and others (like the democrats say).. no, for the Bible commands such endeavorsWho's the theonomist now? You're just a left wing variety.
I thought the State has a responsibility to care for its citizens? If not, what is the State's responsibility to its citizens? Towards the poor, homeless, destitute, orphan, widow, and etc? Yet that is not to disregard the Church's role towards such either. The Presbyterians of old, not modern Recons, promoted a separation of roles between the Church and State, each doing its duty according to its call without infringing upon one another. Yet there is some overlap in the care of people.Why do some try to take this away from either the Church or the State? It is not liberalism to care for the poor and hungry. Why call it a social gospel? We as Reformed folk need to reclaim this aspect of ministry. Did not the Reformers of old feed the hungry and clothe the naked? I think so. But to call for that today, one is quickly labeled a Liberal Christian promoting the Social Gospel. WHY???Nor is it republicanism to seek private property and personal wealth. Such are not condemned in Scripture. So it would be unfair to state that such cannot have a desire to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.I dislike both the Democratic and Republican parties for their false views concerning government and stewardship of the people and etc. I cannot vote for men who deny the Gospel. Does that make me a sinner, I don't think so. But I cannot call someone a sinner for voting for such men either, as I view it as a personal case of conscience.I also cannot condone pluralism of religion within the land. Such is an antithesis to the One True God and His revealed Word.So why do some Christians call for pluralism. Does not make Biblical sense to me. It is almost like restraining the Gospel in fear of removing our panorama of religions.
EdgarThe state protects people by punishing criminals as defined by God, establishing the church, and waging just defensive war. It is NOT the state's job to provide welfare. State welfare does not help the poor - I used to work in a Social Security Office so I know first hand - instead it enslaves them to the state. Moreover, how does the state finance such welfare except by stealing from the rich through oppressive taxation. This is where I believe that modern Reconstructionists have improved on the Reformers and Puritans. The former put too much trust in princes.
Post a Comment