I'm bitterly disappointed, for the record, that I can't in good conscience call myself part of "worldwide Calvinist leadership". God grant that someday I could get there.
.
.
.
.
.
That's a joke. I was kidding.
Anyway, it turns out that after I posted my last comment, Matt Baroni deleted the thread. Pray for him.
Matt El Dominicano Baroni But look how the Calvinists have ignored the sins in their corner, never renouncing them, but only providing a defense when ignorance proves unfashionable. As far as history is concerned, the leadership of this denomination has never apologized for their racism, segregation, antisemitism (e.g., Brown's "Our Hands Are Stained With Blood"), and other such evils.
Mark Phillips Mike, here is the best TULIP Vaccine I know of; do get a copy, and encourage others to do likewise: http://www.amazon.com/Gods.../dp/B00GSAEDM2/ref=cm_cr-mr-img
Rho Logy \\But look how the Calvinists have ignored the sins in their corner, never renouncing them, but only providing a defense when ignorance proves unfashionable. \\
I am a Calvinist, and I will happily renounce the sins in "my" corner! HAPPILY.
Mark Driscoll needs to repent of his pornovisions and his plagiarism.
John MacArthur needs to repent of his misrepresentations of charismatics during the SF conference (such as "where are the charismatic hospitals?") and his apathy about abortion.
Sam Storms needs to repent of many of the same things of which Dr Brown needs to repent.
What other things did you have in mind? I'm serious.
It is a logical fallacy, and unholy behavior, to defend against justified calls to repentance with "well, YOU'RE doing wrong too!" You should repent of that, Matt Baroni.- Rho Logy Mark Phillips, does that book promote Open Theism? It says it profoundly influenced Greg Boyd. That ought to worry you.
- Rho Logy \\the leadership of this denomination has never apologized for their racism, segregation, antisemitism (e.g., Brown's "Our Hands Are Stained With Blood"), and other such evils.\\
John MacA is not part of a denomination. Could you please be more specific? 
Matt El Dominicano Baroni "I am a Calvinist, and I will happily renounce the sins in "my" corner! HAPPILY. "
You're part of the worldwide leadership, Mr. Logy? Since when have the Calvinists formed a conference to call out the sins of their founders? Where was the call for repentance from anti-semitism and other forms of racism within that denomination?- Matt El Dominicano Baroni At least the Southern Baptists attempted to do some amends, if only on the surface >>>
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amresolution.asp?id=899
I have to add that this is just scratching the surface. - Matt El Dominicano Baroni But apparently there was no repentance judging from the clarion call of this pastor >>> http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/.../black-southern...
The question is: when will the Calvinists own up to the grave sins of its own denomination? Is it because they are too busy snooping around the dirty laundry of others? - Rho Logy No, I'm not part of worldwide leadership. There is no worldwide leadership of Calvinists. There are numerous different Calvinist churches and organisations.
\\Since when have the Calvinists formed a conference to call out the sins of their founders?\\
Which sins, of which founders?
What would be a problem is if Calvinists defended those sins unjustifiably. Much like Dr Brown does about his appearance on Hinn's show.
But since there is no "worldwide Calvinist leadership", it's unclear what you're after here. Are you sure you're not trying to divert attention from Dr Brown's sin?
\\when will the Calvinists own up to the grave sins of its own denomination?\\
YES. I AM WILLING TO DO THAT.
But you apparently mean that "worldwide Calvinist leadership" has to do it. And since that doesn't exist, you'll be waiting a while.
\\Is it because they are too busy snooping around the dirty laundry of others?\\
1) Calling Dr Brown to repent is out of LOVE FOR HIM AND THOSE WHO LISTEN TO HIM. It's not "snooping". Dr Brown did it and announced it to everyone.
2) If the laundry is dirty, JUST REPENT OF IT.
Do you even know the Gospel? Do you love it? - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "There is no worldwide leadership of Calvinists"
So how do Calvinists address past and present sins as the Southern Baptists have done? It didn't stop ministers like MacArthur from throwing light on the sins of others. - Rho Logy \\how do Calvinists address past and present sins\\
I'm not all Calvinists. I'll tell you that the NT tells us to repent individually and as local churches of things of which we are guilty.
\\ It didn't stop ministers like MacArthur from throwing light on the sins of others. \\
Of course not, b/c to keep silent about the gross sins of charismatics would have been unloving, which would have ADDED to whatever sins of which they need to repent anyway.
Matt, are you a follower of Jesus? - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "Which sins, of which founders?"
Oh, there are plenty. Where shall we begin? Let's start with Calvinists' wanton persecution, torture and murder of Anabaptists. We can then proceed to lynchings in the cessationist "Bible Belt"; apartheid in South Africa; segregation and racism in the rest of the U.S.; genocide in Rwanda; witch huntings and burnings in the colonies, and so forth and so on. - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "I'm not all Calvinists"
But you just wrote that you were. What is going on here? - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "to keep silent about the gross sins of charismatics"
How about concentrating on the sins of your house first before you start cleaning that of others. We could add hypocrisy to the list of sins of the Calvinists. - Rho Logy \\ Let's start with Calvinists' wanton persecution, torture and murder of Anabaptists.\\
Being a Baptist myself, I agree.
However, the people who did that are all dead. It's gonna be hard to get them to apologise.
\\We can then proceed to lynchings in the cessationist "Bible Belt"\\
Ummmm you want to blame lynching on Calvinism and/or cessationism? I was thinking racism and plain ol' lack of love would be a better candidate.
\\apartheid in South Africa\\
1) Apartheid was far from all bad.
2) And on what basis do you blame apartheid on Calvinists and/or cessationists? Just b/c they were Dutch? Get real.
\\genocide in Rwanda\\
Obviously attribuable to intertribal racism. This is becoming a joke.
\\ witch huntings and burnings in the colonies\\
A story whose scope has been way overblown in intervening years. Besides, remember how the OT prescribes the death penalty for witchcraft? That's how the colonies chose to penalise that perversion. Who are you to tell them they did the wrong thing? (Not that I am down with executing someone based on faulty or single-person testimony, IF that happened.)
However, the people who did that are all dead. It's gonna be hard to get them to apologise.
\\"I'm not all Calvinists"
But you just wrote that you were. What is going on here?\\
What's going on here is probably that you're too emotional and sloppy to read carefully.
See the "all" and the "s" there? I'm not ALL CalvinistS. I will certainly affirm that all my intellectual and spiritual forebears were sinners. Is that what you want?
\\How about concentrating on the sins of your house first before you start cleaning that of others.\\
1) I do concentrate on it. Let me recommend you check out www.churchrepent.com
I wrote a great deal of that site.
2) It's not loving for me to NOT point out errors and sins in brethren and professing brethren when I see it. If we have to wait until we're perfect before helping others see their sin, we'll be waiting forever. What YOU should do is humbly recognise the sin, acknowledge it, confess it, repent of it, help others do the same, AND help me with mine. You can do both.
But only if you love the Gospel.
Are you a follower of Jesus? Where is your biblical worldview?
\\We could add hypocrisy to the list of sins of the Calvinists. \\
Duh, of course we could. Look hard enough at any group of people and you'll find some hypocrisy.
You're acting strange. Seriously, are you a follower of Jesus?
churchrepent.com
WHO GIVES US THE RIGHT?Who Authorized Us?PROTESTING "CHURCHES"?Are We Attacking ...See More - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "the people who did that are all dead. It's gonna be hard to get them to apologise."
What about holding the name "Calvinist" which is offensive as it gives adulation to a man and a movement that represented such unchristian violence? And why then, if your proposition is valid, should the Southern Baptists apologize for the racism of its antecessors? - Rho Logy \\What about holding the name "Calvinist" which is offensive as it gives adulation to a man\\
Arminian. Pelagian. Methodist. Wesleyan.
You're just avoiding the issues I've raised, the challenges I've forwarded, and the answers I've given. You're a moving target. You don't seem to care about truth.
I use the label "Calvinist" to describe my soteriology because it is well-known. Not b/c I don't think Calvin was a sinner or b/c I think he was perfect. He was a redeemed sinner. Don't be like that. It's not fair.
\\represented such unchristian violence\\
http://www.aomin.org/.../18/calvin-and-servetus-revisited/
\\should the Southern Baptists apologize for the racism of its antecessors?\\
They shouldn't but it doesn't hurt to REPUDIATE EXPLICITLY the beliefs of their predecessors. Which is not the same thing.
SBC pastors should apologise, repent of, and work feverishly to destroy the racism that STILL EXISTS in the SBC and to which they have turned a blind eye.
www.aomin.org
A recent letter asks: Do you know if Calvin really wanted Servetus put to death?...See More - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "Ummmm you want to blame lynching on Calvinism and/or cessationism?"
It's not about me blaming anything. It is a historical fact that lynchings were going on in the Bible Belt, right in the middle of the Mecca of traditional, mainstream US American churches, which is where there has been a high concentration of "reformed" (read Calvinist) and baptist churches. The facts do the blaming themselves. And yes, given that the members of these churches were not filled with the love and power of the Holy Spirit, they were cessationist to the core. They did nothing different than what their spiritual grandparents did before them in their blood-thirsty persecution of people who differed with them. It all falls under the same category. As of yet, there has been no call for repentance. - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "You're just avoiding the issues I've raised"
You think so? So the facts I've related don't matter? They have no relevance to the call of repentance that you are so desperately preaching on others? - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "I use the label "Calvinist" to describe my soteriology"
The main tenet of Calvinism is a doctrine of demons, for it fanned the malevolent flames of persecution and the vice of pharisaical pride and egotism. Calvin and his followers saw themselves as predestined for heaven and the people they tormented as predestined for damnation and therefore felt justified in committing such evils since human lives were already sorted out according to their warped thinking. If heresy was a damnable offense that would send you to hell, and the early Calvinists knew this when they were killing the "heretics," it is then plainly obvious that these persecutors believed the offenders were already destined for hell because they were seen as unreconcilable and unredeemable. Isn't it sad? Would the Apostles even do such a thing? Perhaps this can explain why a staunch Calvinist like MacArthur does not want to meet Brown for discussion and debate of the issues. 
Patrick Porter John MacArthur would NEVER debate Dr. Brown because Cessasionists have no biblical stance to stand on- Matt El Dominicano Baroni "Obviously attribuable to intertribal racism. This is becoming a joke. "
It looks like you are not aware of all the intricacies of the Rwandan genocide. Close to a million people were slaughtered in that country, and some of them right in front of churches that were not charismatic or of the supposedly non-heretical stock that are the Calvinists. Many families of the fallen victims converted to the Muslim religion because of the cowardice, cold-heartedness, and powerlessness they saw in these churches. The same behavior can be seen in the history of Nazi Germany when Holy-Spirit-Empty pastors bowed down to the evil empire. - Rho Logy \\The facts do the blaming themselves.\\
Lynchings are certainly awful. But you're not showing how it's relevant to Calvinism or cessationism, which was your original contention.
\\given that the members of these churches were not filled with the love and power of the Holy Spirit, they were cessationist to the core\\
That's a strawman and a misuse of language.
Charismatics are sinners too and there are fake believers in charismatic churches all over the place, like Benny Hinn!
What you need to do is show why these events are to be connected logically to the doctrine of cessationism, not say that the people who did them didn't speak in tongues. that doesn't make any sense.
\\there has been no call for repentance.\\
Abolitionists called them to repentance back then!
And I am an abolitionist of this modern age. MY forebears did that. And were persecuted for it by the good church people who just wanted their comfort.
But as for calls for repentance TODAY, all the people who did those lynchings are dead. It's too late for anyone to repent of those events.
\\So the facts I've related don't matter?\\
Matt, come on. I've ANSWERED all your facts. They DO matter, which is why I have challenged your INTERPRETATION of them.
\\The main tenet of Calvinism is a doctrine of demons, for it fanned the malevolent flames of persecution and the vice of pharisaical pride and egotism.\\
Now you've successfully gotten my eyes rolling.
Whom were the Calvinists persecuting? Roman Catholics? Non-Trinitarians?
How does a system that affirms the TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN feed egotism and pride, again?
\\and therefore felt justified in committing such evils\\
What evils?
How do you know that's the connection? Show it with your no doubt brillian historical analysis.
\\early Calvinists knew this when they were killing the "heretics,"\\
Who are these early heretics whom the Calvinists killed?
\\Would the Apostles even do such a thing?\\
You're asking whether the apostles would follow the OT Mosaic Law if they were in a position to do so, in governmental power and seeking to institute a righteous governmental policy?
I daresay they would indeed have done just that! Show me a better code of law and conduct than the Mosaic Law. Good luck.
\\Perhaps this can explain why a staunch Calvinist like MacArthur does not want to meet Brown for discussion and debate of the issues.\\
Phil Johnson and numerous others have met Brown.
But given that Brown is by his own admission ignorant of many of the main issues raised at the SF Conference, why is he alluvasudden The Man when it comes to these issues?
\\Close to a million people were slaughtered in that country, and some of them right in front of churches that were not charismatic or of the supposedly non-heretical stock that are the Calvinists.\\
So... your evidence for your assertions is that people were sometimes murdered in front of churches? Hmm, try again please.
\\The same behavior can be seen in the history of Nazi Germany when Holy-Spirit-Empty pastors bowed down to the evil empire. \\
Which is attributable to cowardice and sin, not cessationism as a doctrine or Calvinism.
You're aware that most of those pastors were professing Lutherans? You know, because it was in Germany?
You're a weird guy, I'll give you that.
Matt, for the 4th time, are you a follower of Jesus?
- Matt El Dominicano Baroni "You're asking whether the apostles would follow the OT Mosaic Law if they were in a position to do so, in governmental power and seeking to institute a righteous governmental policy? I daresay they would indeed have done just that!"
That you would actually believe that the Apostles would persecute, torture (yeah, you forgot about that one), and murder people for failure of grasping the gospel or for holding a wrong doctrine, shows the hallowness and cold-bloodedness of your theology and exegesis. Sweeping these evil
acts under the cover of "government" does not sanitize them anymore than if we we did the same by sweeping them under the evil kings of Israel, the ecclesiastical governments of Medieval Europe, or modern tyrannical dictators. It seems you have not read up on the subject much, because even if such persecutions were justified under a "righteous" magisterial system, many of the Anabaptists and other "heretics" were not even prosecuted, but only hounded as dogs without mercy, something I know from the deepest part of my heart that none of the apostles would ever do. You indeed must be following a different spirit than I. - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "Who are these early heretics whom the Calvinists killed?"
Ignorance is not an option. Your question, ironically, answers mine. - Matt El Dominicano Baroni "Calling Dr Brown to repent is out of LOVE FOR HIM AND THOSE WHO LISTEN TO HIM"
Brown would have been cooked with the rest of the other "heretics" had he lived under the shadow of the great founder of Calvinism. Odd that a Calvinist should plead for someone to "repent" if the heretic has already been predestined for damnation. Why is there a need to repent if the dice has been cast? And Calvinists like MacArthur would've figured that Brown is a lost case anyway because of his steadfastness in maintaining the diabolical fever of charismatism. Is not a tree judged by its fruit? Just look what the Jew did when he visited another heretic! Predestined for hell alright. Like the rest of the charismatic heretics. 
Rho Logy \\That you would actually believe that the Apostles would persecute, torture (yeah, you forgot about that one)\\
My friend, stop being so weird and irrational. You're burning a strawman. Does the Mosaic Law call for torturing people? No. So you're wrong to say this.
\\murder people for failure of grasping the gospel or for holding a wrong doctrine,\\
??
Remember that we're talking about the Mosaic Law here. You seem to understand it very poorly.
1) It's not murder if they have knowingly committed a capital crime. It's EXECUTION.
2) You asked about practicing witchcraft. That is a capital crime, and it's not equivalent to "not grasping the gospel or holding a wrong doctrine".
\\Sweeping these evil acts under the cover of "government" does not sanitize them\\
Executing witches is not evil. It is actually a holy and righteous act, b/c God said we should do it. No one should prefer your moral assertions over God's righteous judgments.
Considering that I've asked you four times and you've refused to answer, and that you put yourself above God morally speaking, I'm going to conclude for now that you're NOT a follower of Jesus. Let me know if you think I'm wrong, and let me know in that case why I should think you are actually Jesus' slave.
\\many of the Anabaptists and other "heretics" were not even prosecuted, but only hounded as dogs without mercy\\
We've already been over that.
\\You indeed must be following a different spirit than I.\\
Of that I have little doubt.
\\"Who are these early heretics whom the Calvinists killed?"
Ignorance is not an option. Your question, ironically, answers mine. \\
I have no idea what this means. You're acting quite melodramatic. You've apparently forgotten that this is a FACEBOOK POST.
\\Brown would have been cooked with the rest of the other "heretics" had he lived under the shadow of the great founder of Calvinism.\\
1) That may be true, and that would have been wrong.
2) Calvin wasn't in charge of Geneva. Read some history.
3) Brown would also have been cooked with the rest of the other "heretics" had he lived under the shadow of everyone else in Europe at the time, because he is not Roman Catholic and doesn't think the Pope is to be submitted to by everyone.
Use equal weights and measures, my friend. You're not, but you need to start.
\\Odd that a Calvinist should plead for someone to "repent" if the heretic has already been predestined for damnation.\\
A comment that demonstrates nothing more than that you have no idea what Calvinism teaches. You're an ignoramus.
\\Is not a tree judged by its fruit?\\
Yes, and trees are transformed by Jesus' power through the Gospel all the time.
Matt, you don't have to live like this, in bondage to sin. You can have freedom in Jesus. Repent, turn to Jesus, believe ALL of the Bible, and live. Jesus will save your soul and your reasoning, the latter of which has, over the course of this conversation, proven to be entirely faulty as well.
24 comments:
Hi Rho,
Have you ever Googled "John MacArthur Abortion"? Also do you understand the context out of which the sound byte "where are the charismatic hospitals?" was taken?
Just wondering.
CD
JMcA soothed the conscience of and advised a member of his church and sheriff who brutally suppressed an Op Rescue shutdown of a murder mill some years ago and has never repented. Some of the actions taken resulted in a miscarriage, broken bones, and other serious injuries. Defending the abortician from the evil pro-lifers.
Further, JMcA is pro-life, which is not a compliment. Pro-life pastors ought to repent of their apathy toward the fact that 56 million of our neighbors are dead and bend his influence toward waking the American church from its slumber. He must repent of this.
The context of the hospital comment was during the FAQs, as I recall.
Please clarify.
Test...comments seem to be disappearing. Do you have moderation turned on, Rho?
CD
No, I don't. Don't know what happened.
I'll post your comment below:
Thanks for the background, Rho.
As you know, the police are duly authorized agents who are sworn to uphold the law. Assuming those folks were breaking the law, then the police were duty bound to intervene. It sounds like there were some unfortunate consequences that resulted from the incident you've described, but it doesn't seem as if the consequences (effect/arrest) would have followed without something to instantiate the event (cause/lawbreaking). I'm sure it isn't this simplistic, I'm just thinking through the scenario as plausibly as I can.
It seems highly ironic and tragic that an effort to prevent planned infanticide would result in a miscarriage. That's very sad.
As far as influence, when I Googled "John MacArthur abortion" and scanned the results it looked to me like he's done a lot to influence on the topic, but that's admittedly my subjective impression.
Anyway I'm still not sure what JMac is supposed to repent of with regard to abortion.
As for the charismatic hospital thing, I was asking about the context because you said he needed to repent of that as well, and I wondered what you meant. I'm still wondering. I'll go try to find the Q&A you referred to and see if I can figure it out.
CD
You know as well as I do that a Christian officer's duty is to Jesus first, and the lesser law of a lesser magistrate later. The sheriff in question should have refused to enforce the law, which is wrong. And he certainly shouldn't've ordered his officers to act in such a way that they seriously injured those who were trying to serve Jesus, while the sheriff doubtless does his good little job, goes to his good little church, and ignores the mass of child sacrifice going on around him.
This sheriff sinned greatly. JMac should've told him to repent of that sin, and advised him not to do what he ended up doing and trust God to bring good out of it.
He needs to repent of the charismatic hospitals thing b/c it was an ignorant statement that slandered charismatics, and easily proven wrong.
I've been traveling for a few days, so I'm just getting back to this thread.
I did some more looking around on the 'net and think I found an article written by the officer you're referring to here: http://www2.salinabible.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166:operation-rescue-a-policemans-perspective&catid=106&Itemid=101
If so, it seems that the duly appointed authorities were enforcing property laws, which were being violated by lawbreakers. According to his testimony, the official who authored the article sought to faithfully execute his duty as unto Christ.
Sadly in this instance lawbreakers placed themselves (and the officers) in a position from whence unfortunate results apparently flowed (serious injuries). It seems to me that the lawbreakers probably had good intentions (apparently thinking they were serving Jesus), but in my opinion held a warped and sub-Biblical position (attempting to overcome evil with evil / sinning so that grace might abound).
From my perspective (based on the info available to me) the lawbreakers should have repented of their sin (disobedience to God-ordained authorities). I'd also note that based on your comments directed towards the officer and JMac there *appears* to be some degree of animosity/lack of thinking others better than ourselves that could (or may have already) become a root of bitterness. If so, that needs to be dealt with and repented of.
As far as the charismatic hospitals comment, I found the Q&A thread on gty and I don't understand the point JMac was trying to make. It seemed to be an attempt to underline the broad lack of spiritual value associated with the Charismatic Movement generally by pointing out a specific practical example, the lack of humanitarian services such as hospitals. Even though I'm not personally aware of any charismatic hospitals, it nevertheless seems to be a weak generalization to me.
CD
the official who authored the article sought to faithfully execute his duty as unto Christ.
Yes, I read that too.
And you don't know that he sought to do that. He SAYS he did, perhaps to cover his own rear end. What he did was evil, even if he thought it was good. He obeyed the lesser magistrate while disobeying the Greater.
unfortunate results apparently flowed (serious injuries).
Not just that. These officers are guilty of murder, of the preborn child whose death they caused by their own blind obedience to Demos.
sinning so that grace might abound).
Who says they sinned?
Even though I'm not personally aware of any charismatic hospitals, it nevertheless seems to be a weak generalization to me.
Agreed, and Michael Brown dispensed with that comment on his radio show, making JMac look like an ignorant biased fool. Which is why he should never have put himself in that position.
At this point I have no good reason to disbelieve the officer's testimony, and from a Christian perspective love thinks what's best, so I'm inclined to take his claims at face value barring facts to the contrary which are presently unknown to me.
As I alluded to in an earlier comment, I think it's ironic and tragic that an unborn child lost his/her life during an event intended to highlight the evils of the planned murder of children. Murder is premeditated, are you suggesting that premeditated intent to kill was involved in this incident? Is there evidence for such a serious charge?
It seems to me that by breaking the law those involved brought the risk of consequences upon themselves, albeit unintended I'm sure.
If one holds that sin is disobedience to God's revealed will as it's found in the Bible, then it seems to me that the Scriptures testify that they sinned by their refusal to submit to the God-ordained authorities (Titus 3:1; Rom.13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-25).
I'm still not clear how the statement was slanderous, so I'll try to look up Brown's radio show archives to understand how he dealt with JMac's comment, it may be instructive.
CD
You don't have to disbelieve his TESTIMONY. His testimony condemns him. ANd his ideas about what was best in that case were hilariously, terrifyingly wrong.
You say you think it's tragic, but aren't you leaping to excuse the men who caused it?
As far as murder, is it murder if I say I don't intend to kill anyone but do intend to drive my car 50 mph into a crowded crosswalk? what did those guys think would happen when they roughed up a pregnant woman?
It seems to me that by breaking the law those involved brought the risk of consequences upon themselves, albeit unintended I'm sure.
Why is this not a signature case of victim-blaming?
And I've also mentioned the concept of greater law vs lesser law twice. You saw those statements, I presume. They are very relevant. Could you please elucidate your position, taking that concept into account?
it seems to me that the Scriptures testify that they sinned by their refusal to submit to the God-ordained authorities (Titus 3:1; Rom.13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-25).
The God-ordained authorities are not permitted by God to violate God's law.
Please tell me why your position, if held consistently, would not also excuse the guy who beheaded Christians for refusing to say "Caesar is Lord".
Exodus 1:15Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other was named Puah; 16and he said, “When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live. 18So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?” 19The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them.” 20So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty.
I'm not tracking with your argument, Rho. I thought I responded to your "greater law" earlier when I pointed out that the officers were (apparently) enforcing property laws which were (apparently) being violated by trespassers.
As far as I know the Bible upholds private property rights, and by implication the duly enacted laws pertaining there unto.
As far as victim blaming, I simply observed that violating the law could result in an encounter with law enforcement officers, which could result in unintended/unexpected consequences such as injuries. I think this is a self evident observation.
I don't pretend to know the details, as I wasn't there. For example, were warnings issued prior to corrective actions being taken by the officers? Did the folks comply with the officers and depart, or submit to arrest peacefully? Did they resist? Did they go limp? Did they go stiff? Did they lock arms? How many officers were on the scene, how many Op Rescue folks? What was the ratio? What about intensity of the atmosphere, was it charged? Jeers, yelling, name calling, pushing, kicking? Was it somber and subdued? Silent treatment?
Likewise with all the gaps outlined above I'm not able to judge if excessive force was employed. But based on the tragic results of the miscarriage it would seem so.
Also It doesn't seem to me that the officers "caused" the situation, rather it seems to me that they were discharging their duty to respond to a situation caused (seemingly purposefully orchestrated) by the Op Rescue folks (the cause/effect I mentioned earlier).
The car-into-crowd analogy is, of course, a straw man.
Regarding consistency, as far as I can tell the officers weren't engaged in beheadings, but were rather enforcing property laws, so I don't see the connection.
Same with the Exodus text, the officers weren't forcing women to have abortions in violation of God's law, so again the greater law/lesser law argument seems inapplicable in the matter at hand (in fact it seems hopelessly contrived).
It wasn't my intent to get this deep into the topic, I was just curious about your MacArthur comments and started digging from there, all of this is new information for me, and I have no vested interest in "defending" anyone.
I hope I haven't made you angry, and if I have I apologize.
CD
I thought I responded to your "greater law" earlier when I pointed out that the officers were (apparently) enforcing property laws which were (apparently) being violated by trespassers.
I'm unsure how that's an answer. The Greater Magistrate is God, and the Greater Law is God's law.
The lesser is the police/gov't and its laws.
It's legal in the eyes of the lesser to murder children. In the eyes of the Greater, that legal thing is the evil of our age.
Does that make sense?
the Bible upholds private property rights
Totally missing the point. Of course it does. But they murder babies on that private property. You're arguing that it's OK for a Christian policeman to go beat the crap out of other Christians who have the courage to stand up against that, even if some small thing is violated.
What I'm telling you is that the sheriff stood with the murderers against the Christians. With the darkness against the light. I'm not claiming the OR guys did it perfectly. That's a totally different question. But the sheriff should not have acted with violence against those he professes to be brethren in the Lord. He did, however, to defend the most wicked people in the city.
I simply observed that violating the law could result in an encounter with law enforcement officers
Armchair quarterbacking. Of course it could, and WILL. I'm sure the OR ppl counted the cost. That doesn't justify the sheriff in what he did.
were warnings issued prior to corrective actions being taken by the officers?
Irrelevant. You think the OR ppl didn't know what was coming?
Did the folks comply with the officers and depart, or submit to arrest peacefully?
Obviously they didn't. whether they should have is a totally different question, but either response does not justify the sheriff in what he did.
Did they resist? Did they go limp? Did they go stiff? Did they lock arms?
Some of them did go limp, yes, according to what I read.
So what? Does that mean the sheriff has free rein to beat them up, and he's the good guy?
How many officers were on the scene, how many Op Rescue folks? What was the ratio? What about intensity of the atmosphere, was it charged? Jeers, yelling, name calling, pushing, kicking?
Irrelevant. cops are supposed to be professionals, not thugs.
I'm not able to judge if excessive force was employed
Then it seems clear to me that you are intent on defending law enforcement in pretty much any circumstance.
God help you.
It doesn't seem to me that the officers "caused" the situation
I didn't say they caused the situation. I said they caused the death of a child and numerous serious injuries, and were in the wrong.
The car-into-crowd analogy is, of course, a straw man.
why? Be specific, please.
Regarding consistency, as far as I can tell the officers weren't engaged in beheadings, but were rather enforcing property laws, so I don't see the connection.
I will spell it out for you.
It was against the law to say "Jesus is Lord". It's against the law to impinge on the private property of abortuaries.
The gov't beheaded those who said "Jesus is Lord". The gov't here killed a child who was impinging on private property.
You're sitting here defending them.
Does that help?
the officers weren't forcing women to have abortions in violation of God's law
Um, what? They forced ONE abortion, remember? And numerous other serious injuries.
Order from Pharaoh: Kill the babies.
Order from gov't: Remove the protesters.
Both were wrong. The midwives refused and were blessed. The police complied and will be judged.
I admit I'm a bit irritated at your obstinacy in defending what seems to me to be an obviously evil action by the police. I urge you to rethink all that. The police are not really your friends a great deal of the time. Especially if you should ever undertake to take the Gospel out into the extreme darkness, doing hard things. You'll find they're not allies at all, but rather principalities against whom a war must be waged.
My take on the incident we've been discussing based on my understanding of the facts (such as they are) and in the light of Scripture (as I understand it) is that the author of the Salina Bible Church article is/was in the right, and the Op Rescue folks are/were in the wrong.
I think this conclusion is made inescapable when the apparent major premise, obeying God's greater law vs. obeying the lesser law (civil disobedience) is examined carefully. The Biblical injunction is plainly applicable in situations wherein believers are ordered to violate God's commands by those in positions of authority or vis a vis duly enacted laws (Peter & John ordered not to preach Christ; Nebuchadnezzar ordering false worship and S, M & A refusing; Daniel's disobedience in prayer which landed him in the lion's den; the midwives refusing Pharaoh's ordered infanticide).
But this isn't the case for the Op Rescue folks. They apparently place themselves in positions where they are sinfully disobeying God-ordained authorities as a "third party" as it were. I find zero Biblical support for this approach.
Also "principalities" are specifically not flesh and blood, and the Christian's weapons are spiritual, not carnal. It's my view that Op Rescue is leading people into sin through its misguided actions, well-intentioned though they may be.
CD
I have specifically said the OR ppl were wrong to do what they did. Which is one reason I don't do what they did.
Don't forget that it's possible for both parties in a given incident to be in the wrong.
So, let's just be clear. You think it was right for the police to break bones and cause miscarriages among fellow Christians b/c those fellow Christians were committing the minor infraction of trespassing.
See, those other biblical examples ARE applicable. Try not to think of the OR ppl at the moment. Focus on the cops (which you seem not to have done so far). The cops were ordered by their authorities to rough up the Christians if they have to.
That is an unjustifiable order.
They should have refused. They instead obeyed Cæsar and (analogically) chopped off the heads of the Christians who wouldn't say "Cæsar is Lord". Analogically speaking, Christian executioners. They had their faith, sure, but it didn't inform their public actions.
That's messed up. I'd really recommend you reconsider.
I don't think it was "right for the police to break bones and cause miscarriages". I think that from within a Christian worldview the God-ordained authorities were (and are) mandated (Biblically) to enforce duly enacted laws, such as property laws, when they are violated.
Insofar as the officers "were ordered by their authorities to rough up the Christians if they have to" (that's new information to me btw), then the Christian officers on the scene certainly should have seen to it that they did not "have to" by using methods other than "roughing up", and the pagan officers ought to have been professional, and not abusive.
But again, the entire matter, and the unfortunate results that attended it, could have been avoided altogether were it not for the Op Rescue folks sinfully breaking the law, and bringing the sword of the magistrate upon themselves in the first place.
The analogy seems to be badly broken. To obey a government's order to execute Christians for refusing to commit state-mandated idolatry in violation of the first and greatest commandment appears to be quite different than obeying an order to forcibly remove trespassers from private property.
CD
the God-ordained authorities were (and are) mandated (Biblically) to enforce duly enacted laws, such as property laws, when they are violated.
I'd like to see your argument for that, that the police are MANDATED to protect the property rights of murderers.
Make sure to interact with texts like Proverbs 24:11. Perhaps there's a verse you know of that says something like "Beat down those who are trying to rescue those being carried away to the slaughter if they committed some minor infraction along the way."
B/c that's what you're defending here.
that's new information to me btw
How is that new info to you when we've been interacting on the basis of the fact that they roughed up the Christians for three back-and-forth comments now?
could have been avoided altogether were it not for the Op Rescue folks sinfully breaking the law
Could also have been avoided if the police recognised that murder is a lot worse than trespassing.
To obey a government's order to execute Christians for refusing to commit state-mandated idolatry in violation of the first and greatest commandment appears to be quite different than obeying an order to forcibly remove trespassers from private property.
The only difference I see is one of degree. You're fine with the gov't hurting Christians for breaking a law that is bears a less significant penalty, but not OK with the gov't killing Christians for breaking a law that bears a more significant penalty.
Your position is hypocritical for that reason.
Please check this out.
I'm no expert on the subject of jurisprudence, but I would think that if folks (including Christians) occupied the home or business of a convicted murderer, or perhaps a wanted killer who was on the lam, that the authorities would nevertheless be obligated (mandated) to remove them in the event of a complaint. And since there is no authority but that which is established by God, then by inference enforcing duly enacted laws, such as those pertaining to private property (even that of murderers) would fall under the magistrate's duty, which is God-ordained.
The new information I mentioned was the alleged order from the officer's authorities to "rough up" the Op Rescue folks "if they have to". Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but I was unaware of that.
The recognition by the police of the severity of one crime over and against another appears to be irrelevant with respect to the enforcement of the law which was broken by the Op Rescue folks. In fact it seems like a red herring.
I'm not "fine with the gov't hurting Christians",, but the fact is Christians, and non-Christians bring the sword of the magistrate upon themselves when they violate the law, and God commands Christians to submit to the human authorities He has established, and to disobey this divine injunction is sinful - with a clear Scriptural exception.
Christians should disobey the law of man in cases wherein they are ordered by the government to violate God's commands. In such situations the state may opt to execute them, as in your beheading example, or throw them in fiery furnaces, or lion's dens, etc. This isn't "right" of course, it's evil, but Christians ought to obey God rather than men when the government commands them to break God's law, and simply entrust themselves to God in faith.
In the situation we've been discussing it doesn't appear that the authorities were commanding anyone to break God's law; at worst there was allegedly an order to "rough up" folks "if necessary". I think that's ill-advised, and that Christian (and pagan) officers ought to have avoided "roughing up" folks, as I mentioned before. I don't see how this is hypocritical.
CD
Your analogy to occupying the home of a convicted murderer is wrong for three reasons:
1) It's against the law to murder born people. If someone were continually murdering born people inside his house, it would suffice to call the police and they could take care of it. not so with the abortion mill.
2) An abortion mill is not a residence.
3) A convicted murderer presumably did his murder in the past. It is not an ongoing thing.
And since there is no authority but that which is established by God
Begging the question again. Let me try to illustrate a different way for you, to help.
Who is the authority in the USA? The current administration, or the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Even if one argues that BOTH are, the fact is that the laws of the former contradict the latter. And the latter provides the foundation for the former.
Thus the police should have obeyed the latter because the latter is greater (to say nothing of God's law) and called out the evil and disobedience of the former, instead of breaking the bones and killing the children of those who were doing that very thing themselves.
The new information I mentioned was the alleged order from the officer's authorities to "rough up" the Op Rescue folks "if they have to". Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but I was unaware of that.
Either the police were following orders or they weren't.
If they were, your argument fails.
If they weren't, they were acting as rogues and not under the God-ordained authority, and you still ought to condemn what they did.
The recognition by the police of the severity of one crime over and against another appears to be irrelevant with respect to the enforcement of the law which was broken by the Op Rescue folks. In fact it seems like a red herring.
Why? Do you think all sins are the same or something?
I'm not "fine with the gov't hurting Christians",
Then why do you keep arguing that it's OK if the gov't hurts Christians?
Christians should disobey the law of man in cases wherein they are ordered by the government to violate God's commands
Like "sit back and accept the presence of child sacrifice in your nation"?
Christians ought to obey God rather than men when the government commands them to break God's law, and simply entrust themselves to God in faith.
And how did the OpR people not do that?
And why were the police justified, again?
In the situation we've been discussing it doesn't appear that the authorities were commanding anyone to break God's law
Um, they were telling them to go ahead and abandon those being led to the slaughter.
As far as the murderer analogy, I specified home or business, and offered the additional example of a serial killer on the lam. Some folks might want to occupy the private property (home or business) of such an individual for any number of reasons. Anyway I think the analogy stands.
The specific authority I had in mind, which I thought we were discussing, was the local police, and their enforcement of property laws upon trespassers. There are layers of authority, but God says there is no authority but that which He has established. That seems to cover pretty much everything.
I think the officers were following orders to remove trespassers, but I don't think you've alleged they were ordered to hurt the trespasses. At most you've alleged they were told by their superiors to "rough up" the trespassers "if they have to", or something similar.
As far as sins, there is a sense where all sins are the same insofar as they reflect some form of disobedience against God's holy law and character, however I think the Bible clearly teaches that there are greater and lesser sins.
Where have I argued that it's "okay for the government to hurt Christians" (or anyone else)? This being said, I think it probably does hurt when the state executes someone by electrocution, or when an officer shoots an armed robber in a gunfight for example. Unpleasant and "hurtful" consequences may follow lawbreaking in the nature of the case.
Who said anything like "sit back and accept the presence of child sacrifice in your nation"? How does one logically move from "obey God by submitting to the authorities He has established" (such as obeying duly enacted private property laws, or for example complying with the God-ordained authorities requests to disperse from private property when requested) to "sit back and accept the presence of child sacrifice in your nation"? Isn't that an either-or fallacy? Aren't there other options like protest peaceably from a public area like a sidewalk, or other nearby non-private space? Are the only options to disobey God and break the law (refuse to submit to the authorities He has established) or do nothing? I don't think so.
The Op Rescue people did not obey God because they failed to submit to the authority He established when the authorities had given them no commands to disobey God (e.g. Blaspheme Him, renounce Christ, etc.)
When did the authorities command the Op Rescue folks "to go ahead and abandon those being led to the slaughter"? I thought the authorities were enforcing duly enacted private property laws on trespassers. It seems incredible to me that the only place in Los Angeles the Op Rescue folks could have physically gathered that day and not find themselves "abandoning those being led to the slaughter" was that specific plot of ground.
Again, it seems like overcoming evil with evil and sinning so that grace might abound.
I feel like we're locked in a cycle here, but at some point we're going to arrive at the rock bottom of the matter and declare each other heretics and walk away, or else we're going to arrive at some sort of consensus.
As far as I can tell my original contention remains that the Op Rescue folks sinned (sinfully disobeyed God's explicit commands in Titus 3:1, Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-25) remains unrefuted. They should repent, and seek to joyfully obey The Lord in all things as He has commanded - like submitting to the authorities He has established.
CD
Rho,
I read the article you linked, thank you for sharing it. Would you please read this article?
http://www.the-highway.com/abortion_Wingard.html
CD
Thanks for the link.
Here are my thoughts on it.
Scripture requires disobedience to a civil authority only when that authority commands a Christian to do what is sinful or forbids him to do what God commands.
Like beat up on other Christians who are following their conscience and fighting a much more ghastly evil than trespassing.
The church’s authority is solely ministerial and declarative.
Whole reams have been written on this topic. I don't know whether that is a conclusion we can draw that easily.
We should pray that in our national and state capitols strong pulpit ministries will be carried out
A heckuvalot more than strong pulpits are needed to abolish human abortion, but that's a good and essential element.
In spite of the admiration we might have for the willingness of rescuers to suffer loss, we must still declare that the disobedience espoused by rescuers is sinful.
I agree, which is what i've said numerous times but you keep forgetting I said.
The work of Operation Rescue, besides being sinful, is an intolerable diversion of time, money, and energy away from the church’s task of proclaiming the Gospel and nourishing a worshipping community of believers.
I disagree strongly with this statement. We have spent hours speaking on how this is a wrong view of the church during abolitionist conferences.
The church and its individual members, contrary to much popular Christian opinion, do not have the responsibility to stop abortion.
Not to stop it, true. But to FIGHT it, yes.
Christians need to study carefully how to exhort these officials to use their offices to resist tyranny
Which is what I've been doing and what you've been opposing.
Christians need to raise their children to have a high view of governing authorities as “ministers of God” (Rom. 13:4).
This is a foolish way to go about raising one's children.
1) Romans 13 explains what kind of governing official he's talking about. It's the ones who punish evildoers and reward doers of good. Which is not really describing modern USA.
2) as I already asked you and you must not have seen, which is the authority we are to respect? the police and Congress? Or the Constitution? You have to answer that question.
I answer: the Constitution.
Christians should be encouraged to work within the structures of the Democratic and Republican parties.
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
The intellectual environments inside of both parties is poison to the cultivation of reasoned discourse the article recommends we develop.
You keep forgetting that I AGREE WITH YOU about OpRescue - they sinned. I've said it from the beginning. I don't do what they do precisely b/c I believe it was sinful.
AND what the police officers did was sinful. MUCH MORE sinful.
Can we please continue to discuss on that basis? You seem to keep focusing on OR, but why would we? We agree about OR's actions.
There are layers of authority, but God says there is no authority but that which He has established. That seems to cover pretty much everything.
"God established this authority" =/= "this authority is infallible".
I don't think you've alleged they were ordered to hurt the trespasses
If they weren't ordered to but did so anyway, they're even more to blame.
Where have I argued that it's "okay for the government to hurt Christians" (or anyone else)?
You have clearly said it in your apathetic attitude toward the torts performed against the persons of the OR people.
Aren't there other options like protest peaceably from a public area like a sidewalk, or other nearby non-private space?
Of course. Go back and look at the context of my statement.
When did the authorities command the Op Rescue folks "to go ahead and abandon those being led to the slaughter"?
What do YOU call it when they were told to vacate the premises?
it seems like overcoming evil with evil and sinning so that grace might abound.
Yes, I agree. Can we please talk about the police now, like I've been trying to get you to?
As far as I can tell my original contention remains that the Op Rescue folks sinned
Your original contention was never in dispute.
Your challenge to MY contention you have barely even begun to defend b/c you keep diverting to reinforce your original contention, which was never in dispute.
Post a Comment