Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The civil use of the law

Ed Dingess


I could not agree more. The educational institutions play a strategic role in the liberal indoctrination of our children and in my view, that is beyond dispute. I wish the church were as focused on our own indoctrination as the secular university is on their own.

Your position is incoherent. If you reject Christian political activism, then you have no effective means of opposing the secular education establishment.


We know the purpose of the law was to hold mirror up in front of the unrighteous to show them/us their/our hopelessly sinful condition. It drives men to Christ.

You’re disregarding the three uses of the law in Reformed theology. Since you have a blog called Reformed Reasons, I shouldn’t have to remind you of that. For instance:


(2) Civil Use: The Law restrains evil through punishment. Though the law cannot change the heart, it can inhibit sin by threats of judgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offences (Deut 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom 13:3-4). Although obedience out of the love of God is the ideal for which every Christian should strive (1 John 4:18), society still benefits from this restraining use of the law.



The communities containing reprobates has little to do with my contention that the holy writings were directed to the holy community…

It has everything to do with your claim that “The Scriptures are given to the regenerate, to the church of Jesus Christ.”


Of course the unregenerate can engage in parsing, syntax, and even analyze a text. There are a number of them in the seminaries today who do that very thing. But that does not change the fact that true understanding involves appropriation and appropriation requires God’s Spirit.

Unbelievers can grasp the meaning of Scripture. And that makes their disobedience to Scripture all the more culpable. They are in a position to know better.


The holy writings were not given to make a godless culture more moral.

Why not? Biblical law wasn’t given for just one purpose. The Mosaic law was, in part, a civil and criminal law code. Many Jews were impious. The law restrained them. It made them more moral in their behavior.

People can be outwardly moral in their conduct even if they lack a moral motive. The law rewards lawful behavior and punishes unlawful behavior.


There is nothing equivocal in my statement that political activism does not fall within the mission of the church.

I never said political activism falls within the “mission of the church.” That’s your reductionistic framework, not mine. 


The mission of the church includes a respectable work ethic in the broadest sense.

If you think the mission of the church in the “broadest sense” includes a work ethic, then you’ve defined the mission of the church so broadly that it can easily encompass political activism. 


No one is suggesting that work ethic does not fall within the Christian ethic. There are specific commands given regarding work. You cannot make an exegetical case for broadening the scope of the church’s mission to political activism.

I’m not framing the issue in terms of “the church’s mission.” I’m discussing the social responsibilities of individual Christians.


Yes, we are to provide for our children and our families. However, God instructs us specifically about how we are to do that. We are to work, to care for our own, etc.

Actually, it’s not specific. To say we’re supposed to “care for our own” doesn’t specify how we are supposed to care for them.

Having a duty to honor your parents doesn’t specify how you’re supposed to honor your parents. When Jesus says honoring your parents includes supporting them financially if they are too poor or enfeebled to support themselves, he’s not appealing to a specific command. Rather, he’s drawing a specific, common sense inference from a general command.


Defending my family against a burglar is one thing. Defending it against a godless culture is entirely different.

No, it’s not entirely different.

Anyway, I wasn’t discussing how Christians (Christian Americans, to be specific) should defend their family against “a godless culture,” but how they should defend their family against the encroachments of government.


If I may have to take the burglar’s life if he forces the matter. Should I do the same to a doctor who is about to commit an abortion? Should I do the same to a politician who is soft on pedophilia? You take a huge leap when you extend family protection to political activism.

That’s a wooden, irresponsible way of handling an argument from analogy. The analogy operates at the level of the basic principle: taking proactive measures to protect your family from harm.

The specific means depend on the specific nature of the threat as well as the specific countermeasures at your disposal. Christian Americans have a variety of lawful, nonviolent means to defend their family against expansive, intrusive gov’t.

We can vote. We can run for office. Some of us can become lawyers. Or teachers. The list is long.

Of course, if we don’t exercise our rights, we will lose our rights.


To deny the trend toward secularism, toward social liberalism is essentially to bury one’s head in the sand with all due respect of course.

The trend is imposed from the top down by a tiny elite. It doesn’t come from the bottom up. The very fact that liberals so often resort to coercion rather than persuasion reflects the unpopularity of their secular policies.


I never argued that there was once a consistent ban on abortion in the past. What I stated was that the American legal system will never outlaw abortion again.

“Again” in contrast to what?

Moreover, it’s possible to ban some types of abortions even if you can’t ban them all.

Furthermore, legally outlawing abortion isn’t the only way to drastically reduce abortion. Filing malpractice suits against “abortion providers” can make their insurance premiums unaffordable. That will drive them out of business.

Likewise, when “abortion providers” like Planned Parenthood break the law by refusing to report cases of statutory rape to the authorities, that leaves them vulnerable to prosecution. 

One needs to exercise a little ingenuity. 

10 comments:

  1. While I identify strongly with the doctrines of grace, and consider myself reformed in terms of my soteriology, I do not agree with covenant theology's hermeneutic. I am good friends with Dr. Henebury and would align more closely with his views on that subject.

    I cannot help but notice that you have provided no sound exegetical support for your leaps. All I see are logical connections that are, in my view, and with due respect to you, not as connected to the principles as you think they are.

    The manner in which you even take my remarks out of their proper context is telling. You are either completely missing my points or deliberately playing with the words. Since I have great respect for you, I will allow for the former and perhaps admit that maybe I am not clear enough.

    The Word of God was given to make men godly, to transform them into the image of Christ, not to make a godless man good. Natural law, written on the conscience serves that purpose very well. That natural law is indeed the inprint of God's moral character which also is the source of divine revelation. The issue here is purpose. Does man require special revelation to know that murder is sin? Does he need special revelation to know that he should provide for his own? Yet he does need special revelation if he is to be transformed into the image of Christ, does he not? The gospel of Christ is hidden to those who are in darkness, is it not? The natural man cannot understand the things of God for they are foolishness to him, are they not?

    Should we not outlaw fornication and lying and stealing, and cheating and whatever else offends God and violates His moral code? Why focus on just abortion? Why not go for the whole ball of wax? Is it not hypocritcal to only fight against gay marriage and not also fight to outlaw unbiblical divorce? Your logical end is a theocracy, is it not? Where do you draw the line and why there? If you are going to push this issue, then push it all the way and at least be consistent. Don't stop with just half the law. Shouldn't you be working to outlaw Sabbath labor?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ed Dingess

    "I cannot help but notice that you have provided no sound exegetical support for your leaps. All I see are logical connections that are, in my view, and with due respect to you, not as connected to the principles as you think they are."

    Drawing logical inferences from general principles is the way we apply Biblical norms to specific situations.

    Moreover, to assert that they are "leaps" or "not as connected" as I think is not an argument. Your denials don't amount to reasons.

    "Should we not outlaw fornication and lying and stealing, and cheating and whatever else offends God and violates His moral code? Why focus on just abortion? Why not go for the whole ball of wax? Is it not hypocritcal to only fight against gay marriage and not also fight to outlaw unbiblical divorce? Your logical end is a theocracy, is it not? Where do you draw the line and why there? If you are going to push this issue, then push it all the way and at least be consistent. Don't stop with just half the law. Shouldn't you be working to outlaw Sabbath labor?"

    i) Now you're aping Rachel Held Evans, as well as homosexual lobbyists who accuse Christians of hypocrisy if they eat bacon and shellfish while condemning sodomy and lesbianism. I've addressed these boilerplate objections on other occasions. I don't need to repeat myself here.

    ii) I especially don't need to repeat myself when you've strayed so far from your original argument. This all got started when I did a little post pointing out that the recent election was not a referendum on social conservatism. You then used the election results as a pretext to advocate Anabaptist nonresistance.

    And now you're changing the subject as a blocking maneuver to deflect attention away from the actual issue at hand.

    I've said very little about what Christians should outlaw in my exchanges with you. Rather, I've focused on how Christians should resist efforts to outlaw Christian faith and practice. There's quite a difference between discussing what forms of immorality Christians should try to outlaw, and discussing efforts by the state to outlaw forms of Christian morality.

    As far as what we should outlaw, I didn't "focus on just abortion" or sodomite marriage. For instance, I also discussed euthanasia.

    You're also confusing sins with crimes. Even in the Mosaic law, every sin is not a crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve Hays wrote:

      "Moreover, to assert that they are 'leaps' or 'not as connected' as I think is not an argument. Your denials don't amount to reasons….I especially don't need to repeat myself when you've strayed so far from your original argument."

      It's dishonest of Ed to keep behaving in that manner. He does it a lot. Those who are interested can find many examples in the earlier thread here. Notice how often Ed changes the subject, ignores counterarguments, assumes his own disputed position without arguing for it, etc.

      Delete
    2. Actually I am attempting to apply your method to other issues. Abortion is not a crime but you say it should be because it is murder. Well, civil law does not define it as murder the same as civil law does not criminalize fornication. Yet you desire to outlaw abortion because it violates God's moral code but now you seem to give fornication a nod and a wink. The same method applies to sodomite marriage. How can you say that I am calling a sin a crime when you want to make abortion which is a sin a crime. Why not make fornication, which is a sin, a crime also? You got stoned for murder the same as you did for adultery.

      Anabaptist nonresistence? Intersting label.

      Contrary to Jason's comments, I think I have provided the preponderance of Scripture in this discussion if one just looks back at my comments.

      I find Jason's comments personally offensive. I have not been dishonest in any way. I am simply having a dialogue with what I thought were Christians brothers over an issue where we do not happen to share the same perspective. What ever happened to Christian civility and charity in these sorts of discussions? Why do we always have to resort to harsh insults toward another over issues that are not central to the Christian faith? In throwing around such insults, we give offense and we also risk our public testimony. I find it completely unnecessary. Do you suppose that I would think evil of you because we do not see eye to eye on this subject? If you do, you would be wrong. But when you case insults out for no good reason other than you do not like my argument or my perspective, then that kind of defeats the purpose of brethren seeking truth through conversation. This is disappointing. I expected a little better from this site as I have followed and appreciated it for some years now.

      Delete
    3. Ed Dingess said:

      "Abortion is not a crime but you say it should be because it is murder. Well, civil law does not define it as murder the same as civil law does not criminalize fornication. Yet you desire to outlaw abortion because it violates God's moral code but now you seem to give fornication a nod and a wink."

      1. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me civil law is quite different from criminal law.

      2. Speaking for myself, I don't see a problem with a law against fornication. Such as in the case of sodomy. In fact, didn't this used to be the case in many states such as in the Colonial, Revolutionary, or perhaps other periods of American history? Anyway, I'd call your bluff.

      "Anabaptist nonresistence? Intersting label."

      Whether or not you happen to see it, you share the Anabaptist perspective on the culture wars and the like.

      "Contrary to Jason's comments, I think I have provided the preponderance of Scripture in this discussion if one just looks back at my comments."

      For starters, prooftexting isn't the same as proper exegesis.

      "I find Jason's comments personally offensive. I have not been dishonest in any way. I am simply having a dialogue with what I thought were Christians brothers over an issue where we do not happen to share the same perspective. What ever happened to Christian civility and charity in these sorts of discussions? Why do we always have to resort to harsh insults toward another over issues that are not central to the Christian faith? In throwing around such insults, we give offense and we also risk our public testimony. I find it completely unnecessary. Do you suppose that I would think evil of you because we do not see eye to eye on this subject? If you do, you would be wrong. But when you case insults out for no good reason other than you do not like my argument or my perspective, then that kind of defeats the purpose of brethren seeking truth through conversation. This is disappointing. I expected a little better from this site as I have followed and appreciated it for some years now."

      1. If a fellow Christian is advocating immorality, what's wrong with calling him on advocating immorality?

      2. Also, it's not as if you're not as "harsh" in your words. It's not as if Jason and Steve couldn't likewise legitimately take "offense" at your words.

      3. You're minimizing the harm of what you're espousing by spinning it as merely what "we do not see eye to eye on." But you're the one saying it's wrong for the church to speak out against heinous sins like abortion or sodomy. If you had your way, you'd silence the church.

      Delete
    4. Just out of curiosity, do you think it was wrong for the Pilgrims to have written the Mayflower Compact and/or form Plymouth Colony? Why?

      Delete
  3. Ed Dingess wrote:

    "What ever happened to Christian civility and charity in these sorts of discussions? Why do we always have to resort to harsh insults toward another over issues that are not central to the Christian faith? In throwing around such insults, we give offense and we also risk our public testimony. I find it completely unnecessary. Do you suppose that I would think evil of you because we do not see eye to eye on this subject?"

    I didn't criticize you for "not seeing eye to eye" with me. I criticized you for other reasons that I've explained, which you're ignoring. And your misbehavior doesn't have to be related to "issues that are central to the Christian faith" in order to be misbehavior that deserves criticism.

    You claim that I'm being too harsh. Yet, you keep criticizing the American church in general, consisting of many millions of people, as "deluded", "just another political entity", etc. Here are some examples of the comments you've made:

    "Hypocrisy run amuck. We pound our chest in NC when we say we stopped gay marriage but 90% of evangelical pastors do nothing when members divorce unbiblically. "

    "Here is a paragraph in the article at the National Review that you seem to think if divinely inspired for some reason."

    "The American Church, which is based mostly on the idea of American hyper-indidivualism has neglect not one, but all four of these areas to a very large degree."

    "If you hope is tied to America holding to conservative republican ideology, and based on your comments I think it is, then your hope is misplaced my friend."

    "You clearly reject my arguments and seem to be unwilling to consider my line of reasoning. You continually miss my points and I am tired of trying to present them to you for your consideration."

    "While my two-way exchange with you on this issue is over, I will take the opportunity at www.reformedreasons.blogspot.com to interact more thoroughly with your argument as well as with what you call exegesis."


    Apparently, it's acceptable for you to refer to other people as "deluded" and having "hypocrisy run amuck", as "unwilling" to consider your position, making you "tired", etc. But when you're criticized for your behavior, you object that the discussion has become uncivil.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/

    This contains a fuller response.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can't find the quote where I called anyone in particular "deluded." When we sound off on homosexual marriage and refuse to stand up to unbiblical divorce, we play the hypocrite. I have interacted with texts that you referenced and pointed out how your handlinh of them was not in keeping with sound exegesis. I have never called you dishonest or claimed to "correct you." I have simply disagreed with you on this issue. I have not demeaned you for a second. If you feel I have, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. That has never been my intention. I respect the Triablogue team and my difference of opinion on this subject does not change that respect one iota.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, Do you think Christians in Nazi Germany should have used the nonviolent political means available to them to avoid the slaughter of innocent Jews?
      How about Christians here in the US trying to abolish slavery? How about William Wilberforce, who used nonviolent political means to outlaw slavery in England (and who was encouraged by John Newton)?

      If you answer to any of the above yes, then I think your argument against Christians using political means to outlaw abortion is incoherent. You cannot have it both ways.

      Delete