Evidence for God from Science

In The Life of Tristram Shandy, I read about the Argument of Retribution...

The son said to his father, 'Sir, you lay with my mother; why should I not lie with yours?'

That's where it stops. Culture, anyway.

Mr. Hyde wrote:Also...the church and the state were not exactly separate like they are now, correct? Calling for a change in the state back then would have been justified because it was calling for a change in the church.

Nope. There was no Christian church, for starters; and Herod certainly didn't belong to it.
Besides, the 'separation of church and state' refers to a separation of two different political powers, not to a separation of religion and politics.

I suppose the way I see it is that I would rather go underground with my Bible than find myself in a political war that I'm not meant to be in.

puritan lad wrote:

Mr. Hyde wrote:I think that John the Baptist got political in a very different sense of the word though.
He wasn't calling for laws against sin...he was calling for a change in the hearts of the people...not in the state.

Mr. Hyde,

I'm preparing a detailed response, but I wanted to address this portion of your statement.

If the state isn't supposed to make laws against sin, what kind of laws are they supposed to make? Would you feel the same way about pedophilia or beastiality? What about a man marrying his grand-daughter (or grand-son)? Once the state opens up marriage to gays, where does it stop? I posted to article links on my blog, one of a man in the Netherlands marrying two women, and the other of a girl marrying her dog. What next?

See The Marriage Amendment

I'll have more later, but if we don't hold our civil governments fast to God's laws, we are an accursed nation.

"Would you feel the same way about pedophilia or beastiality?"

First off...pedophilia brings harm to someone besides the offender. Our laws are set to protect the freedoms of both the majority and minority in the best possible way. Giving the freedom to man to murder takes away the freedom of another man to not be murdered.
Giving gays the freedom to marry brings harm to no one but the two willing parties.
But wait...yes it does. It brings harm children that would be forced to grow up in that environment. I guess now is as good a time as ever to state that I am, in fact, against gay marriage.
Not so much to protect the "sanctity of marriage" or to ensure that our nation has laws in line with God's. I cannot cast a vote that would put children in a situation where they would be under the constant influence of sin.
If it were possible to separate these quarks...I would say that we have no grounds to fight gay-marriage on-spiritual, political, or otherwise. Unfortunately, the issues of gays' right to marry and gays' right to adopt cannot be separated, therefore I am forced to cast a vote against both.

Mr. Hyde wrote:If it were possible to separate these quarks...I would say that we have no grounds to fight gay-marriage on-spiritual, political, or otherwise. Unfortunately, the issues of gays' right to marry and gays' right to adopt cannot be separated, therefore I am forced to cast a vote against both.

Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a harmless sin (what you would call quarks), we not only have the grounds, but the responsibility to fight gay marriage. I'll prove it by the end of the week.

puritan lad wrote:

Mr. Hyde wrote:If it were possible to separate these quarks...I would say that we have no grounds to fight gay-marriage on-spiritual, political, or otherwise. Unfortunately, the issues of gays' right to marry and gays' right to adopt cannot be separated, therefore I am forced to cast a vote against both.

Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a harmless sin (what you would call quarks), we not only have the grounds, but the responsibility to fight gay marriage. I'll prove it by the end of the week.

Haha...I must not be doing a good job of explaining myself because everything I say seems to be misunderstood. Not your fault...I'm just doing a poor job of saying what I mean.
Quarks are the smallest known particles to man and they have been deemed inseparable. I referred to these two things as quarks because they are two different problems that cannot be separated.
I also did not say that there was no such thing as harmless sin. I think that homosexuality is very harmful. In as much as I think homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes, I do not think it is the Christians responsibility to stop it on a political level.
Again...this is a point that I am more than willing to be wrong in. As a matter of fact, I think that there is a good chance that I am wrong...I just can't see it. But either way...it doesn't matter--my vote will continue to go against gay marriage until the day it can be separated from gays' right to adopt (which is never).

Oh...and thank you for the time you are taking to respond.

I hope that by the end of this discussion, I will have a better understanding of my role in politics.

Mr. Hyde wrote:I think that homosexuality is very harmful. In as much as I think homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes, I do not think it is the Christians responsibility to stop it on a political level.

Why? What do you suppose we should do then? I don't understand your reasoning.. You would vote against it though?

Gman wrote:

Mr. Hyde wrote:I think that homosexuality is very harmful. In as much as I think homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes, I do not think it is the Christians responsibility to stop it on a political level.

Why? What do you suppose we should do then? I don't understand your reasoning.. You would vote against it though?

I have already explained this.

I would seek to stop it for the sake of the children that would be adopted into a household of two mommies or two daddies. I would seek to stop it because as I stated, the issues of gay marriage and gays' right to adopt cannot be separated. I would seek to stop it only on grounds of the latter.

Mr. Hyde,

I've been working this issue, but it kind of took a direction that I don't quite want to address yet, so I've decided to simplify it a little.

It's good to know that you are a politically active Christian, despite the fact that you can't account for it. You have followed your Christian instinct in that area, and are correct in doing so. But there are biblical reasons why Christians should be politically active.

As Bart said earlier, a lot of one's view of Christian Politics is directly tied to one's eschatology. For the most part, those who hold to a pre-trib rapture are more likely to question their roles in politics, though some of these, like Jac3510, are very biblically sound politically. Postmillennialists, like myself, hold that Christ will "put all enemies under His feet", and that included political enemies. The Bible has plenty to say about civil governments, and there is no way we can preach the whole council of God without addressing politics.

"you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose...And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:15-20)

It has been said that Christians shouldn't bother with politics very much. Afterall, "our citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:30). What is a Christian's role in the political realm? Is it possible to be neutral on any issue? What should Christians expect from their civil leaders?

The passage in Deuteronomy is plain enough. As stewards of the whole council of God, we cannot ignore that which God's Word commands to civil leaders. They are expected to keep all the words of the law and statutes, and "may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left".

"Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him." (Psalms 2:10-12)

Let's face it. God rules. "He does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35) There can be no neutrality, for "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. (Luke 11:23) As Christians, we are to be light and salt, reflecting Christ and affecting our culture. Otherwise, we are "no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet." (Matthew 5:13). If we have the power to stop abortion or gay marriage with our votes, and do not do it, it is a sin (James 4:17).

God's Law and Civil Government

"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:3-4)

There are tons of Scriptures that give commands to Civil Governments, so we cannot possibly go over them all. What are the main duties, given by Scripture, to civil leaders. First, the civil leader must approve "doing what is good (Romans 13:3). What is good? How does one define it? Is abortion good? What about gay marriage? What about state supported theft (socialism)? What does God say on these issues? (See Exodus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; Exodus 20:15).

The Civil Leader also bears the sword, in order to "carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). Again, we must ask, what is a wrongdoer? How do we define right and wrong? If we do so by anything other than God's law, we let the civil government decide for itself whom to execute with the sword. We don't need to have civil governments trying to guess right and wrong. The Bible is very plain, "Sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4).

There can be no neutrality. We either live by God's law and expect our governments to do the same, or else we make man autonomous. "Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people. A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days." (Proverbs 28:15-16) The suggestion that Christians should not be political means that we would have to get rid of a great portion of the Bible, since it is written to civil governments. Scripture itself is against such nonsense. Individuals, Churches, and states are to live by every scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), every command (James 2:10), even the least command (Matthew 5:19), every word (Matthew 4:4) and every letter (Matthew 5:18) of God's Law.

Greg Bahnsen gives an excellent summary about the absolute law given by the absolute lawgiver. “The uniqueness of biblical ethics and the unchallengeable authority of the biblical God make it theologically impossible to find any extrascriptural standard by which His law could be appraised. It cannot be the ways of this world (Romans 12:1-2). Nor can it be the standard of revered tradition (Matthew 15:6), majority opinion (Romans 3:4), the lifestyle of unbelievers (Ephesians 4:17), the desires of sinful men (1 Peter 4:1-5), other highsounding ethical standards (Colossians 2:26-23), the view of religious teachers (1 John 4:1), human wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:17-31), worldly philosophy (Colossians 2:8), human laws (Acts 5:29), governmental decrees (Revelation 13:8, 16-17, 14:1, 12), public approval (2 Timothy 3:3, 12), personal convenience (Matthew 5:10), financial cost (Matthew 6:24), advancement in the world (Matthew 19:17, 29), protection or special favors (Hebrews 11:25-26), ease of application in the face of the status quo (Acts 17:6), or simplicity of understanding and applying those laws (Hebrews 5:11-14)."

The Great Commission

Jesus' parting words to His disciples were to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20). Regardless of whether or not the term "nation" means nation, or a group of people, the job of the church is to make disciples (bring under the discipline of Christ) of all peoples, including politicians.

Objections

1.) God's civil laws were only for Old Testament Israel, and are no longer valid.

God's law was a model for all nations to follow (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). It was given so that "so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God". (Romans 3:19). What was sinful in israel was not tolerated just over the state line. This is why God punished Sodom and Gemorrah for their "lawless deeds" (2 Peter 2:8). Christ did not intend to have the slightest stroke of that law altered (Matthew 5:17-19), but actually commanded leaders to keep "the weightier matters of the law" (Matthew 23:23). That which Jesus taught His disciples, they in turn were to teach "all nations" to observe (Matthew 28:19-20). If God did it to Sodom and Gemorrah, he can do it to the United States of America. Therefore, we should strive as Christians to prevent the legal recognition of state-sanctioned perversion, if for no other reason, to prevent God's judgment upon our nation.

Furthermore, the New Testament is full of commandments that civil governments are expected to follow. Isn't condemning a man without a hearing a civil matter (John 7:51)? Isn't murder and its judgment a “reference to” the civil aspect of the law (Matt. 5:21)? Isn't theft a civil matter (Rom. 13:9)? extortion (1 Cor. 5:10; 6:10)? defrauding of salary (James. 5:4)? Isn't submission to civil rulers a “civil aspect” of God's law (1 Peter 2:13-17)?

2.) You can't legislate morality.

This is one of the biggest lies that Satan has told to citizens on both sides of the political spectrum. Of course you legislate morality. What else are you going to legislate? Murder is a moral law. So is rape. So is theft. The civil law says that I can't run around naked downtown. Paying child support is a moral law. All laws are moral. The question isn't whether or not we are going to legislate morality. Rather, it is a question of what standard will we use to legislate morality. It is the law that is necessary to restrain immorality (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

I hope this quick and short piece will give biblical support for your instincts. There is much more, but it'll require a detailed discussion on eschatology, ethics, the law, and the purpose of the church. I'll get something soon, but it may have to wait until after the New Year.

God Bless,

PL

Thanks alot. I appreciate you taking the time.

Yeah...I've been doing quite a bit of thinking on the subject. I'd say I've changed my mind in several areas concerning this issue. Actually...I wouldn't say I've changed my mind so much...but I've been able to fill in many of the gaps in my logic.
I plan to expound more upon this, but my thoughts are still very much "under construction".

Again...you've been extremely helpful. Thank you so much. I can't wait to read anything else you have to say.

Mr Hyde, have you hopped over to read PL's blog yet?
There is much more over there that is of value to read as well - http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com
I can definitely recommend the visit.

Thanks Judah. Your's is great as well...

In fact I'm looking forward to your defence of postmillennialism, PL. It seems very counter-intuitive, because the world seems to have gotten a lot worse and to continue down that track.

You said in your blog that 'there was nothing special about the 20th century'. Do you not agree that the two world wars were unparallelled, incomparable to any war before?
(According to the social science teacher I heard 2 years ago, WWI was (almost) the first war in which citizens participated... the issue used to be soldiers fighting and god(s) backing them. In earlier eras, wars were treated metaphysically and citizens took no part in them.)

I was raised in an amillennial environment, and recently chided an American liberal Christian for believing that mankind could build Utopia without Jesus's Second Coming. Do you think I should take it back?

And BTW, is 'Second Coming' a valid way to refer to the Final Judgement in the preterist system?

Turgonian wrote:In fact I'm looking forward to your defence of postmillennialism, PL. It seems very counter-intuitive, because the world seems to have gotten a lot worse and to continue down that track.

I'll get this more in detail, but just to put things in perspective...

Do you think that things are worse off now than they were in the "dark ages"? What about in the first century? What do you think about the Beatitudes?

It is always tempting to look at tragic events in our own time and assume that nothing this bad has ever happened before. Likewise with immoral bahavior. However, a short study of world history will show that, indeed, "... there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

What do the Beatitudes have to do with it?

In the Dark Ages, warfare was much more local. Not intercontinental. And at least Christianity was present and expanding.

In fact, I believe I quoted Peter Kreeft somewhere on the board, who summed up the things that were highly valued in the Middle Ages but which we have lost today: 'silence, solitude, detachment, self-control, contemplation, awe, humility, hierarchy, modesty, chastity, reverence, authority, obedience, tradition, honor, simplicity, holiness, loyalty, gentlemanliness, manliness, womanliness, propriety, ceremony, cosmic justice, pure passion, holy poverty, respect for old age, the positive spiritual use of suffering, gratitude, fidelity, real individuality, real community, courage, and absolute honesty (the passionate, or fanatical love of truth for its own sake)'. (Darkness at Noon)

I know that very immoral behaviour was present with the Romans (infanticide -- the father would simply break a baby's back if he didn't like it or it was handicapped), Canaanites (bestiality, incest, temple prostitution, child sacrifice), and a lot of other ancient cultures.
But can we say the world is getting better? We know that man doesn't improve...and if I look at the inexorable globalization, however little I know about it, it fills me with fear. Some thirty years ago, a song was released in Holland, of which the title would mean 'Fleeing Has Become Impossible'. 'Even the moon is full of wheelbarrows and on Venus are instruments ... and on earth the last bird dies in the last spring...' Although my concerns are not primarily with regard to the exploitation of the earth, I wonder if the future will be more like 1984 or Brave New World...either way fleeing has become impossible.

Unless, of course, the nations repent, as you believe. Globalization will be suffocating and probably totalitarian without the Gospel.
So you don't think that the earth will have to be completely purified before there will be a manifest messianic empire?

Biblical Postmillennialism does not teach any sort of universalism. What it teaches is that there will be a time when the Judaists reject their demonic religion in favor of Christ, which will result in even greater blessings for the gentiles. The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Hab. 2:14). Christianity will be the dominant worldview. Others will still exist, but will be inconsequental.

In actuality, Amillennial Preterism and Postmillennial Preterism aren't very different. Postmill's believe that a few more things have to happen before the Second Advent.