Featured Freedom of Choice and Abortion: Would you take away that freedom? Would you make it a criminal act?

James, I do understand the sentiment, however I would gently and generally disagree with the application.

First, the Scriptures are written to all, that sin may be known, for if there was no Scriptures nor stated standard of righteousness, there would be no sin and standard of sinfulness.

Second, God certainly did intend for "Scriptures to wrangle the behavior of the lost." That is why the moral law was given and applicable to all who lived in the land of Israel in the OT. Also, why the principles of the Scriptures could be applicable to the judgment of God upon the heathen (writing on the wall).

Third, Scriptures were not written only for believers, just as the Holy Spirit was not given to just the believers. For the Lord Jesus said that the job of the Holy Spirit was to "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged." (John 16)

Fourth, it is not our responsibility to make a law for folks to believe a certain way. That again is the responsibility of the Father. He will cause all knees to bow in His timing and under His control, we don't have that authority.

 

What about freedom of choice in hiring? Would this post be your argument against the Civil Rights Act of 1965?

 

[sarcasm]Right. Pragmatism is the guiding principle. Theft is illegal because it hurts the economy, not because it is wrong or immoral.[/sarcasm]

 

That's a worse reason than Egypt ordering the death of every male Israelite baby because their numbers were becoming too big? Anyway, do you want to make murder legal because there's a biblical precept against i t?

 

not at all. I'm not saying change the mandate, but change the reason the mandate is desired.

 

Kinda.

But that's not pragmatic, just acknowledging the fact that you're not going to change a heart through mandates.

Paul said as much. If the Law had been faultless, there would have been no need to abolish it.

 

Scripture never dices up the Law into moral, civil, ceremonial, etc. That is a hindrance imposed by self-appointed "teachers"

The entirety of the Law was given to a nation of people who believed in God. The NT was written to saints, not one mention of being written to unbelievers.

You say it's not our responsibility to mandate conformity to our religious beliefs, i agree. It is also not our responsibility to mandate conformity to our religious behaviors.

Should we mandate behavioral issues such as church attendance?

If we are to mandate biblical Law, should we not also include outlawing lust? And shouldn't we require a man to marry his dead brother's wife?

 

I agree, James, with one slight modification.

The law was never "abolished" in the sense of erased, but either "fulfilled" by the mercy and grace of salvation so the believer is no longer able to shackle or bind to the sacrificial orders and ordinances of the OT, or not applicable to gentiles as the first council of the apostles at Jerusalem stated. The pictures presented in the atonement sacrifices were completed in Christ, and lived through the believer's own sacrificing of self to Him. We are to abide with what the Jerusalem council declared is right for gentiles.

You are most correct in stating that a heathen's heart will never change through social mandates. If anything that heart will rebel all the more.

 

This is true. Both John and Luke record that they are writing for the believers to know the sufficiency of Christ and for discernment.

There is a difference (imo) between mandating conformity to a religious behavior, and endorsing laws in which all members of the society may thrive in some manner of equitable opportunity.

To that end, the Scriptures do offer certain principles of living and neighborly interaction and these principles should be reflected in the social law.

For example, the worship of one God, the rejection of other Gods, not allowing abusive, offensive, threatening, and any other shameful language. That a time of rest from labor, and that respect with honor should be given to all adults, that cheating, murder, adultery, theft, and threats to the home of husband should not be allowed.

There is not a single command in the Decalogue that "mandates" a religion, but those commandments serve as principled living for every member of a peaceful society. So, it is not against the responsibility of believers to "mandate" such laws.

This is the difference (imo) between those who were the separatists and those who were the puritans. The separatists had it right, the puritans were preoccupied with outer display and often left the heart open to all manner of excess.

 

I would assert that the entirety of the Law was completely abolished when true righteousness came through the washing of regeneration in the Spirit.

But i fully appreciate at least the minimal acknowledgment that the Law is not binding upon Gentiles

 

James,

Under your thinking of the law being abolished, how do you handle this statement by our Lord Jesus from Matthew 5?

17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.​

 

It's a much-maligned section of scripture where (imho) the entirety of the discourse has not been taken into account by most. He starts ch. 5 with beatitudes characterizing those who are exemplifying inner righteousness, and says "you are the light of the world, salt...."

So he starts out this discourse by telling his disciples by which criteria it will be determined who inherits the earth, to whom tge Kingdom belongs, who will "see" God, etc. And it's not by keeping the Law, it's through inner peace and righteousness. Their natural thinking would probably have been that He was telling them to forget about the Law. So He immediately tells them "do not think I have come to....."

Then proceeded to tell them that unless their righteousness exceeded that of the best Law-keepers, they would not see the Kingdom of heaven.

Then goes to explain the difference between the outer display vs. the inner righteousness, which is more a matter of motive and other issues of thinking.

After this, at the end of ch. 6, He tells them to not worry about earthly things....food, drink, life, death, etc. Do not seek after these. Instead, seek first the Kingdom of God.

This is where to notice Romans 14:17-18
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men

Then in Matt. 7, Jesus tells them to ask, seek, and knock, and speaks of good gifts. Every single parallel passage and cross reference, the gift they are to seek is the Holy Spirit, who brings true righteousness.

And according to John 7, He was not given yet.

Paul said in Romans 5:1-5 that the Spirit was given to us, the implication when we accessed the grace of God through faith. And he's here speaking of perseverance, tribulation, etc. just like Jesus did in the beatitudes.

From Hebrews 7-10 we learn that there was indeed a change in the Law because the Law came through the priesthood, and there is a new High Priest.

2Cor 3 tells us that the Law is the ministry of death. Read verse 9...
For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.

There WAS a glory in keeping the Law, but not now.

But back to the Sermon on the Mount - near the end Jesus said beware of those who OUTWARDLY look like sheep, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. And said you will know them by their fruit.

We've got a whole slew of Protestant wolves telling us that the fruit is outward, when Jesus said outwardly you can't tell the difference.


The short of it is that Jesus LIVED to fulfill the Law, and DIED to abolish it. The Law is the ministry of death for those who have received the Spirit and serve God in this way

 

You're gonna have to help me out here, James. In post #24, where exactly did I indicate that making a law was for societal conformity to biblical precepts?

In fact, there's a whole paragraph that was meant to indicate exactly the opposite; that whole part where I included "soul liberty."

I believe I ended the post with saying that as a member of society, we have a responsibility to make and enforce laws that are the most beneficial to that society; and yes, biblical guidelines (such as thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal) aren't a bad idea to use as a guideline when making laws.

But I never said, nor intended to indicate, that we should make such laws to honor God. My apologies if my meaning came out as such; and I'd appreciate it if you'd point out where I went astray, so I don't make the same error in the future.

 

I'm sorry, Don. I read your post as you intended (and just elaborated). I must have failed to properly convey my agreement.

I was basically chiding the rest of the board in my rant

 

Agreed.
I am prolife because I believe in rights for everyone. This would include the unborn, which are scientifically their own persons from, at the very least, not long after conception. (They can and do feel pain from early on, too.) While there are also (arguably) scriptural reasons, unbelievers in society are not going to take scriptural reasoning seriously. Besides, if we believe God's laws also have objective reasons behind them, then we ought to be able to demonstrate this.

 

Ah, understood.

 

The Bible says "Thy shall not Kill". Whether killing a baby is lawful or not, it's still against God's Law. For a Christian God's Law rules over that of governmental laws. Sin is never made right by man's laws. We do not have the right to take a life just because the government says it'ok. Those who do will answer for it on judgement day. Do you believe that God will excuse it just because you think it's alright
MB

 

He's not saying abortion is okay. His argument is that forcing people to abide by a biblically-based law, and expecting them to "come to Jesus" by doing so, is wrong. In other words: the law does not save.

 

For sure. Apostle Paul said it, too

I would not have known coveting, except that the Law said "do not covet". But sin took advantage of the Law and produced in me all kinds of covetous desires
---Romans 7:7-8