MacArthur vs. Platt

[Calminian]

John MacArthur Says the US ‘Is in a Moral Free-Fall’
John MacArthur Says the US ‘Is in a Moral Free-Fall’

I agree. That's not may main concern though. More concerning is a large segment of the church urging Christians to stand down. They don't believe it's important anymore to preach morality. In fact, they believe it's a bad testimony. Focus instead on the Gospel. Main proponents of this movement are David Platt and Russell Moore.

The problem is, how do you talk about the Gospel without talking about repentance, and how to you discuss repentance without discussing sin and morality? What exactly are we asking the world to turn from?

Below is a good article refuting David Platt's theology.

David Platt’s bad political theology ignores God’s standard
David Platt’s bad political theology ignores God's standard - Capstone Report

The world will go the way the world goes. That doesn't concern me on a macro level. What concerns me is what the Church does. What a shame if we don't offer resistance in the form of truth. The idea that this will harm our witness is perplexing at best. Just the opposite is true. Standing against evil is a always good testimony.

“...let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." — Jesus

 

[JonC]

I agree with Platt. His view is exactly the same as the early Church (I am actually surprised, but perhaps shouldn't be as Platt was a foreign missionary).

 

[Calminian]

I agree with Platt. His view is exactly the same as the early Church (I am actually surprised, but perhaps shouldn't be as Platt was a foreign missionary).

So you believe that morality doesn't matter? The Church shouldn't speak out against evil and for the innocent? I'm surprise you would admit this outright, considering my post. I expect some to at least deny Platt teaches this

BTW, Platt is also a Social Justice proponent, doing marches etc. I suppose that level of involvement is okay. Seems he's selective in what he stands with and against.

An interesting quote from the article.

"And that’s what really gets Platt upset. A person voting for baby murder? Let’s not judge. Someone criticizing those who vote for baby murder? ALERT! POTENTIAL DIVISION!"

And i doubt the early Church disagreed with Christ, that would should refrain from good deeds.

 

[JonC]

So you believe that morality doesn't matter? The Church shouldn't speak out against evil and for the innocent? I'm surprise you would admit this outright, considering my post. I expect some to at least deny Platt teaches this

BTW, Platt is also a Social Justice proponent, doing marches etc. I suppose that level of involvement is okay. Seems he's selective in what he stands with and against.

An interesting quote from the article.

"And that’s what really gets Platt upset. A person voting for baby murder? Let’s not judge. Someone criticizing those who vote for baby murder? ALERT! POTENTIAL DIVISION!"

And i doubt the early Church disagreed with Christ, that would should refrain from good deeds.

I agree with Platt's conclusion that "as products of human invention, political parties inevitably have idolatrous trajectories and trend toward positions that do not honor or reflect God’s character. No human political party has a monopoly on justice.”

Last I heard neither party was endorcing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In fact, neither party has even officially recognized Jesus as God and Savior.

It is not moral vs amoral but the Church vs the World. I choose Christ. Others choose the powers of the world. We cannot serve both.

 

[Calminian]

I agree with Platt's conclusion that "as products of human invention, political parties inevitably have idolatrous trajectories and trend toward positions that do not honor or reflect God’s character. No human political party has a monopoly on justice.”

And this hypothetical trajectory is grounds to be godless ourselves? And stand down against evil? Take that one before God, and good luck.

Last I heard neither party was endorcing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, this is exactly the argument Platt makes. Doesn't matter how good or bad a party is. If they don't endorse Christ, we don't join them in whatever good they're trying to do. What an awful testimony.

Problem is, there's nothing about this in Scripture. Romans 13 doesn't mention any standard like this. It merely says government is to punish evil and minister to the innocent. And we know all Christians are commanded to do good. Do you think this excludes political good? I only thank God Platt wasn't there to denounce the abolitionists.

In fact, neither party has even officially recognized Jesus as God and Savior.

So then, just let those babies die! (so the implication goes) Yet the NT says if we know the good we are to do and do not do it, to him in sin. David Platt is basically advocating open sin, with an imaginary excuse and a theory that it makes for a better testimony.

It is not moral vs amoral but the Church vs the World. I choose Christ. ....

David Platt is openly calling the Church to disobey Christ. He's basically saying that if you can't find a Christian political party to save the unborn, you should let them die. This is morally repugnant.

To draw an analogy it would be like finding out a police officer didn't affirm Christ, and then preventing him from defending your family. I highly doubt you'd stick to your guns in that scenario. Nor would Platt.

 

[church mouse guy]

Russell Moore should go to DC and work for Biden and the SBC should fold the ERLC into the NAMB and let it disappear there, no?

 

[Calminian]

Russell Moore should go to DC and work for Biden and the SBC should fold the ERLC into the NAMB and let it disappear there, no?

I'm just amazed at the following these men have. I think this crisis, however, is waking up the Church.

 

[JonC]

And this hypothetical trajectory is grounds to be godless ourselves? And stand down against evil? Take that one before God, and good luck.



Yes, this is exactly the argument Platt makes. Doesn't matter how good or bad a party is. If they don't endorse Christ, we don't join them in whatever good they're trying to do. What an awful testimony.

Problem is, there's nothing about this in Scripture. Romans 13 doesn't mention any standard like this. It merely says government is to punish evil and minister to the innocent. And we know all Christians are commanded to do good. Do you think this excludes political good? I only thank God Platt wasn't there to denounce the abolitionists.



So then, just let those babies die! (so the implication goes) Yet the NT says if we know the good we are to do and do not do it, to him in sin. David Platt is basically advocating open sin, with an imaginary excuse and a theory that it makes for a better testimony.



David Platt is openly calling the Church to disobey Christ. He's basically saying that if you can't find a Christian political party to save the unborn, you should let them die. This is morally repugnant.

To draw an analogy it would be like finding out a police officer didn't affirm Christ, and then preventing him from defending your family. I highly doubt you'd stick to your guns in that scenario. Nor would Platt.

We do not need to draw an analogy. This was the position of the Church until the Fourth Century (until the Roman Catholic Church was born). We can read the writings of men like Tertullian. So there is no need for stories.

I believe that Christians should speak out for life. The difference between you and I may simply be in choosing Christ through the Church or the world through a political party as our voice.

You seem to belueve the way to change the world is through secular powers. I believe it is only through Christ - kingdom people doing kingdom work in kingdom ways.

 

[Calminian]

We do not need to draw an analogy. This was the position of the Church until the Fourth Century (until the Roman Catholic Church was born). We can read the writings of men like Tertullian. So there is no need for stories.

The early Church deemed the Republican and Democrat parties equally godless? I highly doubt it, since they didn't even know what a representative republic was.

Regardless, EC views are irrelevant.

I believe that Christians should speak out for life. The difference between you and I may simply be in choosing Christ through the Church or the world through a political party as our voice.

Also irrelevant to the discussion. The issue is, do we do good and refrain from evil in all circumstances? Or does doing evil through politics get a pass?

You seem to belueve the way to change the world is through secular powers. I believe it is only through Christ - kingdom people doing kingdom work in kingdom ways.

I hear this accusation often. If one tries to do good through a certain venue, he's trusting in that venue instead of Christ.

I just hope to God, most Christians realize they can talk and chew gum at the same time.

It's a bizarre argument no one ever even made until recently. The idea that we have to let babies die by the millions, or we're somehow trusting in government is a sad excuse. I can imagine the accusation you would have hurled at the abolitionists. May God not judge this wayward Church generation.

 

[JonC]

The early Church deemed the Republican and Democrat parties equally godless? I highly doubt it, since they didn't even know what a representative republic was.

Regardless, EC views are irrelevant.



Also irrelevant to the discussion. The issue is, do we do good and refrain from evil in all circumstances? Or does doing evil through politics get a pass?



I hear this accusation often. If one tries to do good through a certain venue, he's trust in that venue instead of Christ.

I just hope to God, most Christians realize they can talk and chew gum at the same time.

It's a bizarre argument no one ever even made until recently. The idea that we have to let babies die the millions, or we're someone trusting in government is a sad excuse. I can imagine the accusation you would have hurled at the abolitionists. May God not judge this wayward Church generation.

No. The early Church refrained from yoking themselves with worldly powers.

You are right that we are not the early Church. Today Christians have more a philosophy of "harm none, do what ye will". I just can't get on board.

 

[Calminian]

No. The early Church refrained from yoking themselves with worldly powers.

So they never worked for an unbeliever? They never engaged in business with unbelievers? They never joined unbelievers in anything good they were trying to accomplish?

This whole argument is absurd. The fact that God didn't create a Christian nation but rather commanded Churches to live in other nations and obey their laws refutes this argument.

You are right that we are not the early Church. Today Christians have more a philosophy of "harm none, do what ye will". I just can't get on board.

As you sit back in silence..... until God forbid, they come for you.

 

[Calminian]

BTW, Jon, your are not making the same argument Platt makes, nor drawing the same conclusion. He says unequivocally, we should participate in politics. You're actually arguing against participation (which you claim is yoking with unbelievers). I think it's at least fair to admit you're no longer advocating for Platt or Moore's position.

 

[JonC]

So they never worked for an unbeliever? They never engaged in business with unbelievers? They never joined unbelievers in anything good they were trying to accomplish?

This whole argument is absurd. The fact that God didn't create a Christian nation but rather commanded Churches to live in other nations and obey their laws refutes this argument.



As you sit back in silence..... until God forbid, they come for you.

I do not know who they worked for. I only know they refused to be a part of tge political landscape because they viewed it as worldly powers. They thought one could not serve two masters.

At the same time they did not "sit back in silence". I'm sure faithless "Christians" accused them of such or men like Tertullian would have not wrote against Christians involving themselves in political issues. They stood for Christ and allowed Him, not a secular power, be their voice.

They did not believe the ends justified the means but instead favored obedience to God over their own power.

 

[JonC]

BTW, Jon, your are not making the same argument Platt makes, nor drawing the same conclusion. He says unequivocally, we should participate in politics. You're actually arguing against participation (which you claim is yoking with unbelievers). I think it's at least fair to admit you're no longer advocating for Platt or Moore's position.

I may not be. I was agreeing with what I quoted of Platt.

 

[AustinC]

John MacArthur Says the US ‘Is in a Moral Free-Fall’
John MacArthur Says the US ‘Is in a Moral Free-Fall’

I agree. That's not may main concern though. More concerning is a large segment of the church urging Christians to stand down. They don't believe it's important anymore to preach morality. In fact, they believe it's a bad testimony. Focus instead on the Gospel. Main proponents of this movement are David Platt and Russell Moore.

The problem is, how do you talk about the Gospel without talking about repentance, and how to you discuss repentance without discussing sin and morality? What exactly are we asking the world to turn from?

Below is a good article refuting David Platt's theology.

David Platt’s bad political theology ignores God’s standard
David Platt’s bad political theology ignores God's standard - Capstone Report

The world will go the way the world goes. That doesn't concern me on a macro level. What concerns me is what the Church does. What a shame if we don't offer resistance in the form of truth. The idea that this will harm our witness is perplexing at best. Just the opposite is true. Standing against evil is a always good testimony.

“...let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." — Jesus

The article you linked actually makes Platts point:

“As products of human invention, political parties inevitably have idolatrous trajectories and trend toward positions that do not honor or reflect God’s character. No human political party has a monopoly on justice.3”

It also makes a point I have made that Christians in the US have made an idol of politics while they see God as a genie who will bless their politics.

 

[Reynolds]

I agree with Platt's conclusion that "as products of human invention, political parties inevitably have idolatrous trajectories and trend toward positions that do not honor or reflect God’s character. No human political party has a monopoly on justice.”

Last I heard neither party was endorcing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In fact, neither party has even officially recognized Jesus as God and Savior.

It is not moral vs amoral but the Church vs the World. I choose Christ. Others choose the powers of the world. We cannot serve both.

Trump did.

 

[Calminian]

I do not know who they worked for. I only know they refused to be a part of tge political landscape because they viewed it as worldly powers. They thought one could not serve two masters.

What does this mean? What exactly did they refuse to do? They never, like Paul, appealed to Caesar? Never advocated for mercy for anyone? This would be crazy and unbiblical. How can you possibly believe this? They knew Paul's opinions about these matters.

If you're merely suggesting they didn't have the political power we've been given, I'd agree. I'd also argue, they would rebuke us for sitting on our hands during a holocaust, with all the means we've been given.

I think your'e confused about this whole issue. You're misunderstanding what the EF meant. Christ did not want the Church to form a nation and run it politically. We're rather to join nations and be good productive citizens. We're to pay taxes customs fear and honor.

 

[JonC]

Trump did.

Trump is not a political party.

 

[Reynolds]

I agree with Platt's conclusion that "as products of human invention, political parties inevitably have idolatrous trajectories and trend toward positions that do not honor or reflect God’s character. No human political party has a monopoly on justice.”

Last I heard neither party was endorcing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In fact, neither party has even officially recognized Jesus as God and Savior.

It is not moral vs amoral but the Church vs the World. I choose Christ. Others choose the powers of the world. We cannot serve both.

I agree with Mac.

 

[Reynolds]

Trump is not a political party.

He is The Potus and the Republican party a this moment.