It depends on national political context. My own country is highly secularised, and politics here is well beyond saving for this reason (also corruption and other problems naturally associated with godlessness). I have disengaged from politics completely for these very reasons. To many people, this will sound defeatist. The way I see it is that there is (relatively) little happiness to be found in this life, and to try and save a world gone completely to hell is tilting at windmills. Instead, I try and purify my own life from godlessness and do whatever I can for my family and friends.
Applying God's Word to Politics
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I am sorry the situation is so dire in the UK.
I guess the best you can do is vote for the Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage and pray for the best.
Don't give up and don't give in! (Acts 5:29)
Thank you for your message and words of encouragement. I won’t get into the political weeds — I could lecture on the topic, at this point — but Nigel Farage and Reform UK are not the answer sadly. And I’m not on the political Left either. Of the main personnel of Reform, most of whom I dislike and distrust, the only one I view as sound is James Orr.I am sorry the situation is so dire in the UK.
I guess the best you can do is vote for the Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage and pray for the best.
Don't give up and don't give in! (Acts 5:29)
I should add, sound in terms of his professed positions. There are, of course, ongoing investigations, of which I was saddened to hear.
I guess you need to vote for whom you think is most morally correct, although not perfect by any means!
I only know of Farage and the UK situation by watching Steve Bannon's show on RAV television.
You have moved from "Christians persuade" to "governors punish evil" without showing the connection.
I agree that persuasion is educational and that rulers are God's servants in Romans 13.
What has not been demonstrated is that New Testament persuasion is carried out through state coercion.
Romans 13 describes the function of civil government.
It does not command believers to transform the civil government into an instrument for enforcing Christian morality on unbelievers. Those are two distinct claims.
Can you provide a text where the apostles instruct Christians to use civil power for that purpose?
Unfortunately, within a democracy, it is voting for who is most morally correct and a viable candidate. Else there’s not much point in voting, except for one’s own satisfaction. Within the current political climate in the UK, it seems to me pathetic to be constantly voting for people on the basis they’re marginally preferable to someone else awful. It’s different to Bill Buckley’s old rule of the rightwardmost viable candidate, as there just aren’t genuinely right-wing and viable politicians/parties here, due to the secularisation and liberalisation. Take things like Farage’s stances on abortion or divorce. I’d rather disengage totally and keep some dignity — whatever that’s worth.
But, as I say, I mustn’t drone on! It’s something I’ve studied a great deal and to which I’ve devoted a lot of thought.
That is your interpretation of scripture and you are certainly entitled to your own prophecy of scripture. I agree, a living being comes into existence when it has life and are endowed with certain inalienable right.
In John 8, Jesus was speaking to those Jews which believed on him and they said to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. So any idea what they speaking about?
In traditional Jewish law (Halakha) and rabbinic tradition, full human life and personhood begin at birth—or rather what is written in scripture as "opened the womb"; specifically with the emergence of the baby's head or a major part of the body, often connected to taking the first breath—rather than at conception.
However if life begins at conception then how can how can the LORD know you before you were formed in the belly unless you were alive before conception? Jer 1:5
According to the LORD, life begins when he puts life into the seed of Woman
(Matt 19:4)(Ezek 37)
Do the parents have any reproductive rights?
Well the Lord is the One that said the shedding of innocent blood is an abomination to Him which is grievous sin.
I'm just telling people what the Lord says in His Word. They are free to find out the hard way if they so desire.
You are mixing God's foreknowledge with a person's existence.
Jeremiah 1:5 does not say Jeremiah was alive before conception.
It says God knew him before He formed him.
God also knew every believer before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), yet that does not mean we literally existed before creation.
The verse speaks of God's knowledge and purpose, not Jeremiah's pre-existent life.
You also appealed to Jewish tradition, but the question is not what later rabbinic tradition teaches.
The question is what Scripture says.
In Scripture, the unborn child is repeatedly treated as a living individual in the womb.
John the Baptist leaped in his mother's womb (Luke 1:41-44). Jacob and Esau struggled together in the womb (Genesis 25:22). God speaks of forming and knowing people in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5).
As for John 8:41, the Jews saying, "We be not born of fornication," was a statement about their own legitimacy and a veiled attack against Jesus' birth, not a definition of when life begins.
Your final statement, "life begins when he puts life into the seed of woman," is the very point under debate.
Where is the verse that says God's act of giving life occurs at conception rather than afterward?
If you want to establish that from Scripture, you need a text that explicitly says it.
Jeremiah 1:5 does not do that because "known before formed" proves foreknowledge, not pre-conception life.
In fact, if your argument were consistent, Jeremiah would have had to exist before he was formed, since God says He knew him before formation, not merely before conception.
The verse cannot be used as proof of pre-existent human life without creating a contradiction elsewhere in Scripture.
We are responsible for being part of the solution or persevering in doing good (Matt. 6:10, Gal. 6:9, 2Thes. 3:13, Rom. 2:7, 1 Cor. 15:58).
IOW, perhaps we should drone on and not be discouraged. I am reading Revolution, which describes how Americans in Valley Forge soldiered on without food and clothing despite many dying in order to win freedom from England. With God miracles are possible!
I understand the carrot-and-stick analogy.
My question is why you think Romans 13 "marries" Christian persuasion to state coercion.
The fact that both exist does not prove they are the same ministry or that Christians are commanded to use one through the other.
God uses many means to accomplish His purposes.
Parents discipline children.
Churches practice discipline.
Governments punish crime.
Evangelists preach the gospel.
The mere fact that God uses all of them does not make them interchangeable.
Romans 13 says rulers are God's servants who punish evildoers. I agree.
What it does not say is, "Christians should gain political power and use the state to enforce Christian moral conclusions on unbelievers."
That's the step in the argument that remains unproven.
The apostles certainly knew Romans 13 realities existed.
Yet when addressing abortion-like sins, idolatry, sexual immorality, infanticide, and paganism throughout the Roman world, they called Christians to preach, persuade, disciple, rebuke, and evangelize.
Where do they instruct believers to pursue civil power as the means of accomplishing those goals?
So the question isn't whether God employs both a carrot and a stick. Of course He does.
The question is whether the New Testament ever tells the church to wield Caesar's stick in order to advance Christian morality. Romans 13 describes what rulers do. It does not, by itself, establish that mission for the church.
I am very well aware of the foreknowledge of the LORD, from his existence. I am also aware if he prophet is deceived when he has spoken a thing who has deceived that prophet.
So nothing you have presented establishes that life begins at conception, as far as the passage in Jeremiah which reads
"Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jer 1:4-5
The reference in Genesis also does not support the life begins before the LORD puts life into the seed of the Woman.
And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels;
And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
Gen 25:23-24
Maybe Jeremiah 3:14 might help.
I simply added that since reference to the Jewish tradition regarding the beginning of life since the life of Adam beginning with the breath of life and the opening of the womb being being the breath of life of the newborn wasn't something I made up but what one can reasonably conclude from the scriptures. Again, nothing in the passages you present that life begins at conception nor do the prove that life doesn't begin in the womb after conception.
So do you know why the Holy Ghost filled the seed of the Woman?
You position is that life begins at conception, at this point I really can't tell. I did not raise the argument that life existed prior to life being placed into the seed of Woman. That was your argument that life began at conception, I simply pointed out that the scripture you cited infers by implication that Jeremiah existed prior even before conception.
Solomon wrote "When there were no depths, I was brought forth; Prov 8:24 as well as "Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:" Prov 8:25. So did he exist before he was born?
Do you believe Truth is One? If so, then do not divorce the carrot and stick.
The same Jesus who suffered on the cross will return to consign unbelievers to hell.
Your question is "why does Scripture not state everything explicitly so I won't need the Holy Spirit's guidance
aka/via right reasoning, divine logic, inference, implication and harmonization?"
My answer is that I don't know why Scripture is more like sausage rather than a systematic theology,
but we have to go with what God gives us, believing that as long as we love Truth we will not be far wrong.
(2Cor. 5:7, 2Thes. 2:10, Matt. 4:6-7, 5:20-22, John 16:13)
I think you're proving my point rather than answering it.
You argued that Jeremiah 1 teaches life begins at conception.
I pointed out that if you're going to use "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee" as proof of when life begins, then the same verse also says God knew Jeremiah before he was formed.
The verse is about God's foreknowledge and calling, not a timeline establishing the exact moment human life begins.
Likewise, Genesis 25 shows Jacob and Esau were living individuals in the womb.
I agree with that.
But saying they were alive in the womb is not the same thing as proving from the text that life begins precisely at conception rather than sometime after conception and before birth.
The text doesn't address that question directly.
As for Proverbs 8, no, I do not believe Solomon literally existed before creation.
Proverbs 8 is personified wisdom speaking.
That's exactly why I'm cautioning against treating poetic or foreknowledge language as if it were a biological statement about when human life begins.
The real issue is simple: can you produce a passage that explicitly says human life begins at conception?
So far, the texts presented show God's knowledge of people, God's formation of people, and living children in the womb.
They do not explicitly identify conception as the moment life begins.
If that's your conclusion, you're free to argue for it.
But it is still an inference from the text, not an explicit statement of the text.
I do believe truth is one.
That's precisely why I'm asking for the missing link in the argument.
The fact that the same Jesus who offers salvation will also judge the world does not establish that Christians are therefore commanded to use civil government to enforce Christian moral conclusions on unbelievers.
You're moving from "God uses both persuasion and punishment" to "therefore the church should employ the state's power to advance Christian morality." That conclusion still requires support.
I have no objection to inference, implication, harmonization, or right reasoning.
We all use them.
The question is whether the inference actually follows from the texts cited.
Romans 13 tells us what rulers are ordained by God to do.
The Great Commission tells the church what it is ordained by God to do.
The burden is to show where the New Testament joins those two missions in the way you're proposing.
Appealing to the Holy Spirit does not remove the need to demonstrate the connection from the text.
Otherwise, someone could justify almost any conclusion by claiming it is the product of harmonization.
So my question remains unchanged: where do the apostles instruct Christians to seek, wield, or direct civil power as a means of imposing Christian moral standards on those outside the faith?
If that conclusion is derived by inference, then let's examine the inference itself.
Simply asserting that truth is one does not establish that the inference is correct.
That's actually my point.
No, I cannot produce a passage that explicitly says, "Human life begins at conception."
But neither have you produced a passage that explicitly says, "Human life begins when God later places life into the child in the womb," or "Human life begins at first breath after birth."