Applying God's Word to Politics

[OMC]

No I didn't, you are the one that cited Jeremiah 1 in your argument.

"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"

Yes you did.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

"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"

Yes you did.

You are the one that cited Jeremiah 1:5 as scripture proof that life begins at conception.

However if life begins at conception then how can the LORD know you before you were formed in the belly unless you were alive before conception? Jer 1:5

So if Jeremiah was deceived then who deceived him? Since the seed of Abraham are born from his bowels, then maybe he was formed in the belly of Abraham.

And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. Gen 15:4

 

[OMC]

You are the one that cited Jeremiah 1:5 as scripture proof that life begins at conception.

UnoiAmarah said:
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?

That was your post not mine.
My point was that Jeremiah 1:5 does not actually say that.
The verse says God knew Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb and ordained him before he was born.
That speaks to God's foreknowledge and purpose, not the moment life begins.
In fact, if Jeremiah 1:5 is being used to prove life begins at conception, the argument runs into a problem immediately, because the verse says God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb.
If "known by God" equals being alive, then Jeremiah would have existed before conception.
But that is not what the passage is teaching.
It is teaching God's prior knowledge and sovereign calling.
So Jeremiah 1:5 cannot be used as proof that life begins at conception, nor can it be used as proof that people existed before conception.
The verse addresses God's knowledge of Jeremiah, not the biological beginning of Jeremiah's life.

 

[GWH]

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.

Again, you must ask the Holy Spirit to supply missing link sausage, if you think Rom. 13:1-5 is not sufficient inference.
The burden is on you to figure it out how the text and Spirit are connected/joined, because I have already done so.

Islam and the Inquisition were historic examples of how NOT to connect/implement them, because they murdered
moral Christians in order to wield worldly power, which is the opposite of what Rom. 13:1-5 explicitly states!

Other than that, I cannot think of anything else to say about this, except answer the question yourself, because
again your criticism is not constructive. Have the courage to state how you harmonize them, because simply stating
that Scripture is not explicit does not establish that my inference is incorrect.

 

[GWH]

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."

But I have cited both Scripture and good reasons to believe civil rights begin at least by the time of quickening and sentience.

 

[OMC]

Again, you must ask the Holy Spirit to supply missing link sausage, if you think Rom. 13:1-5 is not sufficient inference.
The burden is on you to figure it out how the text and Spirit are connected/joined, because I have already done so.

Islam and the Inquisition were historic examples of how NOT to connect/implement them, because they murdered
moral Christians in order to wield worldly power, which is the opposite of what Rom. 13:1-5 explicitly states!

Other than that, I cannot think of anything else to say about this, except answer the question yourself, because
again your criticism is not constructive. Have the courage to state how you harmonize them, because simply stating
that Scripture is not explicit does not establish that my inference is incorrect.

I appreciate the honesty. I actually do have an answer for how I harmonize them.

I see Romans 13 and the Great Commission as complementary, not identical.
God gave civil government the authority to punish evildoers, while He gave the church the responsibility to preach the gospel, make disciples, and call people to repentance.

So yes, I agree Romans 13 teaches that government has a legitimate role in restraining evil.
Where I differ is in concluding from that fact that Christians are therefore instructed to use civil power to enforce specifically Christian moral conclusions on unbelievers.

You say the Spirit supplies the missing link.
My concern is that the same appeal could be made for many competing interpretations.
That is why I keep returning to the text itself.
An inference is only as strong as the textual evidence supporting it.

As for my harmonization, it is straightforward: rulers bear the sword (Rom. 13:1-5), while the church bears witness to Christ (Matt. 28:18-20).
The New Testament clearly teaches both.
What I do not see is a passage that merges those missions by instructing believers to seek or wield civil authority as a means of advancing Christian morality.

So I am not arguing that your inference is impossible.
I am arguing that it remains an inference, and one that still requires demonstration from the text rather than simply an appeal to harmonization.

In other words, the question is not whether Scripture requires us to connect the dots.
The question is whether the dots have been connected correctly.

 

[OMC]

But I have cited both Scripture and good reasons to believe civil rights begin at least by the time of quickening and sentience.

Earlier we were discussing when human life begins. Now you're discussing when civil rights should be recognized and protected.

Those are not necessarily identical questions.

Even if I granted, for the sake of argument, that Scripture and reason provide strong grounds for recognizing legal protection by quickening or sentience, that would not by itself establish that the child was not alive before quickening or sentience.

For example, Genesis 25 and Luke 1 describe unborn children as personal subjects in the womb.
The texts do not define civil rights, but they do present the unborn as more than mere tissue.

So I think there are two separate questions that need to be kept distinct:

When does human life begin?
At what point should human society recognize and protect legal rights?

A person could answer those questions differently.
The first is an ontological question.
The second is a legal and ethical question.

Therefore, even if your argument for quickening and sentience establishes a threshold for civil protection, it does not necessarily answer the original question of when human life begins.
That question still requires its own biblical and logical case.

 

[Churchgoer]

Well my name is Veronica, I am Christian and member of Assemblies of God so I am here looking for serious relationship which can lead me into marriage so any man who is interested should write me through my email address follow [email protected]
To know each other better thanks

Here is for Bible discussion.
Fyi, Jesus teach to stay faithful in marriage.

 

[rewriter]

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.

Scripture also says that y9ou will be judged by the standards you use. Many actions are considered sinful; do you avoid them all or are you going to find out the hard way? You deem people outside of salvation because of something considered sinful, so that is your standard, remember ALL sin ranks the same in God's eyes. God's grace is not for only those who avoid one specific sinful action.

 

[ScooterJackson]

Scripture also says that y9ou will be judged by the standards you use.

Yes which is one of the numerous reason I do not support abortion.

do you avoid them all or are you going to find out the hard way?

I refrain from doing things the Lord says are sinful in His Word and I do so by the power of the Holy Spirit.

You deem people outside of salvation because of something considered sinful, so that is your standard

No, the Lord teaches in His Word that those walking after the flesh reap corruption.
You seem to be saying we can live in sin and still be saved. That's not scriptural.

ALL sin ranks the same in God's eyes.

Not true. There is a sin not unto death (separation from God)
1 John 5:17 - All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

God's grace is not for only those who avoid one specific sinful action.

Romans 6:1,2
Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

That's the problem with many is they are not dead to sin and so they continue therin
That's why reformed folks keep saying it's not possible to stop living in sin because they are living in sin and not only admit it, they are proud of it!

 

[GWH]

I appreciate the honesty. I actually do have an answer for how I harmonize them.

I see Romans 13 and the Great Commission as complementary, not identical.
God gave civil government the authority to punish evildoers, while He gave the church the responsibility to preach the gospel, make disciples, and call people to repentance.

So yes, I agree Romans 13 teaches that government has a legitimate role in restraining evil.
Where I differ is in concluding from that fact that Christians are therefore instructed to use civil power to enforce specifically Christian moral conclusions on unbelievers.

You say the Spirit supplies the missing link.
My concern is that the same appeal could be made for many competing interpretations.
That is why I keep returning to the text itself.
An inference is only as strong as the textual evidence supporting it.

As for my harmonization, it is straightforward: rulers bear the sword (Rom. 13:1-5), while the church bears witness to Christ (Matt. 28:18-20).
The New Testament clearly teaches both.
What I do not see is a passage that merges those missions by instructing believers to seek or wield civil authority as a means of advancing Christian morality.

So I am not arguing that your inference is impossible.
I am arguing that it remains an inference, and one that still requires demonstration from the text rather than simply an appeal to harmonization.

In other words, the question is not whether Scripture requires us to connect the dots.
The question is whether the dots have been connected correctly.

Okay, I will respond beginning where you differ: Apparently you conclude/infer that Christians are NOT "to use civil power
to enforce specifically Christian moral conclusions on unbelievers".

Just who do you suppose IS supposed to use civil power?
Just WHAT morality do you infer is supposed to be enforced?
On just WHOM do you think would need to have moral behavior enforced?

The problem of having wrong interpretations is made WORSE when the HS is not supplying the missing links.
Appealing/returning to the text does not solve that problem when people are not truthseekers.
Textual evidence is only as strong as the inferencers make it.

Your inference/harmonization divorces rulers from Christians, which is a big mistake per what I infer from Rom. 13:1-5.
The church should bear witness to the whole Christ, both the sword and the love, because as you noted, the NT teaches both.
What you do not see is that passage merges those missions by saying godly rulers are not a threat to moral citizens. (Myopia?)

What you are not arguing is that YOUR inference is more likely than mine.
BOTH of our opinions remain inferences, requiring both right understanding of the text and divine logic guided by the Spirit
in order to connect the dots correctly.

 

[GWH]

Earlier we were discussing when human life begins. Now you're discussing when civil rights should be recognized and protected.

Those are not necessarily identical questions.

Even if I granted, for the sake of argument, that Scripture and reason provide strong grounds for recognizing legal protection by quickening or sentience, that would not by itself establish that the child was not alive before quickening or sentience.

For example, Genesis 25 and Luke 1 describe unborn children as personal subjects in the womb.
The texts do not define civil rights, but they do present the unborn as more than mere tissue.

So I think there are two separate questions that need to be kept distinct:

When does human life begin?
At what point should human society recognize and protect legal rights?

A person could answer those questions differently.
The first is an ontological question.
The second is a legal and ethical question.

Therefore, even if your argument for quickening and sentience establishes a threshold for civil protection, it does not necessarily answer the original question of when human life begins.
That question still requires its own biblical and logical case.

Questions do not need to be identical in order to be part of One Truth.
The key question remains, "when do living human cells (which can clone babies) become
more than mere tissue/acquire civil rights?"

Human life began with A&E.
Human society should protect legal rights when life become sentient.

How do you answer differently?
Have courage to be constructive.

 

[OMC]

Okay, I will respond beginning where you differ: Apparently you conclude/infer that Christians are NOT "to use civil power
to enforce specifically Christian moral conclusions on unbelievers".

Just who do you suppose IS supposed to use civil power?
Just WHAT morality do you infer is supposed to be enforced?
On just WHOM do you think would need to have moral behavior enforced?

The problem of having wrong interpretations is made WORSE when the HS is not supplying the missing links.
Appealing/returning to the text does not solve that problem when people are not truthseekers.
Textual evidence is only as strong as the inferencers make it.

Your inference/harmonization divorces rulers from Christians, which is a big mistake per what I infer from Rom. 13:1-5.
The church should bear witness to the whole Christ, both the sword and the love, because as you noted, the NT teaches both.
What you do not see is that passage merges those missions by saying godly rulers are not a threat to moral citizens. (Myopia?)

What you are not arguing is that YOUR inference is more likely than mine.
BOTH of our opinions remain inferences, requiring both right understanding of the text and divine logic guided by the Spirit
in order to connect the dots correctly.

I agree that both of our positions involve inference.
Where I think we disagree is over which inference is actually supported by the text.

You ask who should use civil power.
My answer is: the civil rulers God has ordained to bear the sword (Rom. 13:1-5).
The fact that a ruler may be a Christian does not automatically merge the mission of the state and the mission of the church.

Romans 13 says rulers punish evil and reward good. I agree.
What it does not say is that Christians, as Christians, are instructed to use the machinery of civil government to enforce specifically Christian doctrines on those outside the faith.

You say my view divorces rulers from Christians.
I don't think that's accurate.
A Christian may certainly serve as a ruler.
The question is whether the New Testament assigns the church the task of governing society or assigns the church the task of making disciples. The latter is stated explicitly. The former is not.

As for Romans 13, saying that godly rulers are not a terror to good conduct does not merge the missions.
It simply describes the proper function of government.

I also agree that appealing to the Holy Spirit is important.
My concern is that the Spirit will not contradict the text He inspired.
Therefore, when two believers claim opposing inferences are Spirit-led, we still have to test the inference against what is actually written.

So yes, both of our views involve harmonization.
The remaining question is not whether we connect the dots, but whether the specific connection being proposed can be demonstrated from the apostolic instruction itself. That's still the point I'm pressing.

 

[OMC]

Questions do not need to be identical in order to be part of One Truth.
The key question remains, "when do living human cells (which can clone babies) become
more than mere tissue/acquire civil rights?"

Human life began with A&E.
Human society should protect legal rights when life become sentient.

How do you answer differently?
Have courage to be constructive.

You have now proposed an actual answer: human society should recognize and protect rights when life becomes sentient.
That's a position someone can evaluate.
My question would be: where does Scripture identify sentience as the threshold for personhood or legal protection?

The biblical examples we have tend to speak of the child in the womb as a personal subject rather than defining rights by a measurable level of awareness.
Jacob and Esau are called "two nations" while in the womb.
John leaps in the womb.
God forms and knows individuals in the womb.

That doesn't automatically prove conception as the legal threshold.
But neither do those texts point to sentience as the threshold.

So my constructive answer is this:
Human life begins somewhere prior to birth.
Scripture treats the unborn as more than mere tissue.
Scripture never explicitly identifies sentience, quickening, conception, viability, or birth as the precise moment legal rights begin.

Therefore, I think the burden remains on all of us to explain why we choose one threshold over another.

You have chosen sentience.
Others choose conception.
The key question is not whether one can propose a threshold, but whether that threshold can be demonstrated from Scripture rather than inferred from philosophical or scientific considerations.

So yes, I have courage to state my position: I am less confident about identifying the exact moment than I am that Scripture consistently treats the unborn child as a human individual under God's care before birth.
The exact legal threshold is where I think the biblical evidence becomes less explicit and the inferences begin.

 

[GWH]

I agree that both of our positions involve inference.
Where I think we disagree is over which inference is actually supported by the text.

You ask who should use civil power.
My answer is: the civil rulers God has ordained to bear the sword (Rom. 13:1-5).
The fact that a ruler may be a Christian does not automatically merge the mission of the state and the mission of the church.

Romans 13 says rulers punish evil and reward good. I agree.
What it does not say is that Christians, as Christians, are instructed to use the machinery of civil government to enforce specifically Christian doctrines on those outside the faith.

You say my view divorces rulers from Christians.
I don't think that's accurate.
A Christian may certainly serve as a ruler.
The question is whether the New Testament assigns the church the task of governing society or assigns the church the task of making disciples. The latter is stated explicitly. The former is not.

As for Romans 13, saying that godly rulers are not a terror to good conduct does not merge the missions.
It simply describes the proper function of government.

I also agree that appealing to the Holy Spirit is important.
My concern is that the Spirit will not contradict the text He inspired.
Therefore, when two believers claim opposing inferences are Spirit-led, we still have to test the inference against what is actually written.

So yes, both of our views involve harmonization.
The remaining question is not whether we connect the dots, but whether the specific connection being proposed can be demonstrated from the apostolic instruction itself. That's still the point I'm pressing.

I think we differ regarding whose inference is supported by BOTH the actual Spirit AND text,
so yes, we must test them, but I do not see that you have made a constructive suggestion or specific connection to test.

Having Christian rulers merges government and moral doctrines as much as possible. What more could you want?
Making disciples is explicit and acceptable vocations is implicit, namely whichever are not immoral.

 

[OMC]

I think we differ regarding whose inference is supported by BOTH the actual Spirit AND text,
so yes, we must test them, but I do not see that you have made a constructive suggestion or specific connection to test.

Having Christian rulers merges government and moral doctrines as much as possible. What more could you want?
Making disciples is explicit and acceptable vocations is implicit, namely whichever are not immoral.

I have no objection to Christians serving as rulers, judges, legislators, or any other lawful vocation.
Nor do I object to Christian rulers bringing their moral convictions into public service.
That's unavoidable because everyone governs according to some moral framework.

Where I think we still differ is that you're moving from "Christians may serve as rulers" to "therefore the church's mission includes wielding civil power to advance Christian morality."

Romans 13 certainly allows for Christian rulers.
What I'm still not seeing is an apostolic instruction that assigns the church that governmental role.

As for a constructive alternative, I've already stated it: God ordained government to restrain evil and the church to make disciples. Those missions can complement one another without being identical.

So the question I'm pressing is not whether Christians can be rulers.
I agree they can.
The question is whether the New Testament teaches that the advancement of Christian morality through civil power is part of the church's assigned mission.

That's the specific connection I still believe requires demonstration from the text rather than assumption from the inference.

 

[GWH]

You have now proposed an actual answer: human society should recognize and protect rights when life becomes sentient.
That's a position someone can evaluate.
My question would be: where does Scripture identify sentience as the threshold for personhood or legal protection?

The biblical examples we have tend to speak of the child in the womb as a personal subject rather than defining rights by a measurable level of awareness.
Jacob and Esau are called "two nations" while in the womb.
John leaps in the womb.
God forms and knows individuals in the womb.

That doesn't automatically prove conception as the legal threshold.
But neither do those texts point to sentience as the threshold.

So my constructive answer is this:
Human life begins somewhere prior to birth.
Scripture treats the unborn as more than mere tissue.
Scripture never explicitly identifies sentience, quickening, conception, viability, or birth as the precise moment legal rights begin.

Therefore, I think the burden remains on all of us to explain why we choose one threshold over another.

You have chosen sentience.
Others choose conception.
The key question is not whether one can propose a threshold, but whether that threshold can be demonstrated from Scripture rather than inferred from philosophical or scientific considerations.

So yes, I have courage to state my position: I am less confident about identifying the exact moment than I am that Scripture consistently treats the unborn child as a human individual under God's care before birth.
The exact legal threshold is where I think the biblical evidence becomes less explicit and the inferences begin.

My answer/proposal is that society should recognize civil rights at least when life becomes sentient.

Your answer is that human life begins somewhere prior to birth.

Which answer is better?

I will let you go first, beginning with clarifying which threshold/inference you choose and why,
since I have already shared that info.

 

[OMC]

My answer/proposal is that society should recognize civil rights at least when life becomes sentient.

Your answer is that human life begins somewhere prior to birth.

Which answer is better?

I will let you go first, beginning with clarifying which threshold/inference you choose and why,
since I have already shared that info.

If I had to choose a threshold, I would lean toward conception rather than sentience.
Not because Scripture explicitly says, "life begins at conception," but because I do not see Scripture identifying awareness, intelligence, self-consciousness, or sentience as the basis of human value.

My concern with sentience is that it raises the question: why that threshold rather than some other level of development?
Newborns, the severely disabled, and the unconscious all possess varying degrees of awareness at different times.
Scripture appears to ground human worth in what a person is, not in what a person can presently do.

That said, I'm less confident about the exact legal threshold than I am that the unborn child is already under God's care and is treated as a personal subject in the womb.
So between our two answers, yours is more specific, while mine is more cautious.
The real question then becomes: what biblical text identifies sentience as the point at which a human being acquires civil rights? That's still the step I'd want demonstrated.

 

[GWH]

I have no objection to Christians serving as rulers, judges, legislators, or any other lawful vocation.
Nor do I object to Christian rulers bringing their moral convictions into public service.
That's unavoidable because everyone governs according to some moral framework.

Where I think we still differ is that you're moving from "Christians may serve as rulers" to "therefore the church's mission includes wielding civil power to advance Christian morality."

Romans 13 certainly allows for Christian rulers.
What I'm still not seeing is an apostolic instruction that assigns the church that governmental role.

As for a constructive alternative, I've already stated it: God ordained government to restrain evil and the church to make disciples. Those missions can complement one another without being identical.

So the question I'm pressing is not whether Christians can be rulers.
I agree they can.
The question is whether the New Testament teaches that the advancement of Christian morality through civil power is part of the church's assigned mission.

That's the specific connection I still believe requires demonstration from the text rather than assumption from the inference.

So, do you think the church's mission should NOT include wielding power to promote morality?
I understand you still do not discern that implication in Rom. 13:1-5.

Then, you indicate agreement that godly/Christian government restrains evil/advances morality,
which makes me understand one or both of us is/are confused.

Until the text demonstrates what you require, that is what I infer from the HS.
Do you agree, and if not, then what inference do you affirm?

 

[OMC]

So, do you think the church's mission should NOT include wielding power to promote morality?
I understand you still do not discern that implication in Rom. 13:1-5.

I have no problem with Christian rulers promoting moral laws. My question is whether the apostles ever instruct the church, as church, to pursue civil power as a means of advancing Christian morality. That's the specific link I'm still not seeing stated in the text.

Then, you indicate agreement that godly/Christian government restrains evil/advances morality,
which makes me understand one or both of us is/are confused

My question has always been narrower: where do the apostles instruct the church, as church, to pursue civil authority as a means of accomplishing its mission?

Until the text demonstrates what you require, that is what I infer from the HS.
Do you agree, and if not, then what inference do you affirm?

I don't agree with your inference, but I do agree that we're now discussing competing inferences rather than explicit commands.

The inference I affirm is this: God ordained civil government to restrain evil (Rom. 13), and He ordained the church to preach the gospel and make disciples (Matt. 28). Therefore, Christians may serve faithfully in government and bring Christian morality into public life, but the New Testament does not assign the church itself the mission of wielding civil power.

In other words, I see cooperation without conflation.

You infer that because rulers are God's servants and Christians can be rulers, the church's mission necessarily extends into the exercise of civil power for moral ends.

I infer that because the apostles repeatedly instruct the church to preach, persuade, disciple, rebuke, and suffer, while never instructing it to pursue governmental authority, the two callings remain distinct even when exercised by the same person.

So yes, I reject your inference, but not because I deny the Spirit's role.
I reject it because I don't see the apostolic writings making the connection you do.
The Spirit and the text should harmonize, and when two believers draw different conclusions, the question becomes which inference best accounts for the whole of the New Testament.
That's where our disagreement lies.