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.