5 Commands of God which the Pro-life movement currently violated

[MarrowMan]

Well since one cannot vote except between two non-biblical evils then you are saying it is a pragmatic compromise by definition just like @Northern Crofter did.

However unlike him, you are saying that that may or may not be wrong or immoral or sinful which at least is more aware of other thought systems in the Church than just the RPCNA position when it comes to voting. I - of course - would still push back on your definition of pragmatic compromise when it comes to "voting-in-prayer-and-communication-with-the-party-on-Biblical-principles" vs. "voting the lesser of two evils".

One is a pragmatic compromise and one is using a secular enfranchisement as a Gospel tool. I actually recall talking with RPCNA folks on why I am voting and posted my long message to Trump's team that had the gospel and a call to Biblical principles that I posted on social media sites and sent by letter. I recall shaking my head in amazement at the irony of being told that I am just a guy and it's just one voice among hundreds or thousands he will actually ever hear (if mine is even seen by him at all!).

Very true, I had to admit, but now which one is being pragmatic? And why?

I’m not sure where you get the impression that one cannot vote except between two non-Biblical evils, but you are mistaken.

As far as the pragmatism of some “RPCNA folks” and their line of argumentation, that’s got nothing to do with me, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing that into the discussion?

My only point is that you should be less hung up on the term “pragmatic compromise” as though it’s inherently offensive and stick to the actual discussion of whether or not there is one available that is Biblically warranted. You think there is. I, personally, don’t feel the need to persuade you otherwise. Not that I thought I would be able to in the first place. Even here on the PB, it’s quite rare to change someone’s position.

 

[DanSSwing]

Playing the emotional numbers game is deceptive, and two can play that game: Say you pass some laws limiting the murder and "only" 100,000 are murdered annually and that law (like Roe v. Wade) stands for 50 years. Or a million are murdered annually until a total abolition law is passed 10 years later. Which approach saved more lives?

Why should we expect a total abolition law to be passed in 10 years? I don’t see any grounds for making such a gamble.

 

[No Other Name]

I’m not sure where you get the impression that one cannot vote except between two non-Biblical evils, but you are mistaken.

In the original context, it was between two political party platforms with their statements of values, but that is on me for referencing a discussion in my mind and you not having the ability to read my thoughts. lol

As far as the pragmatism of some “RPCNA folks” and their line of argumentation, that’s got nothing to do with me, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing that into the discussion?

You jumped in the middle of a conversation between me and @Northern Crofter so of course it has nothing to do with you. I am allowed to keep my comments within the frame of my original intent and my original intended interlocutor, and that is what I did even as I engaged with your comments toward me about pragmatic compromise.

My only point is that you should be less hung up on the term “pragmatic compromise” as though it’s inherently offensive and stick to the actual discussion of whether or not there is one available that is Biblically warranted.

Again it was @Northern Crofter who accused people of voting as pragmatic compromise in the negative light of being immoral and/or sinful per the American Covenanters. If you do read my full comments you will find that I did give Biblical warrant for people voting and not doing so as a pragamatic choosing of lesser of two evils.

I, personally, don’t feel the need to persuade you otherwise. Not that I thought I would be able to in the first place. Even here on the PB, it’s quite rare to change someone’s position.

I don't even know what your position is on voting as Biblical principle vs. voting an evil that is lesser than another. I am quite baffled as to this statement in its totality and have no idea what position you hold to that I would even be persuaded of as if I do not?

 

[MarrowMan]

In the original context, it was between two political party platforms with their statements of values, but that is on me for referencing a discussion in my mind and you not having the ability to read my thoughts. lol



You jumped in the middle of a conversation between me and @Northern Crofter so of course it has nothing to do with you. I am allowed to keep my comments within the frame of my original intent and my original intended interlocutor, and that is what I did even as I engaged with your comments toward me about pragmatic compromise.



Again it was @Northern Crofter who accused people of voting as pragmatic compromise in the negative light of being immoral and/or sinful per the American Covenanters. If you do read my full comments you will find that I did give Biblical warrant for people voting and not doing so as a pragamatic choosing of lesser of two evils.



I don't even know what your position is on voting as Biblical principle vs. voting an evil that is lesser than another. I am quite baffled as to this statement in its totality and have no idea what position you hold to that I would even be persuaded of as if I do not?

I wish I had the wherewithal to break up posts like you do, lol. I’m fine with leaving everything where you’ve left it except to clear up your bafflement. It’s not a hard statement to understand. You’ve stated your position, I’ve no intention of changing your mind. That’s it. I’m happy to accept that I didn’t read the context and interjected a concept of “pragmatic compromise” that wasn’t live and leave you all to it.

 

[John Nyberg]

If I lived in the OT days of the split kingdom, I would vote by moving my family from the northern kingdom and their golden calves to the southern kingdom

Does that mean you are open to the idea of moving to the southern “kingdom” of the United States? there’s no abortion down here!

Murder is already codified. While taking down the high places is preferred, God also commended King Asa who at least got rid of the male cult prostitutes even though he did not remove the high places.

Thanks for the reply and the biblical example. I have enjoyed reading your replies on this thread. I never heard the phrase “smash mouth incrementalism” before.

 

[Northern Crofter]

While taking down the high places is preferred, God also commended King Asa who at least got rid of the male cult prostitutes even though he did not remove the high places.

He didn't?: "And Asa did that was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God. For he took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the images, and cut down the groves, and commanded Judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do according to the Law and the Commandment. And he took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places, and the images: therefore the Kingdom was quiet before him." (2 Chronicles 14.2-5)

Does that mean you are open to the idea of moving to the southern “kingdom” of the United States? there’s no abortion down here!

Abortion is still legal in every state. There are some states that limit it more than others, but as far as I know there is no state where a woman can be prosecuted for killing her own child. This article comprehensively explains this state-by-state.

 

[John Nyberg]

Abortion is still legal in every state.

A half dozen or so states have complete bans.

 

[Northern Crofter]

A half dozen or so states have complete bans.

We have different definitions of "complete bans." Completely denying access in a state (which is what I believe you are referring to) is different than complete prosecution of all who commit murder (which is the goal of abolition). The link I provided shows state-by-state via statute how each one that has a "complete ban" still allows a woman to have an abortion without fear of prosecution. Can you provide an example of a state where a woman who murdered her unborn child has been or will be prosecuted? Just as the loophole in the 13th Amendment means that complete abolition of slavery was never accomplished, there is a loophole in every state that claims to have abolished abortion.

 

[John Nyberg]

We have different definitions of "complete bans."

Probably so. The comment was meant in jest, at any rate.

 

[DanSSwing]

He didn't?: "And Asa did that was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God. For he took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the images, and cut down the groves, and commanded Judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do according to the Law and the Commandment. And he took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places, and the images: therefore the Kingdom was quiet before him." (2 Chronicles

See I Kings 15:14.

 

[Northern Crofter]

See I Kings 15:14.

I did. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. If II Chronicles 14 states that Asa "took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places, and the images" then I Kings 15 must be read in that light. I Kings 15.9-15 seems to be describing the early/immediate reign of Asa whereas vv.16-24 covers the remainder - the reference to him not putting down the high places is in the context of him ascending the throne and deposing his wicked grandmother, removing her from her estate, and destroying her household idols. In other words I Kings 15.9-15 seems to be referring to the start of his purge; II Chronicles 14 seems to parallel this - he first "took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the images, and cut down the groves" (v.3) and then by the end of his reign he had taken away "out of all the cities of Judah the high places, and the images" (v.5).

The other alternative is this from Matthew Poole (and others - Gill, Geneva notes, etc.):

"The high places were not removed.

"Object. He did take these away, 2 Chronicles 14:3.

"Answ. He took away those which were devoted to the worship of idols, as is there said, he took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, to wit, where they were worshipped: but as for those high places where the true God was worshipped, he did not take them away; partly, because he thought there was no great evil in them, because they had been used by David and Solomon, and other good and wise men; and because the true God was there worshipped, and that in the manner, though not in the place, which God had appointed...."

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

A half dozen or so states have complete bans.

Even on mail order abortion pills?

 

[John Nyberg]

Even on mail order abortion pills?

In Arkansas, yes. https://arkansasag.gov/news-release...rtion-pill-companies-advertising-in-arkansas/

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

In Arkansas, yes. https://arkansasag.gov/news-release...rtion-pill-companies-advertising-in-arkansas/

I just pray that it is actually enforced. Not just simply written on the books for formalities

 

[Northern Crofter]

In Arkansas, yes. https://arkansasag.gov/news-release...rtion-pill-companies-advertising-in-arkansas/

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

View attachment 12208

More proof that Republicans just like Democrats do not care about the evil that is done to the unborn. Yet, they want Christians to vote for them. Not from me.

 

[R. E. Psmith]

Did you look at the link? Though it became known as the Covenanter position, it was once accepted much more widely. Note the first quote on the link - it is not an RP but a rather famous RB:

“John Ploughman says, Of two evils choose neither. Don't choose the least, but let all evils alone.” — Charles Spurgeon, The Salt-Cellars: Being a Collection of Proverbs, Together with Homely Notes Thereon (1889), p. 297


It is not saying that Christians should not participate in political life. The Covenanters were one of the most active (slavery) abolitionist factions in the U.S.


From a moral standpoint, is the state of the U.S. getting better or worse? If the latter, do you really think it is due to a tiny remnant of Covenanters in the U.S. (5000 at most?) dissenting from elections? Or could it be that constantly voting for the lesser of 2 evils is slowly causing the State to become a more and more evil one? Consider how moral sins once considered evil by the majority of Republicans are now viewed by the majority as acceptable - take, for example (Gallup and Pew polls), same sex "marriage":
View attachment 12200View attachment 12201

Though I agree that the Republicans are the lesser of two evils based on what you have posted here and my own observations of the two parties, I did want to mention that the Spurgeon quote is not applicable in this context based on this article: https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/blog-entries/how-would-spurgeon-vote/

 

[darrellmaurina]

2. I don’t think the second scenario applies to this conversation. It is a bit outlandish

I am curious what the abolitionists here think of the following situations (one real world, the other imaginative).

1. The several laws currently being passed in states age-gating p*rn websites.
2. A Christian finding himself in a place of power (somehow) in a Muslim country under Sharia law, able to affect legislation so that there was only a maximum sentence of 1 year for blasphemy against Allah.

Actually, Christians in positions of power in Muslim countries isn't outlandish, and was preceded by a thousand years of "Court Jews" exercising some pretty significant influence in various Muslim courts of the Middle Ages.

For example, the founder of the Ba'ath Party was a Christian and advocated for a sort of secular Arab nationalism that would downplay the religious character of the Arab governments. There have been important Christians in various Middle Eastern states that advocated, sometimes with some success, for mitigation of Sharia law.

I am most emphatically NOT supporting Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad family in Syria, or various Egyptian rulers who for a variety of reasons allowed limited freedom to Coptic Christians and some other Christians. I am saying that Islamic fundamentalism is far worse.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I like Nyberg's example! Flee Pennsylvania, go to his PCA in Arkansas and you'll get lots of grits with butter. Or come to the Italian Waldensians in the Ozarks (the church just celebrated its 150th anniversary) and you can enjoy spaghetti and breadsticks and tortellini and lasagna.

Of course I'm joking. Stay wherever you believe God has called you. Better food is NEVER a reason to switch churches.

But as a native Michigander, whose ancestors emigrated from the Italian Alps to Michigan way back in the 1800s, I'd much rather be living in the Bible Belt among Baptists who love the Lord and His inerrant and infallible Word, but misunderstand parts of it, than being forced to live under a civil government and business and political community in Grand Rapids dominated by apostate Dutchmen who have forsaken the covenant of their Reformed fathers and brought condemnation upon their heads, their churches, and their children's children for their disobedience to God's Word.

My father was the executive director of the Kent County Republican Party five decades ago, and spent about half of his working years in various positions in local and state Republican politics. Dutchmen who left their faith at the church door when they entered politics was a problem way back then, and it's a lot worse now that too many of their churches are openly liberal and the faith they are bringing into politics is now openly apostate rather than still claiming to be conservative and Reformed.

The South is far from perfect, but it does have better weather and many more people who still care about Christ.

I'm no Baptist, but I'll take the views of a Bible-believing Baptist as my city alderman or county commissioner any day over the views of someone who claims to be Reformed but is teaching damnable heresy on homosexuality and salvation apart from Christ.

Does that mean you are open to the idea of moving to the southern “kingdom” of the United States? there’s no abortion down here!

Thanks for the reply and the biblical example. I have enjoyed reading your replies on this thread. I never heard the phrase “smash mouth incrementalism” before.

If I lived in the OT days of the split kingdom, I would vote by moving my family from the northern kingdom and their golden calves to the southern kingdom because in the latter nation, I am free to worship the LORD God in spirit and truth (even if sullied by high places about), and in the North, I would be under the rule of a line of kings who wants to (and even does at one point) outlaw traveling to Jerusalem for God-ordained true worship.

Is that pragmatism on my part?

 

[John Nyberg]

I like Nyberg's example! Flee Pennsylvania, go to his PCA in Arkansas and you'll get lots of grits with butter. Or come to the Italian Waldensians in the Ozarks (the church just celebrated its 150th anniversary) and you can enjoy spaghetti and breadsticks and tortellini and lasagna.

Well said you gotta make sure you end up in a church where you enjoy the potluck options

 

[darrellmaurina]

Well said you gotta make sure you end up in a church where you enjoy the potluck options

I like Nyberg's example! Flee Pennsylvania, go to his PCA in Arkansas and you'll get lots of grits with butter. Or come to the Italian Waldensians in the Ozarks (the church just celebrated its 150th anniversary) and you can enjoy spaghetti and breadsticks and tortellini and lasagna.

LOL! Well, the Scots-Irish and the Dutchmen are not necessarily known for the quality of their cuisine. Maybe John Calvin needed to work harder to encourage Reformed people to adopt French cooking standards?

And don't get me started on Korean kimchi and bulgogie (which literally means "fire meat"). I sometimes wonder if the Korean fire for the gospel is because of fiery spices in the food. I've joked for years that more Italians should marry Korean women. They use many of the same ingredients we do -- onions, peppers, cheese, a type of noodle that we would call spaghetti but they call "glass noodles," and similar spices, just cook them differently. Plus, for us short Italians, most Asian women are close to our height and have jet black hair and olive skin. Sometimes when Italians ask where my wife is from, I say, "Well, with short stature, jet black hair, and olive skin, isn't it obvious she's from Sicily?" (Obviously NOT!)

 

[John Nyberg]

(Obviously NOT!)