"The killing continues because the Church of Jesus Christ in America is not outraged by it enough to make it stop"

“If you believe this nation wouldn’t exist without the providential blessing of God, and we can’t sustain freedom and liberty in this nation without that same blessing, then we must realize God will not bless us financially as long as the killing continues.”

Can anyone provide a bit of evidence that this is actually true? We know that God providentially created Israel because it is recorded in the Bible, because Israel was led by prophets like Moses and David, and Israel had a special, specific role in salvation history. On the other hand, there is nothing written in scripture - prophesy or otherwise - concerning America, America has no role in salvation history that anyone can discern, and despite what David Barton wants you to believe, freemasons, deists and Enlightenment humanists were far more influential in our founding and formation than any prophet. (Actually, a prophet might have been more likely to point out that our rebellion against England and its Christian king - yes King George was a devout Protestant who was oft criticized by the elites in England for his piety - violated Romans 13:1-3 and was an act of sedition, which the Bible categorizes as a serious sin.)

Also, the idea that our wealth and power are the result of God’s special favor is difficult to justify theologically. In Bible times, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Greece and Rome were very wealthy and powerful, but also exceedingly pagan and evil. In later times, the papist states also enjoyed wealth and power. And while America is the superpower right now, pagan China, Japan and India are our economic rivals, and China is also a military one (and Japan could easily be if they so chose) and in addition to them you have the secular EU and Christ-rejecting Israel (with all respect due to my premillennial dispensationalist brethren - and yes I do believe what Paul of the tribe of Benjamin wrote concerning national Israel in Romans - Israel is indeed a nation founded on a false religion that rejects Jesus Christ even more thoroughly and adamantly than Islam does).

So, we should stick to what we can actually demonstrate to be true using the Bible and good theology - abortion is a great abominable sin and should be outlawed - and let that be enough.

JobK, I must say that was an excellent post.

Well said JobK.

[JobK]

Also, the idea that our wealth and power are the result of God’s special favor is difficult to justify theologically. In Bible times, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Greece and Rome were very wealthy and powerful, but also exceedingly pagan and evil. In later times, the papist states also enjoyed wealth and power.

Incidentally, at least in the case of ancient Greece and Rome, abortion was apparently pretty widespread. Yet we don’t see Paul, Titus, Timothy, Peter, or any of the apostles lobbying or picketing over it. They seemed all focused on proclaiming the gospel—in their own lives, the lives of the believers, and those of their neighbours—and let God determine the outcomes in their social, political, and economic milieu. Like Jesus’, their kingdom wasn’t of this world.

So while we’re totally offended by the sin that’s around us, let’s not forget to take a step back, count to 10, put everything in perspective, and consider how Christ and His apostles might have responded (or not).

The church should be light when it comes to this horror. Over 50 million babies have been killed. We now have places in this country where 50 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion. One poll showed that 18 percent of the ladies who abort their babies claim to be Christian. I could go on.

The church should grieve over this sin. Pastors should be addressing this sin in their preaching. All believers should be providing light in this darkness. No, I don’t think that picketing helps but speaking the truth from God’s Word about this madness is absolutely necessary.

Paul addressed all kinds of sin in the church in his epistles. If Christians are aborting babies then it needs to be addressed. If the church lacks understanding that God will hold this nation accountable for all of this spilt blood, then it needs to be addressed. If Christians are involved in the sexual promiscuity and perversion that breeds abortion, then it needs to be addressed. I could go on.

[J Ng]

[JobK]

Also, the idea that our wealth and power are the result of God’s special favor is difficult to justify theologically. In Bible times, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Greece and Rome were very wealthy and powerful, but also exceedingly pagan and evil. In later times, the papist states also enjoyed wealth and power.

Incidentally, at least in the case of ancient Greece and Rome, abortion was apparently pretty widespread. Yet we don’t see Paul, Titus, Timothy, Peter, or any of the apostles lobbying or picketing over it. They seemed all focused on proclaiming the gospel—in their own lives, the lives of the believers, and those of their neighbours—and let God determine the outcomes in their social, political, and economic milieu. Like Jesus’, their kingdom wasn’t of this world.

So while we’re totally offended by the sin that’s around us, let’s not forget to take a step back, count to 10, put everything in perspective, and consider how Christ and His apostles might have responded (or not).

pvawter

Thank you for noting that Christians and America have a moral responsibility to speak out, vote, and pursue every lawful avenue for outlawing abortion. Too many Christians think like some of the ideas in this thread and ignore the Church’s role in being a moral force (salt) in the world. Had Wilberforce listened to the counsel of some today, we might well still be plagued by slavery.

J Ng

Well, just how would Christ have reacted to abortion of innocents? Seems like He said that offending a child is grounds for capital punishment. Someone should, in His opinion, put a millstone about that person’s neck and cast him in the sea. I cannot help but believe that Christ would be grieved if we do not raise a ruckus about abortion, especially in a nation that has been so influenced by the Christian faith.

JobK

Are you denying that the founding of America was an act of divine providence? That seems a stretch. One doesn’t have to cite the erroneous efforts of David Barton to realize that God was at work in leading believers here in search of religious freedom despite the philosophical leaning of some who were not genuine Christians. One cannot ignore that no place on earth (except Eden) has ever known religious freedom until America enacted it as law. It is in this environment that a worldwide missionary enterprise has taken place. America has certainly helped write the “salvation history” of many other nations.

And you imply that the Protestant King George was pious. I would say that he was a tyrant, and I think history confirms it.

And you imply that the the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution were “an act of sedition”! Your reading of American history is deficient, to say the least. Which side did the first killing? Which side imposed tyranny on its subjects? Which side refused any and all compromise?

Following your view of history and your narrow interpretation of Rom. 13, no individual or group of individuals would ever have the right to oppose a government. Following this line of reasoning, we would all be living under Rome. Every modern government has come into existence as a result of war, revolution, or a declared independence.

That was a rather snide remark about your “premillenial dispensationalist brethren.” Do you ignore that the return of Israel to nationhood after 1800 years of worldwide dispersion is anything other than the fulfillment of Ezek. 37? There is a reason for Israel’s response to Christ, and the Bible explains it explicitly — Israel has been “blinded in part” until the “times of Gentiles” be come in. She doesn’t deny a belief in a divinely-provided Messiah. She simply does not understand yet that Jesus is that Messiah. One day, they will “look on Him whom they have pierced,” and will weep tears of repentance. Israel is now in the land that was promised to Abraham long ago as a perpetual possession. albeit in unbelief. As for Islam’s view of Jesus Christ. It is no more acceptable, and you should not attempt to make its view more palatable that that of Israel. Islam holds that Jesus is a “lesser prophet” than Mohammed, that He is not the Son of God, that He did not die on the cross, that He is not the Savior of the world, that he will not reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. How can these views be more acceptable than the unbelief of Israel. It sounds to me like your views represent those of my “amillenialist brethren” — a complete put-down to Israel, God’s chosen people and nation.

As for good theology, friend, I find little of that in your entry. So abortion is evil and should be outlawed. Well, in my understanding of the way it works in our American system, laws just don’t get removed and better ones put in their place except by a considerable effort on the part of those who wish it to happen. I would hope that you would be a part of such an effort, but somehow your remarks make we wonder. It is “enough” just to make a statement about how horrible abortion is, and do no more!

__________________

Yes, we are the “salt” of the earth. Christians must in this society and under this system of government make our opposition to abortion well and truly known. We also must give succor to those who see or saw abortion as their only means out of their predicament.

*****

As for the Continental side of the AmRev being seditious, remember in the early days of the conflict, the colonists were only seeking their rights as Englishmen (as gained in the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution). They were not seeking independence from the Crown. The governing party in Westminster however saw the American colonists as second class citizens.

While G3 gets a lot of bad press here in the States, England was four monarchs into the prime ministerial system of government. Yes, G3 had more power than Elizabeth II (I of Scotland). But he had less power than those previous to Queen Anne. It is worth noting that no colonial legislature sided with London. And many on the Continental side were loyal to their colony’s legislature rather than the London Parliament.