John MacArthur Says the US ‘Is in a Moral Free-Fall’
John MacArthur Says the US ‘Is in a Moral Free-Fall’
I agree. That's not may main concern though. More concerning is a large segment of the church urging Christians to stand down. They don't believe it's important anymore to preach morality. In fact, they believe it's a bad testimony. Focus instead on the Gospel. Main proponents of this movement are David Platt and Russell Moore.
The problem is, how do you talk about the Gospel without talking about repentance, and how to you discuss repentance without discussing sin and morality? What exactly are we asking the world to turn from?
Below is a good article refuting David Platt's theology.
David Platt’s bad political theology ignores God’s standard
David Platt’s bad political theology ignores God's standard - Capstone Report
The world will go the way the world goes. That doesn't concern me on a macro level. What concerns me is what the Church does. What a shame if we don't offer resistance in the form of truth. The idea that this will harm our witness is perplexing at best. Just the opposite is true. Standing against evil is a always good testimony.
“...let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." — Jesus
MacArthur vs. Platt
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Calminian, Nov 23, 2020.
Page 1 of 7
-
I agree with Platt. His view is exactly the same as the early Church (I am actually surprised, but perhaps shouldn't be as Platt was a foreign missionary).
-
BTW, Platt is also a Social Justice proponent, doing marches etc. I suppose that level of involvement is okay. Seems he's selective in what he stands with and against.
An interesting quote from the article.
"And that’s what really gets Platt upset. A person voting for baby murder? Let’s not judge. Someone criticizing those who vote for baby murder? ALERT! POTENTIAL DIVISION!"
And i doubt the early Church disagreed with Christ, that would should refrain from good deeds. -
Last I heard neither party was endorcing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In fact, neither party has even officially recognized Jesus as God and Savior.
It is not moral vs amoral but the Church vs the World. I choose Christ. Others choose the powers of the world. We cannot serve both. -
Problem is, there's nothing about this in Scripture. Romans 13 doesn't mention any standard like this. It merely says government is to punish evil and minister to the innocent. And we know all Christians are commanded to do good. Do you think this excludes political good? I only thank God Platt wasn't there to denounce the abolitionists.
To draw an analogy it would be like finding out a police officer didn't affirm Christ, and then preventing him from defending your family. I highly doubt you'd stick to your guns in that scenario. Nor would Platt. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Russell Moore should go to DC and work for Biden and the SBC should fold the ERLC into the NAMB and let it disappear there, no?
-
-
I believe that Christians should speak out for life. The difference between you and I may simply be in choosing Christ through the Church or the world through a political party as our voice.
You seem to belueve the way to change the world is through secular powers. I believe it is only through Christ - kingdom people doing kingdom work in kingdom ways. -
Regardless, EC views are irrelevant.
I just hope to God, most Christians realize they can talk and chew gum at the same time.
It's a bizarre argument no one ever even made until recently. The idea that we have to let babies die by the millions, or we're somehow trusting in government is a sad excuse. I can imagine the accusation you would have hurled at the abolitionists. May God not judge this wayward Church generation. -
You are right that we are not the early Church. Today Christians have more a philosophy of "harm none, do what ye will". I just can't get on board. -
This whole argument is absurd. The fact that God didn't create a Christian nation but rather commanded Churches to live in other nations and obey their laws refutes this argument.
-
BTW, Jon, your are not making the same argument Platt makes, nor drawing the same conclusion. He says unequivocally, we should participate in politics. You're actually arguing against participation (which you claim is yoking with unbelievers). I think it's at least fair to admit you're no longer advocating for Platt or Moore's position.
-
At the same time they did not "sit back in silence". I'm sure faithless "Christians" accused them of such or men like Tertullian would have not wrote against Christians involving themselves in political issues. They stood for Christ and allowed Him, not a secular power, be their voice.
They did not believe the ends justified the means but instead favored obedience to God over their own power. -
-
-
-
If you're merely suggesting they didn't have the political power we've been given, I'd agree. I'd also argue, they would rebuke us for sitting on our hands during a holocaust, with all the means we've been given.
I think your'e confused about this whole issue. You're misunderstanding what the EF meant. Christ did not want the Church to form a nation and run it politically. We're rather to join nations and be good productive citizens. We're to pay taxes customs fear and honor. -
-
-
Page 1 of 7