I continue to drag my foot on circumstances that, to me, seem undeniably to be an act of God. Remember, an act of God is not necessarily acted out in pure ways. Think on Samson:
Judges 14:1-4It is clear that God did not suspend the Law for Samson...intermarriage with unbelievers was wrong (and still is). Also keep in mind that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Samson a number of times...he did great things, but also managed to do them sinfully. But it is clear from Judges that God was sovereignly in control of even Samson's sin. God was seeking an occasion to harass the Philistines.
1 Now Samson went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines. 2 So he went up and told his father and mother, saying, “I have seen a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines; now therefore, get her for me as a wife.”
3 Then his father and mother said to him, “Is there no woman among the daughters of your brethren, or among all my people, that you must go and get a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?”
And Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she pleases me well.”
4 But his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD—that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. For at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.
Consider Tiller's path:
Hardened abortionist. Excommunicated by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (a Bible-believing and evangelical denomination), then joined the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (the term "Evangelical" is a misnomer: the ELCA is an ultra liberal denomination that approves of abortion). God judged Tiller via the LCMS...but Tiller chose not to take the steps of restoration that Church discipline offers. This man continued invading the secret place where children are fearfully and wonderfully knit together...this man, judged by a Bible-believing Church's authority, was then taken out in a place he felt most safe. A place where he had a measure of protection and affirmation...a place that pretends to be a place of worship to the Triune God. God judged George Tiller last week. His blood stained the entry-way of Reformation Lutheran Church. A man who had blood-guilt shed his blood in a Church which approves of his blood-thirsty trade. Certainly this occassion should give reason to fear to all who practice lawlessness. Your sin will find you out, even if the whole world approves of your actions.
Do I approve of men assassinating abortionists? No. I'm not pronouncing judgement on the man accused, we don't have any evidence nor have I been called to be on the panel of his jury. Why don't I approve of assassinating abortionists? Is it because I'm a pacifist? Do I see legitimacy to our government sanctioning the slaughter of children? Do I think the pro-life movement is correct that we simply must follow peaceful and legal means, and all others are to be decried?
Here's a sermon delivered by my Pastor, David Bayly. It's a good read, though I don't agree with every tid-bit.
Here's a snippet:
But what Dr. Tiller’s killer did which Phinehas did not do was to kill against the will of the nation’s civil authority. It was an act of rebellion posing as an act of justice. The killer was an assassin who lacked the courage to attack the root of abortion, our national leaders, and so attacked the branch. His was not an act of saving babies or of executing justice. Other men will continue Dr. Tiller’s practice. A bucket of water taken from the sea will not create a hole in the ocean. Others will fill where Dr. Tiller left off. Abortion will proceed because, and this is vital to say, abortion is blessed by the law of the land. The logic of Dr. Tiller’s killer is the logic of John Brown, of Absalom, of Ehud.We don't know what the logic was of Tiller's assassin. I also do not believe Ehud acted wickedly, nor cowardly. Ehud's actions were sanctioned by God who called on His people to clear the land of the unbelieving occupiers. He didn't merely kill a branch, he went for the Big Kahuna. Then he rallied Israel to great victory. Aside from that proviso I offered,this portion of the sermon is precisely hitting the point on why we are not to kill abortionists.
May God grant repentance to this nation, may the offense of abortion be rolled back. If not, may God raise up other authorities to deal with this. For now, we must view abortion in a way no one in the pro-life movement talks about: Judgement against our nation for not bowing to King Jesus. As awful as it may sound, abortion is cutting off the generations of unbelief. The world is passing judgement on itself and we see "invading hordes" crossing our borders and procreating.
The U.S. may not need to be attacked militarily to wipe it off the face of the planet. All it takes are procreating foreigners while the citizens continue to slaughter their own.
18 comments:
That was an outstanding piece Craig. However, I would say that we should not be killing abortionists because it is murder, which is a sin.
I thought you made some extrodinarily powerful points though, this was a very educational and compelling read, thanks for writing it.
Luke 22 verse 20,
unfortunately, I'm not certain taking an abortionist's life is, ipso facto, murder.
The Law of God addresses sins of omission, such as not protecting those from harm when harm is certain...with that in mind, those who seek to kill abortionists have a more consistent approach than those seeking purely pacifistic means of ending abortion.
When we reason as if the unborn is not our neighbor, nor falls under the protection of God's Law...are we sounding more like Cain?
I'm glad you enjoyed the entry, though :)
I find it interesting that on your "why antipelagian?" page you say that Pelagianism has made the church fall into easy-believism. Considering that the normal charge against Pelagianism is that its works salvation, I find that quite funny. You Calvinists are the ones that have made "the church" (for lack of a better way of describing it) fall into easy-believism because even most anti-Calvinists feel like they have to retain the P of TULIP of become too small to even matter in their own opinion. And, not being content to be God's remnant, they shake hands with Satan himself and join you in the frying-pan.
"of become"="or become"
"But it is clear from Judges that God was sovereignly in control of even Samson's sin."
Satan himself couldn't have put it more blasphemously. Good job. Your reward: eternity in hell with the abortionists you've murdered.
I certainly understand the upset that many Christians feel over the murder of the unborn. I would have to disagree with the idea that taking an abortionist's life is not murder though.
As you are well aware, he who is guilty of one sin is guilty of all. Which means the baby being aborted is guilty of the very sin of performing an abortion. They are not innocent. However there is one individual who was murdered on this earth who was innocent. His followers, having been told by Him that He was about to be murdered, tried to defend Him, perhaps thinking of sins of omission or protecting our neighbor.
He gave a teaching at that very moment which perfectly addresses the issue of murdering an abortionist. Further, it was not stated as some special exception for Himself because of His mission, but given as a blanket command for all time.
Matthew 26:52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
I find it interesting that on your "why antipelagian?" page you say that Pelagianism has made the church fall into easy-believism. Considering that the normal charge against Pelagianism is that its works salvation, I find that quite funny.
Works salvation always entails a diminished view of God and a diminished view of what it takes to be justified in His sight.
It's quite easy to be justified in the sight of your limp-wristed god...he's swooning right now biting his lip waiting for any all-powerful man to take him up in his arms and twirl him in the air.
Luke 22 verse 20...read about 16 verses past your name and see what Jesus said:
Luke 22:36
36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
When proof-texting, you can "prove" almost anything.
Rey said:
Satan himself couldn't have put it more blasphemously. Good job. Your reward: eternity in hell with the abortionists you've murdered.
Apparently, God's Word said it just as "blasphemously" as I did:
4 But his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD—that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines.
The narrator in Judges appears to be a blasphemer for sure just like the blasphemer in Samuel who makes David a man after God's own heart. Apparently God must be a murdering polygamist adulterer since David's a man after his own heart. But that explains why the 100 year old pervert who knocked up his teenage slave and that murderer Paul are big buddies of his too, I guess.
I appreciate you insight on the matter Craig. However, to me it is clear that Matthew 26:52 is a universally binding command regarding the issue of murder/retaliation, while Luke 22:36 is a figurative instruction to be more careful with money and property because Christ was leaving, and the supernatural protection He had given his disciples was leaving with Him for the most part.
If you look at Luke 22:22 the context of His statement regarding money and such is that He's leaving, so the disciples would need to exercise greater caution in life.
I know anyone can twist a Scripture and proof text it with misinterpretation, but I think the distinction between the two verses we cited is clear. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, and writing the great article, you're always interesting. :)
Rey said:
The narrator in Judges appears to be a blasphemer for sure just like the blasphemer in Samuel who makes David a man after God's own heart.
Here you go again...rejecting Divine, plenary inspiration. Do you also think Luke a blasphemer for recording an incident of "evil" Paul corroborating that David was a man after God's own heart?
Acts 13:16-23
16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. 18 Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. 19 And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.
20 “After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. 21 And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ 23 From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus—
Through this same David, a man after God's own heart, the Messiah came. Paul, in referring to David this way, was also stating Christ is a Man after God's own heart, who will do all His will.
You are not a believer, Rey. You reject God's Word in favor of your own thinking.
Luke 22 v 20:
I'm not sure how you can argue that Matt 26:52 in a general declaration for all times and not *that* specific instance. Christ was predestined to die, and He had told His disciples as much. Peter was trying to thwart God's will as though his sword was almighty.
Luke 22:36 is far more general...Jesus is advising what to do in "day to day" activity...and that included buying a sword. What's interesting about *this* incident is that it is clear His disciples had a special, supernatural protection by being with Jesus. He commands them in such a way that they be prepared for when He is no longer in their presence physically.
Clarification-
I said:
I'm not sure how you can argue that Matt 26:52 in a general declaration for all times and not *that* specific instance.
There is a general principle here...we are not to act in violence foolishly...but there is a time for the "sword", so to speak...otherwise, Jesus commanding the purchase of a sword for after His ascension is completely ridiculous.
Compounding this to the absurd would be the teaching from Paul that the sword is given to the State...if the State lives by the sword, does it also die by the sword? Which would mean violent overthrow of government...the opposite of what you're trying to say.
Interesting. I guess we're just finding a different focus in the Scriptures we're looking at. It is no wonder that there are so many church splits, often people see the Bible a little differently on issues other than the fundamentals.
Regarding the state and its sword, I have always understood the referent of Matthew 26:52 to be an individual. While other Scriptures make it clear that it is a God given function of the state to wield the sword. I appreciate hearing your view though, its clear you've really thought through the issue.
Hello Craig, as a young man wondering about the implications of God's existence, I've been very interested in finding out the truth behind it all. In full disclosure, I will say I am an atheist, but I am not anti-Christian, anti-Bible, or anti-religion. I am an atheist merely in the fact that I am highly skeptical of theism.
That aside, I found this post very enlightening, but I have some issues with it. If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then he must have allowed Tiller's anger to manifest itself in this shooting. As an omniscient, and all-powerful being, he knows the outcome of all things. My question to you is, why would he allow this if he is also omnibenevolent?
I've been posing questions very similar to these to many people across the net. I'd love to hear what you have to say regarding my viewpoint. Just check out my profile and click on my blog, "Thoughts" to see what I've been recently cooking up.
Thanks again for the thoughts, and please continue to explore God and his relationship to the world. I find it all very interesting, and I look forward to any discourse we, or others, may have on the subject.
Hey R.W.,
I think I'd have to define some terms before I could answer your question.
I believe God is omni-benevolent. That is to say He "all good".
Just to make sure I'm following you:
You're questioning the coherence of my faith in an all good God and the presence of natural evil and moral evil that men commit.
"How" is God all good and yet evil exists...is that your question? If so, then more specifically you're asking about agency in the carrying out of any action. God "knows" such and such would happen, then preventing such and such would be good...or so the argument usually goes.
Yet if God interjected, and overrides the action of the willing agent, then He has imposed Himself upon the free choice of a person. Now the question is: "How can God be all good and yet manipulate people just to avoid evil?"
You may expect the typical response of "Man uses his free will, that's how evil entered into the world. God is good, but man screwed things up". Unfortunately, this will give you opportunity to present your next criticism: "Can you really say God is all-powerful?" I think that is a legitimate question.
I perused your blog for a bit, and may I make a friendly suggestion? Would you be willing to consider the things you've read from C.S. Lewis, then compare them to the book of Job chapters 1-3 (if you don't have a Bible, you can use www.biblegateway.com I'd recommend using the New King James version or the New American Standard version)?
If you are going to consider the God of Christianity and examine the claims, be sure to also consult the Bible (I like Lewis, he's nice for anecdotes, but not so much for Christian theology or apologetics).
Thanks for the response Craig. I'll go ahead and read up on those chapters of the Bible.
And yes, you understood my question correctly.
Post a Comment