Monday, May 6, 2013

Like Rams Butting Heads (Part 3)

Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.
Pastor Bayly interjected: "mikelmann, you said:
'Now, if the purpose of government was inherently moral, it would be regulating all of that moral law except insofar as it applies to the condition of the heart'
So far as I can tell, Christopher Lee didn't say that the purpose of government was to enforce the moral law. He did say its purpose is "inherently moral", and also:
'We have to understand that the purpose of govt is not to make morality or their own morals. but to ***reflect*** that moral law (natural law) that was given to them by God.'
It does not actually follow logically that it would therefore "regulate all of that moral law..." as you stated and then described as a growing government.
Leaving logic to the side, I don't see how you could disagree biblically with what he said. Speaking of civil authorities, Romans 13:4 says, "for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." God is explicit that the government's purpose is moral. Good and bad are respectively to be rewarded and punished by it. This is inherently moral. There is no other way to describe the purpose of the government is there?'

(Mikelmann never actually responded to Pastor Bayly's comments.)

CL says: "Pastor Bayly,
Thank you for the support.. It is most appreciated.. :-)
I appreciate the dialog as well. You mention that you "depart" from my statement that the purpose of govt is inherently moral. 
     1) I dont see where in the WLC writings of the moral law that contradict anything that I have said. 

Could you please provide an argument?

You said "The idea here seems to be that the magistrate should provide a structure in which there is freedom for the individual to go about his business in peace. It's implied that there should be religious freedom for the church to do what it is called to do."
     2) Above is your idea of what the magistrate should provide and should do. This function is inherently moral. If the govt is to provide the freedom for the individual to do etc..., this is a moral function. 

Could you please provide an argument as to why you feel that your assertion is not moral? 
3) I appreciate the background and historical context. Context is always important. However, even with this information, I still feel that my arguments have not been engaged. 

Here are my questions below based on the arguments that I have given in my responses.. You dont have to answer all of them if you dont have time or something like that.. 
   -Could you please provide an argument that refutes my original proposition that affirming civil arrangements for homosexuals is logically affirming homosexual activity?
    -Could you please provide an argument that refutes my proposition that a government's duty is to reflect moral law (in relation to Rom 13 as Pastor Bayly quoted, and the example of Pilate (authority from God))?
   -Could you please provide an argument that refutes my proposition that a government's legal affirmation of something is in fact then a moral affirmation that that same thing? 
    -Please provide an argument as to why not using the Bible will logically lead to the govt NOT concluding that they are in fact the moral authority that decides what is moral or not. 
   -Is there any context where it is acceptable for a govt to think that their moral authority is inherent and not derivative from God? (If not, then how are we to inform them that it isnt acceptable with NL2K arguments?)
Is it ever acceptable for a govt to decide for themselves (without using any transcendent standard and **only** using NL2K/(R)2K arguments) what is morally right or wrong? 
Thanks.. Have a blessed Lord's day to all!!!!!"

(This is where it gets disappointing, below.)

Mikelmann says: "Actually, Chris, no: I'm not going to spend the next week answering 47 questions about the topic.  What I have done is challenge a position of yours that logically precedes the latter 46 questions.  That is to say, the resolution of that issue is necessary before the following questions are engaged.
     Your position that the law is inherently about morals is really the presupposition on which you base your position.  But what about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"  Are you saying those are inherently moral?  They seem to be about a government that creates a space for citizens to live their lives, not about extensive moral coercion.  BTW I don't deny that a good number of laws have moral underpinnings; my challenge is to your more sweeping statement.
     BTW, I don't know whether you are actually saying civil laws "ought" to be moral or if they "are" moral.  The current situation is that the two are by no means identical, and you can get that point of view from a man (Justice Scalia) who is in a pretty good position to know.
I'll try to add a bit more later today."
Part 4 coming up

No comments:

Post a Comment