Is MacArthur right?

Tarheel Baptist

Tarheel Baptist

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
8,841
Reaction score
834
Points
113
1710864677813.png
Considering the different political positions on abortion, this is a ‘loaded‘ question!
 
Last edited:
The last Canadian government to even attempt to regulate abortion was the Mulroney Conservatives, in 1991, and they failed because of a single vote in the Senate. Even our most conservative prime minister in recent years, Stephen Harper, refused to allow debate on the topic.

As a result we have remained one of very few countries in the world where there is no restriction whatever on abortion--alongside such distinguished company as China and North Korea.

Effectively, there is no political party in Canada that is even willing to talk about restricting abortion, let alone legislate against it. If I want to vote at all, I can't not vote for a party that slays babies in the womb. Best I can do is vote for a party whose local candidate might be pro-life, as opposed to the party whose candidates definitely aren't.

The problem with making such absolute statements on single-issue voting, is that you leave people stuck when your single issue is taken off the table.
 
Last edited:
is he the reason so many christians believe they should take no effective part in the american political process?...... and why they insist on clinging to 3rd party candidates who have no chance of winning?.... .....i wonder if he realizes his dogmatic statements do nothing to stop or limit abortion ... but instead .... by making the christian vote ineffective and unimportant ... he only serves to enable those who would kill the most innocent children in the womb to take office.....

the way i see it we can take an active part in elections and try to save as many as we can... or we can take the macarthur approach..throw our votes away... and save none at all...... i don;t see any christianity demonstrated in the macarthur approach.... . instead what i see is an unconditional surrender to evil....
 
aleshanee said:
is he the reason so many christians believe they should take no effective part in the american political process?...... and why they insist on clinging to 3rd party candidates who have no chance of winning?.... .....i wonder if he realizes his dogmatic statements do nothing to stop or limit abortion ... but instead .... by making the christian vote unimportant ... he only serves to enable those who would kill the most innocents in the womb to take office.....

the way i see it we can take an active part in elections and try to save as many as we can... or we can take the macarthur approach..throw our votes away... and save none at all...... i don;t see any christianity demonstrated in the macarthur approach.... . instead what i see is an unconditional surrender to evil....
Click to expand...
I believe that is why Ransom replied as he did.

The problem with the above quote is that it is a meme posing as an absolute position Johnny Mac's. I can assure you that Johnny Mac is far more practical than that single meme is portraying him.

If you think he opposes Christians getting involved in government, you might want to consider how Grace Community took on the city of Los Angeles and the state of California over government restrictions on churches meeting during the PANICdemic.
 
Last edited:
aleshanee said:
is he the reason so many christians believe they should take no effective part in the american political process?
Click to expand...

20 years ago, MacArthur wrote a book titled Why Government Can't Save You, which basically said not to put your faith in government to improve society. Only Christ is capable of the kind of transformation the utopians envision.

So in that respect, he's non-political.

That said, he was also at the forefront of the very political battle to keep churches open during the pandemic, after he decided that by extending lockdowns beyond the original few weeks, the government was illegitimately trying to steal authority that properly belonged to the church.

I've never heard of MacArthur saying Christians should stay out of the political process. He's not a Jehovah's Witness.
 
Ransom said:
20 years ago, MacArthur wrote a book titled Why Government Can't Save You, which basically said not to put your faith in government to improve society. Only Christ is capable of the kind of transformation the utopians envision.

So in that respect, he's non-political.

That said, he was also at the forefront of the very political battle to keep churches open during the pandemic, after he decided that by extending lockdowns beyond the original few weeks, the government was illegitimately trying to steal authority that properly belonged to the church.

I've never heard of MacArthur saying Christians should stay out of the political process. He's not a Jehovah's Witness.
Click to expand...
Yes. And in that regard, he's spot on.
 
admittedly i don;t know much about john macarthur.... ...but even after seeing that meme i still would not believe he is 100% absolutely against abortion... ...most people i know who make absolute statements like the meme says will say... "BUT"... (< --a word that often indicates everything coming before it was b..s.) .... in cases of rape and incest or situations where the life of the mother is in danger they will say abortion is ok...... ... and that puts them to the left of me already since i believe it should only be legal to save the life of the mother when both baby and mther are impossible to save....

but i am glad to know macarthur is more practical with regards to christians and voting than the meme implies.... ....but i still wonder why so many christians cling to 3rd partys and use dogmatic beliefs such as that meme as their reason.... ....i know a few people who say they will write in mike pences name on election day rather than vote for either biden or trump..... they say they will be making a statement based on their personal principles...... .....what good is a personal principle if it causes more innocent lives to be extinguished?..... ..i think personal pride is more often the reason.....
 
Let me say from the start that I believe abortion is the taking of human life. In Exodus 21:22-23 the killing of the unborn resulted in capital punishment. In Psalms 139:13-14 David talks about being formed in his mother's womb and being fearfully and wonderfully made. Paul Harvey explains how in 19th century America abortion was much more common than it is even today. Women at that time didn't believe that being pregnant was carrying a human life until the "quickening" or until there were signs of life by the baby moving or kicking. Could the lack of scientific knowledge that we have today and the sincerely held belief that pregnancy did not produce human life until the time of "quickening" in the 19th century be at all justified? How is it different than bloodletting which was practiced for thousands of years and other medical beliefs that we now know are absurd? From what I understand from the American Revolution to the mid-19th century pre-quickening abortion was not an issue and was legal in every state. I have tried to find what Charles Spurgeon believed on the subject but the only thing I can find is he talks about infanticide but it doesn't say whether he believed that included pre-quickening. Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book in the 1700's. Once again I believe life begins at conception.

​

 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
Let me say from the start that I believe abortion is the taking of human life. In Exodus 21:22-23 the killing of the unborn resulted in capital punishment. In Psalms 139:13-14 David talks about being formed in his mother's womb and being fearfully and wonderfully made. Paul Harvey explains how in 19th century America abortion was much more common than it is even today. Women at that time didn't believe that being pregnant was carying a human life until the "quickening" or until there were signs of life by the baby moving or kicking. Could the lack of scientific knowledge that we have today and the sincerely held belief that pregnancy did not produce human life until the time of "quickening" in the 19th century be at all justified? How is it different than bloodletting which was practiced for thousands of years and other medical beliefs that we now know are absurd? From what I understand from the American Revolution to the mid-19th century pre-quickening abortion was not an issue and was legal in every state. I have tried to find what Charles Spurgeon believed on the subject but the only thing I can find is he talks about infanticide but it doesn't say whether he believed that included pre-quickening. Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book in the 1700's. Once again I believe life begins at conception.

​

Click to expand...
i agree.... i believe life begins at conception.... ..and i believe if prominent 19th century americans like ben franklin had a better understanding of scripture they would have believed that too.. (or if they really believed in God and the bible the way they are given credit for today).... ... there are many places in scripture that explain God places the baby in the womb.... ... but the one that stands out most to me is jeremiah 1 4-5....

then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, ....before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations... ...

spells it out pretty plain and clear.... people have to do mental and moral gymnastics to get around it....
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
Could the lack of scientific knowledge that we have today and the sincerely held belief that pregnancy did not produce human life until the time of "quickening" in the 19th century be at all justified?
Click to expand...

Insofar as "the quickening" was often the first sign that a woman was pregnant at all, I guess it's a fairly good indicator that a new life has begun.

That said, why should a modern Christian be bound to a medieval interpretation of human anatomy? I've been told many times by some poor-choice that "Aristotle said" or "this Pope said" or "Thomas Aquinas said" human life began at such-and-such a time. I don't care. I'm not Catholic and I think we've learned a thing or two about embryology since the thirteenth century.

Bernard Nathanson, the former abortionist, became a pro-life advocate because the invention of the sonogram made it impossible to deny there was a living human being growing in there. Sure, Augustine might have said human life began at quickening, but what might he have said if he had had access to ultrasound in the fourth century?
 
Ransom said:
Insofar as "the quickening" was often the first sign that a woman was pregnant at all, I guess it's a fairly good indicator that a new life has begun.

That said, why should a modern Christian be bound to a medieval interpretation of human anatomy? I've been told many times by some poor-choice that "Aristotle said" or "this Pope said" or "Thomas Aquinas said" human life began at such-and-such a time. I don't care. I'm not Catholic and I think we've learned a thing or two about embryology since the thirteenth century.

Bernard Nathanson, the former abortionist, became a pro-life advocate because the invention of the sonogram made it impossible to deny there was a living human being growing in there. Sure, Augustine might have said human life began at quickening, but what might he have said if he had had access to ultrasound in the fourth century?
Click to expand...
unless a woman was sleeping around on a regular basis... ... and if she stayed true to her husband in a healthy relationship.... she would know fairly quickly that she was pregnant simply by the changes taking place in her own body.... and that would happen long before she felt any movement by the baby.. and i believe it;s things women have known since the beginning of time.. ...... ..i;m not going to spell out what those changes are here but i will say that women who "sleep around" ..(as is the polite way to say it).. and who live a raunchy lifestyle.. will not be able to recognize those changes as quickly as one who is devoted to a husband and only one intimate partner.... ....

now as to the rest of the world.... (especially the world of men).... others might not be able to detect a woman is pregnant even as her belly begins to swell until she actually does feel a babys movement and her reaction to it alerts them..... ..and since in the ancient world of aristotle and thomas aquinas men made the decisions ... (even decisions regarding women)... their ideas of when and how a thing could be determined were the rule of the day..... ...also there were many things regarding the human body that the men of that time believed it was better not to know about.. and considered attempts to discover those things as evil and of the devil.... ..(such as cutting into a cadaver to discover the workings of the body - etc).... ..

but i agree if they had acccess to ultra sound technology back then there might have been no question as to when the life of a baby actually began.... ... provided they didn;t burn the person who brought the device to them as a witch or a sorcerer..... :sneaky:
 
His statement makes sense biblically but, as I have often said, politics isn’t always so clear cut. IF we are going to take part in the political process we sometimes are forced to choose ‘the less of 2 evils’.

MacArthur is also true in stating that politics won’t save us because our Kingdom is not of this world. However, since this world is where we make our temporary home, we should do what’s in our power to make it as palatable as possible.
MacArthur practiced that, as Ransom pointed out earlier, during ‘COVID’.

www.gracechurch.org

An Open Letter to Governor Gavin Newsom

Read Pastor John’s open letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, in response to billboard advertisements placed across the country by Newsom’s campaign shamelessly misquoting Mark 12:31 in support of abortion.
www.gracechurch.org www.gracechurch.org
 
abcaines said:
Mac Arthur or the meme?
Click to expand...
Both... they're together in the meme...JMac is just as wrong as he often is if he truly said this. We can only vote for the one closest to the Biblical stance, nothing more.
 
AverageJoe said:
Both... they're together in the meme...JMac is just as wrong as he often is if he truly said this. We can only vote for the one closest to the Biblical stance, nothing more.
Click to expand...
A position I believe he holds. Especially coming from the land of fruits nuts and flakes, he understands this.

This is the problem with going off a meme. It distills the quote down to what the creator of the meme wants to convey. No context... Just what is wished to be conveyed. Where did this quote come from? How accurate is it? What else was said? When was it said? Context is crucial.

People do this with the scriptures all the time.
 
I'm well aware of all of this, sir...sorry, I can only call them as I see them. The context is this..the compilation of the many statements over the years from JMac would put him squarely behind the meme.
 
Speaking of context, Mac is prolifically unashamed and available in the online arena, so here's some general Macarthur context...

“We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can't vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God," he said, adding that Christians ought not to elect leaders who affirm abortion, LGBT behavior, or any other form of immorality.

"It gets harder, doesn't it, nowadays? Because even sometimes, when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories. And it's very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power," he said.

"But in the end, we do what we can [politically] with the understanding that the responsibility of the Church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That's a faulty viewpoint." Link
Click to expand...
 
ALAYMAN said:
Speaking of context, Mac is prolifically unashamed and available in the online arena, so here's some general Macarthur context...
Click to expand...
i read it.... and i am still not convinced that macarthur would not advocate christians voting for a 3rd party candidate that had no chance of winning - provided that 3rd party candidate appeared to be more pious or more "holy" than the other 2.... .....

which brings up the question of mike pence.... again...... ....mike pence recently stated on record he would not endorse donald trump for president... ...many people believe that means pence will eventually come out to run as that 3rd party "holy" candidate... .. others i know say they are going to write his name in on the ballot on election day anyway......

either way.. by saying what he did.. mike pence has undoubtably discouraged some conservative christians from voting for trump that might have done so otherwise...... ...... ... in effect ... and unless he does present himself as a 3rd candidate.. he has endorsed joe biden by default.. .....and... once again... either way - whether he runs himself or not ...has made joe bidens chance of winning in november stronger..... .

where would john macarthur stand on an issue like this?......... ...throwing a vote away like that is in effect helping enable the worst of 2 evils to take power....
 
aleshanee said:
i read it.... and i am still not convinced that macarthur would not advocate christians voting for a 3rd party candidate that had no chance of winning - provided that 3rd party candidate appeared to be more pious or more "holy" than the other 2.... .....

which brings up the question of mike pence.... again...... ....mike pence recently stated on record he would not endorse donald trump for president... ...many people believe that means pence will eventually come out to run as that 3rd party "holy" candidate... .. others i know say they are going to write his name in on the ballot on election day anyway......

either way.. by saying what he did.. mike pence has undoubtably discouraged some conservative christians from voting for trump that might have done so otherwise...... ...... ... in effect ... and unless he does present himself as a 3rd candidate.. he has endorsed joe biden by default.. .....and... once again... either way - whether he runs himself or not ...has made joe bidens chance of winning in november stronger..... .

where would john macarthur stand on an issue like this?......... ...throwing a vote away like that is in effect helping enable the worst of 2 evils to take power...
Click to expand...

In the following clip (below) the conservatives (Sproul, Mac, etc) deal with the notion that a pious Christian candidate who is incompetent (politically speaking of policy) is not the candidate to be voted for (and Mac agrees ardently with Sproul in the video). So in other words, Christian piety is not an absolute factor, other things being unequal, for voting for a candidate. Sproul went on to say that IF both candidates were rabidly pro-abortion that he wouldn't vote for either of them (implying that was his position regardless of other political competencies), and that's pretty much where I stand as well.

Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top