Tag Archives: November

Doug Groothuis’ message for all Christians who are able to vote on Tuesday

Dr. Doug Groothuis, well-known Christian apologist, wrote this on his Facebook wall and asked everyone to share it:

To my Christian readers.

You are a child of heaven but also a citizen of earth. You are to seek the welfare of the city to which you have been exiled (Jer. 29:7) and be “salt and light” in this broken world (Matthew 5:1-18) We are to render to state what is the state’s (which is not everything) and to God what is God’s (Matthew 22:15-23). We are to see the welfare of “the least of these” (Matthew 25:31-46).

1. Being apolitical is being apathetic about how God’s world is governed in the civil sphere. Not everything is politics, but politics is crucial to our life together on God’s earth. Some political views are closer to a biblical ethic than others. Therefore:

2. Seek the good of the city, the least the last the lost, by voting for candidates that deny statism (see Ezek 28:1-10). This idolatry and bad news for any society.

3. The state does not create wealth; people and other institutions do that. Let the people and voluntary assembles thrive (under the rule of Law, not the rule of men).

4. Putting more and more souls on welfare and food stamps does not dignify them or help solves their problems. Happiness is earned, it is not derived from state handouts. That fosters a parasite mentality.

5. Allowing over one million unborn human beings made in God’s image to be killed each year through abortion is morally wrong. Fifty-four million (54,000,000) have been so killed since Roe v. Wade in 1973. We have blood on our hands and are tracking it into our churches, homes, and schools. We need to be watchman, prophets who call out sin for those who cannot: the unborn. You cannot make your cheap peace with a President that would expand “reproductive rights” (abortion on demand) and insure that abortions are paid for with tax money, that would make religious organizations insure for abortion.

6. The Bible teaches that debt is unhealthy. It should be limited not protracted. We must get our debt under control, or it will control us, and crush the life out of our economy and our spirits.

7. The state has “the power of the sword” (Romans 13:-17) and has the right to protect its people by force. This is a hostile and dangerous world. Cutty back on the military and not protecting our citizens abroad (Libya) is a dereliction of duty and a disgrace.

8. Be not deceived, but judge properly (see John 7:24). The political language of compassion, it not the same thing as real policies that give the poor a chance. Moreover, since the state is an impersonal agency based on coercion, it cannot be compassionate, but it can be just. Individuals, churches, private groups can be compassionate, and should be. When they are taxes up to their eyeballs, they have less to give.

In light of (1)-(8), please vote knowledgeably, wisely, and prayerfully.

And maybe this is a good time to point to this essay that Doug wrote about why he is voting for Mitt Romney on Tuesday. (I featured it about 3 weeks ago)

Excerpt:

Many conservatives (Christian or otherwise), me included, are disappointed that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. They lament that a more principled conservative (such as Michele Bachmann, or, to a lesser degree, Rick Santorum) was not selected. Perhaps they stand for the libertarian principles of Ron Paul. Whatever the case, many will be tempted to not vote at all or to cast a protest vote. This is a deep mistake, based on faulty ideas about politics and the meaning of a political vote. In this short essay, I will labor to convince fellow conservatives, whether Christians or not, to support and vote for Mitt Romney for President. I have waited to endorse Romney until all the other competitors have been eliminated. I do not expect to convert political liberals to this cause, which would require much more argumentation.

Please send this to any Christians who are not planning to vote for Romney!

Doug Groothuis explains why conservatives should unite behind Romney

From Patheos, a MUST-READ post from evangelical philosopher Dr. Douglas Groothuis.

Excerpt:

Many conservatives (Christian or otherwise), me included, are disappointed that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. They lament that a more principled conservative (such as Michele Bachmann, or, to a lesser degree, Rick Santorum) was not selected. Perhaps they stand for the libertarian principles of Ron Paul. Whatever the case, many will be tempted to not vote at all or to cast a protest vote. This is a deep mistake, based on faulty ideas about politics and the meaning of a political vote. In this short essay, I will labor to convince fellow conservatives, whether Christians or not, to support and vote for Mitt Romney for President. I have waited to endorse Romney until all the other competitors have been eliminated. I do not expect to convert political liberals to this cause, which would require much more argumentation.

His list of points are:

  • we have to be realistic about the alternatives
  • protest votes are wasted votes
  • the differences between Democrats and Republicans are HUGE
  • Romney is far more preferable to the alternative

I highly recommend this post.

Here’s just a fragment I liked because it touches on religious liberty, which is my core concern:

Third, the essential principles between the two parties, however each candidate may vary from them, are sharply divided. Democrats support a larger government and heavier taxation and regulation. They view the Constitution as a wax nose they twist any way they want (progressivism), pit corporations and “the wealthy” against “the common man” (call it class warfare, a holdover from Marxism), and support a weakened national defense (the only area of the federal government Obama is trying to cut). They do not support religious liberty, and they are pro-abortion with a vengeance. Under ObamaCare, every American would be subsidizing the killing of innocent human beings with their own tax dollars. Ponder that, for God’s sake. It denies the First Amendment (by requiring many religious people to violate their religious principles) and sets a dangerous precedent for state intrusion into matters of religious conscience. Further, the Democratic party in general, and now Obama very pointedly, do not respect heterosexual monogamy as the norm. They favor same-sex marriage, which is not marriage at all.

Republicans support smaller government, lighter taxation and regulation, a higher view of the Constitution as a body of objective truths to be applied rightly today, and the opportunities allowed by a basically free market. They advocate a strong national defense (or “Peace through strength,” in Reagan’s formulation) and are much more pro-life. This means a Republican president is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who honor the Constitution and oppose Roe v. Wade; to appoint dozens of federal judges with great influence, all of whom are likely to have a high and proper view of the Constitution; and to use executive orders (whether or not they are constitutional; they probably are not) in the pro-life cause, such as refusing to give foreign aid in support of abortions abroad and refusing to fund abortions in the military. While there are exceptions, Republicans support the historical and traditional family. While they grant all citizens the rights enumerated in the Constitution, they do not support same-sex marriage.

I feel that Dr. Groothuis has earned the right to be featured here because of his longstanding support for Michele Bachmann, and then later Rick Santorum when Michele dropped out. I think his post is realistic, and explains the real alternatives facing Christians and conservatives. There are few Christians I respect more on worldview and policy matters than Doug Groothuis, and he is the author of one of the top books on Christian Apologetics.

What I really liked about this article is how many books that Doug referenced, including David Freddoso’s book “The Case Against Barack Obama“. That book was one of the reasons why I started blogging in January of 2009. If everyone knew the real Barack Obama, then no one would vote for him. It’s a lack of knowledge that causes people to vote for him. Anyone who knows his real record and affiliations knows that he is totally unqualified to run so much as a lemonade stand.

Doug Groothuis explains why conservatives should unite behind Romney

From Patheos, a MUST-READ post from evangelical philosopher Dr. Douglas Groothuis.

Excerpt:

Many conservatives (Christian or otherwise), me included, are disappointed that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. They lament that a more principled conservative (such as Michele Bachmann, or, to a lesser degree, Rick Santorum) was not selected. Perhaps they stand for the libertarian principles of Ron Paul. Whatever the case, many will be tempted to not vote at all or to cast a protest vote. This is a deep mistake, based on faulty ideas about politics and the meaning of a political vote. In this short essay, I will labor to convince fellow conservatives, whether Christians or not, to support and vote for Mitt Romney for President. I have waited to endorse Romney until all the other competitors have been eliminated. I do not expect to convert political liberals to this cause, which would require much more argumentation.

His list of points are:

  • we have to be realistic about the alternatives
  • protest votes are wasted votes
  • the differences between Democrats and Republicans are HUGE
  • Romney is far more preferable to the alternative

Click through to read the rest. I highly recommend this post.

Here’s just a fragment I liked because it touches on religious liberty, which is my core concern:

Third, the essential principles between the two parties, however each candidate may vary from them, are sharply divided. Democrats support a larger government and heavier taxation and regulation. They view the Constitution as a wax nose they twist any way they want (progressivism), pit corporations and “the wealthy” against “the common man” (call it class warfare, a holdover from Marxism), and support a weakened national defense (the only area of the federal government Obama is trying to cut). They do not support religious liberty, and they are pro-abortion with a vengeance. Under ObamaCare, every American would be subsidizing the killing of innocent human beings with their own tax dollars. Ponder that, for God’s sake. It denies the First Amendment (by requiring many religious people to violate their religious principles) and sets a dangerous precedent for state intrusion into matters of religious conscience. Further, the Democratic party in general, and now Obama very pointedly, do not respect heterosexual monogamy as the norm. They favor same-sex marriage, which is not marriage at all.

Republicans support smaller government, lighter taxation and regulation, a higher view of the Constitution as a body of objective truths to be applied rightly today, and the opportunities allowed by a basically free market. They advocate a strong national defense (or “Peace through strength,” in Reagan’s formulation) and are much more pro-life. This means a Republican president is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who honor the Constitution and oppose Roe v. Wade; to appoint dozens of federal judges with great influence, all of whom are likely to have a high and proper view of the Constitution; and to use executive orders (whether or not they are constitutional; they probably are not) in the pro-life cause, such as refusing to give foreign aid in support of abortions abroad and refusing to fund abortions in the military. While there are exceptions, Republicans support the historical and traditional family. While they grant all citizens the rights enumerated in the Constitution, they do not support same-sex marriage.

Its very hard for me to post link to this endorsement, but I feel that Dr. Groothuis has earned the right to be featured here because of his longstanding support for Michele Bachmann, and then later Rick Santorum when Michele dropped out. I think his post is realistic, and explains the real alternatives facing Christians and conservatives. There are few Christians I respect more on worldview and policy matters than Doug Groothuis, and he is the author of one of the top books on Christian Apologetics.

What I really liked about this article is how many books that Doug referenced, including David Freddoso’s book “The Case Against Barack Obama“. That book was one of the reasons why I started blogging in January of 2009. If everyone knew the real Barack Obama, then no one would vote for him. It’s a lack of knowledge that causes people to vote for him. Anyone who knows his real record and affiliations knows that he is totally unqualified to run so much as a lemonade stand.

Video of William Lane Craig’s opening speech from his debate on ID with Ayala

Provided by ChristianJR4. If you have a youtube account, please subscribe to his channel

Here is his full opening speech in 3 parts:

You can get the full audio here at Apologetics 315. There’s a good discussion going on in the comments.

You can read more about the debate over on Bradley Monton’s blog. He is an atheist professor who served as moderator during the debate.

Here are Craig’s post-debate comments.

Related posts

William Lane Craig’s after-action report on the debate with Francisco Ayala

Here is his after-action report. I think it may be behind the registration firewall, so I’ll quote some of it for you.

Excerpt:

I had heard Ayala lecture on Intelligent Design last year in China and was dismayed by the caricatures and misrepresentations he gave to the Chinese students. So even though I had never debated intelligent design in biology before, I decided to take on this debate to try at least to set the record straight.

The last few months I prepared diligently for this debate, reading Ayala’s work, familiarizing myself with relevant new developments in biology, studying the recent works of ID proponents, conferring with colleagues who work in this field, and formulating the best strategy for the debate.

[…]Since the question we were debating was not whether intelligent design is true but merely whether it is viable, it was up to Ayala to disqualify ID as a live option. In his published work, he tries to disqualify ID both scientifically and theologically, so my opening response fell neatly into two parts. First, I argued that Ayala fails to disqualify ID scientifically because he cannot show that the Darwinian mechanisms are capable of producing the sort of biological complexity we see on earth. Then I argued that the theological arguments he presents against the designer’s being all-powerful and all-good are simply irrelevant to drawing a design inference (however interesting and important they may be for theology) because the design argument doesn’t aspire to show that the designer is all-powerful or all-good.

The debate turned out to be virtually one-sided! Ayala utterly failed to engage with my arguments. It was almost as if I wasn’t even there. It was pretty obvious to everyone that he was just presenting canned arguments which had already been refuted in my opening statement. I responded to all his points and even went beyond them to tackle the theological problem of natural evil as well. I was also able to call him to account for his misrepresentation of Michael Behe’s work. Ayala likes to indict Behe for saying that the human eye is irreducibly complex, even though it isn’t. Holding up Behe’s book and reading aloud the relevant passage, I responded that this allegation was surprising in light of the fact that Behe says on pages 37-38 that the eye is NOT irreducibly complex and therefore he does not use it as one of his examples of irreducible complexity!

Another interesting feature of this debate was the moderator, a young philosopher from the University of Colorado, Boulder, named Bradley Monton. Though a self-confessed atheist, Monton is convinced that the typical refutations of ID that pass muster today are in fact fallacious, and so he has written a book defending not only the scientific status of ID but even its being taught as an option in public schools! Having read his remarkable book in preparation for the debate, I was able to quote “our esteemed moderator” to good effect during the debate itself to counter Ayala’s assertion that ID was not science.

I note that Reasonable Faith has secured a $65000 matching grant for all donations between now and December 31st. Please contribute generously. There is no one on the planet who does more to defend Biblical Christianity than William Lane Craig. No Christian is more feared by atheists. Atheists laugh at Bible-thumping, hand-wringing fundamentalists who preach only to the choir – but they fear William Lane Craig.

You can listen to the MP3 recording of the debate here at Apologetics 315.

Video of Craig’s opening speech is here.

Related posts