Jackson's Journal: 04/01/2011

PREFACE

From April 20, to May 6, 2010, I engaged in a hot political debate on John Lofton’s Face Book page. I would like to commemorate the one year anniversary of this debate by making it available to my readers. For the benefit of those of you who may not know who John Lofton is, he is a well established journalist both in print and electronic media. He has written and edited for several publications such as: Monday, the weekly publication of the Republican National Committee; The United Features Syndicate whose columns appeared in 100 newspapers; The Washington Times; The Chalcedon Report; Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture; and he currently has his own blog with The American View.

John’s background also includes commentating on The American View radio program. He has also made numerous appearances on political talk shows including, The Political Cesspool, Politically Incorrect, Scarborough Country, and The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart and Crossfire. Lofton advised Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign and was the Communications Director for the 2004 Michael Peroutka Presidential campaign.

There were others who posted to this thread on John’s FB page. However, their posts were edited out because John and I were the main participants. In order to keep the debate more reader friendly I broke it up into several segments. Debating online is a lot different that an actual live debate. In this debate John and I copied and pasted each other’s previous comments before responding in order for the reader to know exactly which comment we were responding to. Previous text that has been copied for contextual purposes will be in italic font. I realize this adds redundancy and makes the debate seem longer than it actually was. However, it makes for an easier read in the long run. Enjoy the debate, I will let you decide who won.

INTRODUCTORY SEGMENT:

John Lofton
See, this is the kinda thing that drives me even nuttier than I am. Form message from Gary DeMar: "Join me for a private dinner on May 3rd at 7:00 PM and I will show you what American Vision is doing behind the scenes to train Christians for dominion." Christian "dominion"? He urged us to VOTE FOR McCAIN.....ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Matthew A. Jackson
John, take a deep breath here. You are going after Gary, your Recon bother just because he recommended McCain in the last election? I agree that McCain was way less than ideal. The only other options that were available were to vote for Obama or don't vote at all. Which one did you do?

John Lofton
Recommending an unGodly, anti-Godly persons, Matthew, such as McCain/Palin is no small matter. Christianity is measured by God's Word NOT by relation to other politicians.

Matthew A. Jackson
John, if you think McCain/Palin are ungody and anti-godly, then you must think Obama is the devil incarnate. You never answered my question. Who did you vote for? Or did you not vote at all?

John Lofton
Not talking about "perfect ideal candidate," Matthew. Saying Christians can vote only for those who meet GOD'S QUALIFICATIONS. Read, please, this article: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=693

Matthew A. Jackson
John, Whether we use the terms "perfect ideal candidate," or “those who meet GOD'S QUALIFICATIONS” we are talking about the same thing here. In either case the candidate has to meet a standard of some sort.

As for Scott’s article, as interesting as it was, he was talking about the system of government that God established for the ancient Hebrews. In that system, only the godly could even be considered a candidate for public office. In our system, anybody (godly or ungodly) can seek public office. Scott is comparing apples to oranges here. I wished we had a system where we could choose the best from the best as opposed to the best from the worst.

John, let me ask you this. When was the last time that you voted for a candidate that you thought met “God’s qualifications”? I would imagine that you and Scott don’t vote very often.

John Lofton
NOT talking about the same thing! "Idealism" very different from God's Word, God's qualifications for rulers. And so what if we don’t vote "very often." This proves NOTHING -- other than almost no Godly men running for anything. Your method of arguing is not Christian/Biblical....As for your "Why Not The Best," that was Jimmy Carter's slogan. I like better "Why Not Just Godly Men" -- as God commands, for ALL time, not just for OT Israel.

Matthew A. Jackson
John, In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself. After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain. The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.

As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.

The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.

As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.

I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another. So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice. Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.

If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.

Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?

“The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. Pr 21:1

John Lofton
I repeat (and you have not addressed it directly): God's qualifications for those who hold offices in the civil government He created are qualifications for ALL TIME. They do NOT change. A Christian may NEVER "vote"or be complicit in ANY way for a Godless, anti-Christian ruler to be a ruler -- NEVER.

Quoting MJ: In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself.

JL: We HAVE made such arguments. Scott’s article is full of them. It is YOU who have cited NO Biblical arguments for the absurd notion that Christians may vote for “the lesser of two evils.”

Quoting MJ: After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain.

JL: Sure did. And you have, from a Biblical perspective, replied to not ONE THING I said critical of DeMar.

Quoting MJ: The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.

JL: To the contrary, Biblicalquotewise, thus far, it’s a forfeit. You haven’t showed up and taken the field.

Quoting MJ: As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.

JL: You sure do! We believe no Christian can ever vote for “a lesser evil” – or any kind of “evil,” for that matter – NEVER.

Quoting MJ: The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.

JL: Making the case that Christians can vote for ONLY CHRISTIANS, ONLY GOD-FEARING MEN to rule us in elected offices. Period. This is not rocket science. If this is not done, we get GODLESS government. Can Christians for Godless governors? Of course not. Ridiculous! In the NT we’re told that all we as Christians do must be “of faith.” Is voting for a non-Christian/an anti-Christian, a child of the devil (John 8:44ff) “of faith?” Does voting for a unbelieving evil God-hater (non-anti-Christian) glorify God, as all we do must? No!

Quoting MJ: As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.

JL: King, scheming! God’s qualifications in OT/NT apply to all who rule – ALL, regardless of what you call them. You attempt to shrink God’s Word and limit its meaning and application to only one time, one place is an example of your NON-Christian/Biblical thinking.

Quoting MJ: I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another.

JL: Not talking about “flaws.” Not talking about voting for only “perfect” candidates. Talking about what God says about what must be the kind of person to rule, what God says constitutes a good ruler, a Godly ruler.

Quoting MJ: So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice.

JL: Haven’t said Christians can vote only for Godly, SINLESS men. And of course there would be mistakes/injustices under even Godly men ruling. But, at least a Godly man will have the right (Biblical) standard of justice. No way with a non-anti-Christian ruler which you think is OK to vote for.
Quoting MJ: Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.

JL: Who God chooses I do not criticize.

Quoting MJ: If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.

JL: God is my judge I am not His judge. As I say, you are not thinking Christianly.

Quoting MJ: Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching...and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?

JL: So, Paul would have “voted” for Caesar and urged his fellow Christians to “vote” for Caesar (our topic, remember?)? No. Your positions and thinking are not Biblical and you’ve still offered no Scripture to support them – NONE.

John Lofton
Anyone reading our exchange can see clearly that Scot and I have both quoted numerous Scriptures; you have quoted none to support your view that Christians are allowed to vote for anti-Christians, to vote for "the lesser of 2 evils." And you have quoted no Scripture because there is no Scripture to support your view. You also ignored my Question regarding whether voting for anti-Christians is "of faith." Is it? Answer please.

SEGMENT 1:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: I repeat (and you have not addressed it directly): God's qualifications for those who hold offices in the civil government He created are qualifications for ALL TIME. They do NOT change. A Christian may NEVER "vote"or be complicit in ANY way for a Godless, anti-Christian ruler to be a ruler -- NEVER.

MJ: I have directly addressed Scot’s arguments. And on the same token, YOU or Scot have never addressed directly from a Biblical standpoint why a Christian can’t vote for a “lesser of the two evils” candidate when he faces limited options in the voting booth.

Quoting MJ: In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself.

Quoting JL: We HAVE made such arguments. Scott’s article is full of them. It is YOU who have cited NO Biblical arguments for the absurd notion that Christians may vote for “the lesser of two evils.”

MJ: We? Who is we? John, YOU have not constructed any kind of Biblical argument yourself in this debate up to this point. Instead, you cited Scot Whiteman’s article. To me, that is kind of bush and unbecoming of a man of your journalistic credentials and accomplishments. If you think that you have constructed a Biblical argument just because you cited a 2000 word article written someone other than you, then you must not have a very strong desire to win this debate. Just because Scot has “Esq.” after his name and cites scriptures and uses footnotes, does not mean his arguments are Biblical. You should be embarrassed over the fact that you gravy-trained Scot’s article. By saying “we,” does this mean you want to take some of the credit for Scot’s work now? Earth to John Lofton, the reason I have cited “NO Biblical arguments” in favor of Christians having the liberty to vote for the “lesser of the two evils” is because there is no Biblical prohibitions to the contrary. And the dog that you and Scot are trying to use to make that argument will not hunt.

Quoting MJ: After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain.

Quoting JL: Sure did. And you have, from a Biblical perspective, replied to not ONE THING that I said critical of DeMar.

MJ: John, you began this thread by impugning DeMar’s ability to train Christians for dominion on the sole grounds that he endorsed McCain. You did not cite any Biblical grounds in your opening statement. Since you are the one who fired the first shot here, it behooves you (not Scot Whiteman) to make the Biblical argument against Gary as opposed to me having to make a Biblical argument on his behalf.

John Lofton
I "impugned" nothing but did note the irony (sinfulness?) of someone with a "Christian worldview" ministry urging a vote for John McCain WHO HAS NO CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW! My point: In politics, Gary should practice what he preaches.

SEGMENT 2:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.

Quoting JL: To the contrary, Biblicalquotewise, thus far, it’s a forfeit. You haven’t showed up and taken the field....

MJ: Up to this point in the debate, I have not seen any “Biblicalquotes” out of you either. And you have put Scot’s article out on the field instead of you showing up yourself. Scot is not the one who started this thread by cracking on DeMar.

SEGMENT 3:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.

Quoting JL: You sure do! We believe no Christian can ever vote for “a lesser evil” – or any kind of “evil,” for that matter – NEVER.

MJ: You are being redundant. You have already established this as your position in this debate.

SEGMENT 4:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.

Quoting JL: Making the case that Christians can vote for ONLY CHRISTIANS, ONLY GOD-FEARING MEN to rule us in elected offices. Period. This is not rocket science. If this is not done, we get GODLESS government. Can Christians for Godless governors? Of course not. Ridiculous! In the NT we’re told that all we as Christians do must be “of faith.” Is voting for a non-Christian/an anti-Christian, a child of the devil (John 8:44ff) “of faith?” Does voting for a unbelieving evil God-hater (non-anti-Christian) glorify God, as all we do must? No!

MJ: Now you are saying that “Christians can vote only for Christians?” Interesting! Did you vote for Pat Robertson back in ’88 when he ran for President in the Republican primary? Did he meet God’s qualifications? Instead of cursing the darkness, why don’t you light a candle and tell us how you prepare for an upcoming election. When was the last time you have been in a voting booth? How do you determine which candidates on the ballot meet God’s qualifications? Tell us who you voted for in the last election and how you determined whether or not they met God’s qualifications.

SEGMENT 5:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.

Quoting JL: King, scheming! God’s qualifications in OT/NT apply to all who rule – ALL, regardless of what you call them. You attempt to shrink God’s Word and limit its meaning and application to only one time, one place is an example of your NON-Christian/Biblical thinking....

MJ: If you and your man Scot are going to make a conceptual argument using a given body of Scripture, it would be a good idea to first acknowledge the literal context the passage was originally written in and then go from there. You guys did not do this. Furthermore, in the 5th paragraph of Scot’s article, he made the suggestion that the Israelites elected their magistrates. Where in the Bible does it say that those magistrates were elected by the Israelites? They were EXECUTIVELY SELECTED! You and Scot’ didn’t even get that basic fact right and you have the gall to tell me that I have NON-Christian/Biblical thinking?

SEGMENT 6:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another.

Quoting JL: Not talking about “flaws.” Not talking about voting for only “perfect” candidates. Talking about what God says about what must be the kind of person to rule, what God says constitutes a good ruler, a Godly ruler.

MJ: You are the one who is establishing “God qualifications” as a standard for a godly ruler in this debate. If that is the standard a candidate must measure up to, then that must be the “ideal” or “perfect” (I never meant sinless) candidate.

SEGMENT 7:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice.

Quoting JL: Haven’t said Christians can vote only for Godly, SINLESS men. And of course there would be mistakes/injustices under even Godly men ruling. But, at least a Godly man will have the right (Biblical) standard of justice. No way with a non-anti-Christian ruler which you think is OK to vote for.

MJ: At least with McCain, we would have stood a much better chance of him getting the right standard of justice. Now, we have Obama. What do you think the odds are with him coming around to the right standards?

SEGMENT 8:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.

Quoting JL: Who God chooses I do not criticize.

MJ: I would hope not. Yet, you held DeMar to a higher standard and criticized him.

SEGMENT 9:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.

Quoting JL: God is my judge I am not His judge. As I say, you are not thinking Christianly.

MJ: If God is your judge, then that would also make Him Gary DeMar’s judge too. Right?

SEGMENT 10:

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching...and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?

Quoting JL: So, Paul would have “voted” for Caesar and urged his fellow Christians to “vote” for Caesar (our topic, remember?)? No. Your positions and thinking are not Biblical and you’ve still offered no Scripture to support them – NONE.

MJ: If the Emperor of Rome was an elected office and the average Roman citizen were able to vote for in the Emperor’s race. Who is to say that Paul would have not voted in that election? In a pagan culture like that, I would say it would have been a safe bet that no Godly men would have been running in that race. However, we will never know because it’s all hypothetical. The point I was trying to make was, as a Roman citizen and a Christian, Paul acknowledged the legitimacy of a civil government of a Godless(or anti-Christian) pagan society and even used, his rights as a Roman citizen to plead his case. What about Abram in Genesis Chapter 14? He formed an alliance with the King of Sodom in order to rescue Lot. I know that passage of Scripture does not address the election or the appointment of rulers, but it does well illustrate the association with a lesser of the evils in order to achieve a practical end. If the King of Sodom was not a lesser of the evils, then I don’t know who is.

John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Now you are saying that “Christians can vote only for Christians?” Interesting! Did you vote for Pat Robertson back in ’88 when he ran for President in the Republican primary? Did he meet God’s qualifications? Instead of cursing the darkness, why don’t you light a candle and tell us how you prepare for an upcoming election. When was the last time you have been in a voting booth? How do you determine which candidates on the ballot meet God’s qualifications? Tell us who you voted for in the last election and how you determined whether or not they met God’s qualifications.

JL: Been saying what I'm saying all along. And of course not, I did NOT vote for Robertson. He's a false prophet and did not/does not meet God's qualifications for a good, Godly ruler. When I was last in a voting booth utterly irrelevant to the issue: Does God have qualifications for rulers. And you still have not told me if voting for an unbeliever, an anti-Christ, is "of faith." Is it? Answer the question.

John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Who is to say that Paul would have not voted in that election? In a pagan culture like that, I would say it would have been a safe bet that no Godly men would have been running in that race.

JL: Which is why Paul would NOT Have voted! Wake up, pls.

John Lofton
Quoting MJ: What about Abram in Genesis Chapter 14? He formed an alliance with the King of Sodom in order to rescue Lot. I know that passage of Scripture does not address the election or the appointment of rulers.

JL: Sure doesn't. But I understand why you continually attempt to avoid the real issue: You have no Scripture to support the notion that it is OK for believers to vote for unbelievers as rulers -- NONE.

John Lofton
Quoting MJ: At least with McCain, we would have stood a much better chance of him getting the right standard of justice. Now, we have Obama. What do you think the odds are with him coming around to the right standards?

JL: McCain/Obama equally Godless, anti-Christian. That you don't see this is more of your non-Christian thinking. Your non-Biblicalview would force us to vote for Stalin over Mao, Hitler over Stalin; absurd. Your thinking is moral relativism, NOT Christian; situation ethics, NOT Christian.

John Lofton
Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.

SEGMENT 4 (Follow Up)

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: Been saying wht I'm saying all along. And of course not, I did NOT vote for Robertson. He's a false prophet and did not/does not meet God's qualifications for a good, Godly ruler. When I was last in a voting booth utterly irrelevant to the issue: Does God have qualifications for rulers. And you still have not told me if voting for an unbeliever, an anti-Christ, is "of faith." Is it? Answer the question.

MJ: In due course, I fully intend to answer your question. However, your personal voting history is very relevant to this debate. You are the one who has been playing the, “meets God’s qualifications” card, and the “Christians should only vote for Christians” card. I think it is very relevant to ask how you put that into practice when you vote. I think you are experienced enough in politics to know that there are several dozen (depending on where you live) races to vote on in an even year election in November.

MJ (cont’d): Christian Reconstructionism is not just about telling everyone about how unbiblical they are. Its also about giving constructive and practical Biblical oriented solutions in every area of life. Which includes life in the voting booth. Since you seem to think that your thinking is more Christian and Biblical than mine, I would like to know how you do your research to determine if all the candidates running in all of these races meets “God’s qualifications.” If you don’t put all of that into practice when you vote, then what credibility do you have in debating this issue with me and criticizing others on how they vote?

MJ (cont’d): Being that you were an advisor to Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign and that you were the Communications Director Michael Peroutka’s 2004 Presidential campaign, obviously you had some involvement in voting. Obviously, you thought those two met God’s qualifications for a ruler.

SEGMENT 7 (Follow Up)

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: McCain/Obama equally Godless, anti-Christian. That you don't see this is more of your non-Christian thinking. Your non-Biblicalview would force us to vote for Stalin over Mao, Hitler over Stalin; absurd. Your thinking is moral relativism, NOT Christian; situation ethics, NOT Christian.

MJ: Earth to John! You are going off point. We are not debating the merits of voting for one of two equal evils. We are debating the merits of voting for the LESSER of two evils. Even that article by Scot that you gravy-trained for this debate established that. The issue of voting for one of two equal evils is another debate altogether. Don’t try to change the parameters of the debate. Obama vs McCain is not quite the same thing as Hitler vs Stalin.

SEGMENT 10 (Follow Up)

Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: Sure doesn't. But I understand why you continually attempt to avoid the real issue: You have no Scripture to support the notion that it is OK for believers to vote for unbelievers as rulers – NONE//.

MJ: John, the Scriptures that your man Scot (not you) gave to support the notion that believers can’t vote for an unbelievers in a bottom-up Democratic Constitutional Republic does not make your argument. You guys can’t even make the distinction between top-down selection and bottom-up election. There is a HUGE difference between Moses making judicial selections in a society where everyone is of the same religion and culture, than a believer who lives in a multi cultural society where there are dozens upon dozens of races at the all the various levels of civil government and anyone from any religious persuasion is free to run for public office.

MJ (cont’d): Now as to your question as to whether or not a believer can in faith (according to Romans 14:23) vote for an unbeliever in a Democratic Constitutional Republic when he faces limited options.... Speaking only for myself, I voted against an anti-God, unchristian candidate by voting against Obama. I could not in faith stay home and not vote at all. To me, that would have been a sin. In the same way that Abram was not thrilled about making an alliance with the King of Sodom, I too was not thrilled about having to vote for McCain in order to vote against Obama. I wished the Republican party would have fielded a better candidate. However, that does not mean I think McCain is the devil.

MJ (cont’d): John, if you could not in faith vote for either candidate because you think they are equally bad, and you think that you better glorified God by not voting at all, then fine. I respect that if that is what is your conscience is telling you to do. But get off your –I’m more Biblical than thou- high horse about it. Try offering some constructive advice for believers on how they can better choose who to vote for in this much more complicated political process than what Moses had to deal with.

CONCLUSION SEGMENT:

John Lofton
Questions regarding my personal voting behavior could, at most, establish only that I am a hypocrite --- which would have NOTHING to do with the rightness or wrongness of what I'm saying.

Matthew A. Jackson
John, I agree. Truth is truth, regardless of whether or not the messenger practices what he preaches. However, if you know there is a certain level of inconsistency between your voting practices and your criteria for choosing a candidate, don’t you think it might be a good idea for you to cut Gary DeMar a little bit of slack?As far as the criteria that Moses used to choose his judges, I agree with you that it’s a good criteria for voters in our time to use as well. The problem I have with your premise is the implementation side of it. When God instituted a law in the OT there was always a practical and doable way for the people to implement it. If there can be a practical and doable way to implement the principle that you and Scot are advocating in today’s current political situation, then I am with you.

John Lofton
Not talking about a "principle." Talking about God's clear qualifications for those who hold His civil government offices. And McCain/Obama equally Godless. You are not thinking Christianly from a Biblical worldview.

John Lofton
And you, Matthew, continue to ignore answering directly this point: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.

Matthew A. Jackson
It’s all about principle. How can you say it’s not? It was out of principle that you chose not to vote for either candidate because you thought they were both equally bad. It was out of principle that you could not in faith vote for either because you thought that in so doing you would not bring glory to God. I respect and acknowledge your right to do that and I am not going to accuse you of thinking unChristian or unbiblical because you took a different path than I. I think the crux of our argument here is that you see McCain as equally bad where I see him as not as bad. If I actually thought that McCain was equally as bad as Obama, then I probably would have not voted for either as you did.

Quoting JL: “And you, Matthew, continue to ignore answering directly this point: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God?”

MJ: Not true, I have not ignored answering that question. The answer is in the last two paragraphs of SEGMENT 10 in my April 28th post. What do you want me to do? Copy and paste those paragraphs to this post so you can read them again? I fully understand that you don’t agree with my answer and I already know that you don’t think I think Biblically or Christian. Judging from your, -I’m more Biblical than thou- attitude that I have been getting from you throughout this entire debate, I would imagine that you think that any believer who disagrees with you does not think Biblically or Christian. So what’s new here?

John Lofton
You need to answer this Q which I've asked you several times, Matthew: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because which is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.

John Lofton
You have NOT directly answered this question

John Lofton
And anyone who thinks voting for unbelievers is "of faith" and glorifies God is NOT thinking Christianly.

Matthew A. Jackson
John, I think a good speech therapist can help you with your studdering problem.

John Lofton
And you need a spelling therapist -- it's "stuttering"...

Matthew A. Jackson
Touché! I'll give you that one.

John Lofton
Now, answer my questions...here

Matthew A. Jackson
The reason I voted for McCain is: First, I obviously am not as smart as you are and I did not see him as being as bad as Obama. Secondly, I did not violate any Biblical laws that had any subsequent moral sanctions by voting for McCain. Thirdly, my voting for McCain was not in violation of Romans 14:23 because it was not an external John, there are a lot of good principles in the OT that Christians would be behooved to follow if there was a practical way to implement them in today’s times. However, just because a Biblical principle can be applied to today’s times does not mean that it should be a Biblical Law with moral sanctions. Take the dietary laws for example. Even though eating pork today is not in violation of Biblical Law, it would still be a good idea to abstain from pork if an individual believer wanted to adopt that for his own personal dietary policy.

Judging from the tone and attitude that I have been getting from you, and Scott, it sounds as if you guys think that the ruler qualification criteria as stated in Exodos 18:21 should become Biblical Law. Even Mr. Biblical Law himself, RJ Rushdoony did not go that far. Rush wrote about Ex. 18:21 on three different occasions and Deut. 17 one time in his, Institutes of Biblical Law and he never advocated what Scott wrote about. I have no doubt that he would have agreed with you on not voting for the “lesser of the two evils.” But, I don’t think that he would have made a Biblical Law out of it.

Now that I have answered you question (twice), show me your good faith and answer mine as to how you implement the ruler qualification criteria in your personal voting practices.

John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Now that I have answered you question (twice), show me your good faith and answer mine as to how you implement the ruler qualification criteria in your personal voting practices.

JL: Simple --- I vote only for those who are God-fearing, Christian, Bible-believing MEN.

Matthew A. Jackson
How do you go about finding out if there are any God fearing, Christian, Bible believing, MEN running in the local races such as, City Council, State Representative, Justice of the Peace, County Commissioner, Sheriff, School Board and etc.? How do you research ALL the male candidates running for office in ALL the races? Or, do you just ignore the low profile races and vote (or write in) on the major high profile races?

John Lofton
If a Christian is serious about his faith and voting, which you are not, you are allowed to actually email, write, talk to, interview candidates. Not all that hard re: local, state candidates. But you're still not answering questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God?

Matthew A. Jackson
John, I don’t know what the November 2008 general election ballot looked like in your voting precinct where you live in Maryland. As for the average precinct in Harris County, Texas where I live, the ballot contained about 55 different races with about 120 candidates running for those offices.

So, since you obviously consider yourself to be more “serious” about your “faith and voting” than I, how would you advise me and all the Christians who vote in Harris County to research all 120 candidates on their respective ballots? Do you expect every Christian voter in Harris County to individually “email, write, talk to, interview” ALL 120 candidates? Do YOU “email, write, talk to, interview” ALL the male candidates that appear on the ballot in the precinct where YOU vote?

What kinds of questions do you propose that we ask these candidates to ensure that they have passed the John Lofton litmus test of being a true Christian? Most candidates (especially in the South) will tell you that they are a Christian. Obviously, the questions are going to have to go deeper than, Are you a Christian? Give us some practical pointers. How do you do it?

John Lofton
I have no litmus test other than GOD'S TEST. You continue to treat the topic snidely with no serious discussion FROM SCRIPTURE. And you've still not answered the questions DIRECTLY: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God?

Matthew A. Jackson
Hold on here! Let me get this straight. You began this thread by making a snide comment about Gary DeMar; you have repeatedly stated that my thinking is not Biblical and Christian; and then you said that I was not serious about my faith and voting; and yet you are accusing me of being snide toward this topic? Thou doth protesteth too much, me If anyone is failing to discuss this topic from Scripture, IT IS YOU. You can hold me accountable to Romans 14:23 and I Cor 10:31 all you want by asking me those two questions. The fact of the matter is, they don’t mean anything if you can’t provide a practical way to implement those Scriptures in today’s voting circumstances. In order to not vote for an unbeliever, or vote for a believer, you first have to know whether or not they ARE ONE. Until you cross that hurdle, how can you claim to be more serious about your faith and voting than I? And most importantly, how can you claim to be glorifying God in your voting?

John Lofton
Answer please the questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? Simple questions.

Matthew A. Jackson
Those questions have already been asked and they already have been answered. You are the one who made the charge that I was not serious about my faith and voting. In order for you to criticize my method of evaluating and selecting candidates, you must first have a better method. Now answer my question. What is your method for evaluating and selecting over 100 possible candidates running in over 50 possible races in a major general election year in November?

John Lofton
Copy and paste here now the direct answers you say you have given to these questions.

Matthew A. Jackson
John your demand for me to copy and paste my answers is by default an admission on your part that you have not really taken the time to read and digest what I wrote. It seems as if you were more interested in locking and loading, and firing off your two poorly premised and redundant questions than having an honest debate.

You will find the answers to your questions in the last two paragraphs in my April 28th post addressed to you and titled Segment 10. And the first three paragraphs in my May 6th post addressed to you. If you want me to copy and paste those past those paragraphs, I will gladly do it for a modest administration fee of $25.After you back scroll through this thread to read my answers, make sure you find the time to answer my question... What is your method for evaluating and selecting over 100 possible candidates running in over 50 possible races in a major election year in November?

John Lofton
NONE of your postings have DIRECTLY answered the questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? In fact, you have revealed, with a vengeance here, that you are incapable of expressing yourself succinctly on ANY topic. There is, however, an easy way to prove that I am wrong. Just post here, now, your DIRECT replies to my DIRECT questions.

Matthew A. Jackson
The reason you will never get the direct and succinct answer that you are expecting is because the premise that your questions are based on are off. Your premise doesn’t take into account today’s political parameters that a Christian voter has to deal with. i. e. multiple levels of civil government with multiple offices and multiple candidates running for those offices in a society that is open to all religions. Those parameters did not exist in OT Israel.

In fact, you have revealed with a vengeance here, that you are incapable of telling me how you go about evaluating and selecting which candidates that you will vote for under the parameters that I just outlined. There is, however, an easy way to prove that I am wrong. Just post here, now, your method of culling through the several dozen candidates running for office and determining whether or not they meet God’s qualifications for being a ruler after your have eliminated all the women candidates first.

This should not be difficult for you, because you were the one who told me that I was not serious about my “faith and voting.” In order to make that charge, that means you must be serious about your faith and voting. So tell me, how you glorify God when you vote?

John Lofton
FINALLY! Your admission that you have not, and will not, directly answer my questions after you have said you did. How does what you have done differ from lying?

Matthew A. Jackson
LOL... John, is that your best rebuttal? Is that all you have? Anyone with an 8th grade reading level would be able to decipher the phrase, “The reason you will never get the direct and succinct answer THAT YOU ARE EXPECTING...” and know that it did not constitute an admission that I have not or will not directly answer your question.

How does that weak rebuttal differ from someone who is getting desperate because he is losing the argument? Better yet, how does the fact that you have accused me of not being serious about my “faith and voting,” yet you are unwilling to reveal your voting practices to demonstrate your seriousness differ from hypocrisy?

John Lofton
Fine. So, answer my direct questions directly: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? If you do not respond directly you are through posting here. This is a Wall for serious, responsive conversation about big, important issues.

Matthew A. Jackson
Again, you will find the answers to your questions in the last two paragraphs in my April 28th post addressed to you and titled Segment 10, and the first three paragraphs in my May 6th post addressed to you. We will just have to agree to disagree as to the extent of their directness.

However, let’s keep this playing field level and fair. I have answered your questions with a lot more directness and with much detail than you have mine concerning your method for evaluating and selecting multiple candidates running in multiple races at multiple levels of Government in a major election year. Remember, this thread began with you criticizing and G. DeMar for endorsing McCain and accused him of being “double mined.” Subsequently, at a later point, you said that I was not serious about my “faith and voting. If you are going to fault other people on their voting habits, then YOU HAD BETTER have something better to offer as an alternative. The only direct answer you gave me was that you vote for MEN that meets God’s qualifications and that you can write, email and talk to them. That is hardly an answer given the complexities of our whole voting system they we face in today’s times.

So, if you want to play the “serious, responsive conversation” card, then the ball is in your court. Start practicing what you are preaching.

John Lofton
No, directness is directness so there can be no disagreement re: this. In fact, you can even be direct about "directness." So, no more posting here, please. Thank you.

Matthew A. Jackson
If one has to answer a direct question in order to qualify to post on this thread, then perhaps you should live up to your own standards and not post on this thread either. Because you have not given a direct answer to my question. Don’t start a debate that you can’t finish.

John Lofton
You're finished. No more posting, please...thank you.

Jackson's Journal

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

My Debate with John Lofton

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Christian RECON Training Institute (CRTI)

Facebook Badge

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me