The argument above is attempting to say if we break the law we hate it.
No we are law breakers. The moral law is an interesting question.
Should we put in place 100% accurately the moral law of God in civil law, or should be live a life of conformity
to the moral law, and leave civil government to decide what they want to do?
The attempt here is to make those who support a moral perspective haters of the law by not imposing
the full weight of the law. But that is not ours to take as believers.
We take the moral law as defining what is and is not sinful behaviour. This is the will of God.
What happens to a repentant murderer or adulterer is to them and the civil authorities.
What is clear though is some would rather live a lawless men without a conscience or knowing what is
right and wrong and God will in our lives as if this is Gods calling, which clearly it is not.
The trouble in these conversations, the attempt is always made to make people into haters of Christ,
when both sides claim Him as Lord and Saviour.
No we are law breakers. The moral law is an interesting question.
Should we put in place 100% accurately the moral law of God in civil law, or should be live a life of conformity
to the moral law, and leave civil government to decide what they want to do?
The attempt here is to make those who support a moral perspective haters of the law by not imposing
the full weight of the law. But that is not ours to take as believers.
We take the moral law as defining what is and is not sinful behaviour. This is the will of God.
What happens to a repentant murderer or adulterer is to them and the civil authorities.
What is clear though is some would rather live a lawless men without a conscience or knowing what is
right and wrong and God will in our lives as if this is Gods calling, which clearly it is not.
The trouble in these conversations, the attempt is always made to make people into haters of Christ,
when both sides claim Him as Lord and Saviour.