Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

trump-hillary-3rd-debate

Election 2016: The Fallacy of the Choice

avatar

Though you feel assured that you don’t belong there, what if you suddenly found yourself in Hell, with no choice but to submit to the rule of some devil or other? Would you forget God, and commit yourself to evil? Or would you do your best to remember God and wait upon the Lord?  If you had a choice, would you reason as if worldly consequences should be given priority, despite Christ’s command to “seek ye first the Kingdom of God…”? (Matthew 6:33, Luke 12:31)

Even in that circumstance, are we not called to reason from the premise of God to the conclusion that we must always put our love and respect for Him above all else, whether that leads to worldly honor and success, or to some version of crucifixion?

Tragically, any who professed to be Christ in the United States today appear to be entirely mistaken about the present situation in our country.  They think that the 2016 election is about saving American from ruin.  But the phony choice between Satan Clinton and Beelzebub Trump means that the political life of our nation is already in ruins.  The question is, what stand must we take to preserve any hope of resurrecting it?  That hope must be lost beyond recall once the standard of true life, which is from God, is abandoned.  But how are we to preserve that standard, if we refuse to represent it, truthfully and unequivocally, determined to wait upon the Lord rather than upon the outcome of human events.  Yet many self-professed Christians are now following a line of reasoning that does the contrary.  They profess to calculate the difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in material terms, relying on what they believe to be quantifiable measures.   But God’s rule, by which all things are to be measured, is the very thing both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton have abandoned. 

If we ignore this fact, we end up taking the corruption of God’s rule for granted, even though our determination to respect its integrity is the very thing that must be preserved if we are to have any hope of restoring our nation to the way of life that corresponds to it.  Since the rule itself is what is at issue, there is no analyzable quantity involved in the real choice that faces us.   We either stand for God’s rule (which in our political parlance, means the Creator’s endowment of right, and the provisions of the laws of nature and of Nature’s God derived from it) or against it.  If we stand for it, we cannot stand for either Clinton or Trump, since both have abandoned it in principle.  Vote for either, and one affirms that abandonment.  There is no middle ground.

The abortion issue illustrates this perfectly.  Clinton abandons the standard of God’s rule in respect of innocent life because she takes the view that the decision to take the life of the innocent is properly be subject to be ruled by the woman’s will, without regard to God’s standard of right.  Trump’s “leave it to the States” position does the same thing.  It simply substitutes the will of the governments and peoples of the States, respectively, above God’s will.  (Why this collectivist preference seems more acceptable than the woman’s choice to conservatives who profess to believe that the individual is the fundamental locus of rights is beyond me.) 

This so-called “States’ Rights” approach is, by the way, the very position Abraham Lincoln’s opponent Stephen Douglas took with respect to slavery.  But both stances neglect the American Creed (articulated in our Declaration of Independence) which states unequivocally that the Creator, God determines the standard of right, which all human individuals and governments are simply obliged to respect.  Human beings who disregard His standard may, for a time, have the power to do so, but that power does not make it right.

Given their abandonment of God’s standard of right, how can it be said that either Mr. Trump or his opponent, will take the country in the right direction. The cannot do so, because they both exemplify the abandonment of God’s direction, which along leads us aright.   In this respect, all quantifiable argumentation is fallacious, since the very thing it tacitly takes for granted that there is a right direction, objectively determined.  But whether we shall abandon God’s rule for right, or stand by it, is precisely what we are called to prove in the election.  How can we prove it when the only choices available have abandoned it already?   

This pretense of proof is as fallacious in action as it would be in reasoning.  Two things cannot be distinguished when the basis for doing so has already been withdrawn. Once this fallacy is made clear, Christians determined to respect God’s rule cannot be convinced by its false reckoning to do what their acceptance of Christ requires them to refuse to do, i.e., abandon’s God’s standard to fight evil for its own sake, (or even for their own), rather than for the sake of God.  For they must thereby become preoccupied with evil, instead of being preoccupied by God’s standard for what is right, which is Jesus Christ.

Christ is the true standard, attuned to God’s will even when it requires what the world contemns as humiliation, suffering and ignominious death.   We Americans went from strength to strength as a nation because, in the most critical moments, enough of us were inspired to remember and follow Christ’s way. But before the strength proved itself as such, they had to bear faithful witness, and the losses wicked power inflicts on its account. As for me, even before I was able fully understand it, that witness was the reason for my citizen vocation.  I will not abandon it, not now or ever—so help me God.

BarbWire Books is pleased to announce

Homosexual Agenda and the US Military

Dr. Sonny Hernandez

Homosexual Agenda and the US Military is a field manual for US service members and military chaplains. This Gospel-Centered, polemical book exposes the homosexual agenda that adversely affects Religious Liberty for Christians. There are several homosexual activists that will demand equality and tolerance. However, homosexual activists are not so equal or tolerant towards anyone that disagrees with their position on same sex marriage or transgenderism. They will claim to love all, but they really do not mean all—they mean agenda. This is because the homosexual agenda has a definition for inclusivity—their way or the highway.


BUY BOOK


Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become a BarbWire insider.

Send this to friend