"... If Stephen Douglas had been a more orthodox Christian than Abraham Lincoln, would a 19th-century Robert Jeffress have awarded more points to Douglas than to Lincoln? Where exactly does the Reverend Jeffress propose we draw these lines? Or does he simply believe evangelical Christians should be awarded points over Mormons but not over others?" Peter Wehner, 10/9/11------------------------------
Let's get to the very root of Robert Jeffress' message this weekend. It was not that Mormonism is a cult; Christians know that it is not a denomination or branch of Christianity, it is it's own religion. Surely Jeffress knows he will never convince the media that Mormonism is a theological cult, for to the unbelievers Jeffress' evangelicalism and Mormonism are both cults, they both are on par with Aesop's Fables to those who don't believe.
Jeffress' message was: With all other things being equal, we should prefer an evangelical Christian for president of the United States. Jeffress was trying to persuade evangelical Christians that they should pray for and vote for an evangelical Christian in the White House. He said that such a person would be "indwelt by the Holy Spirit" and help them make right decisions.
There is no correlation between what constitutes a solid leader of the executive branch of our government, and what makes a devout follower of Jesus Christ. In fact they might be contradictory at several key points. An evangelical MIGHT make a good president, but so might an atheist, or a Mormon, or a Jew make a better chief executive. In fact, I would argue that a very competent president would have to make decisions contrary to his or her faith as a Christian.
But let's suppose Jeffress got his way, and we elected a staunch Southern Baptist conservative, someone who is in lockstep with the teachings and doctrines that the Southern Baptists stand for. Suppose we elected a person who listens to and agrees with the theology and teachings of the typical Southern Baptist mega pastor like Robert Jeffress or Mac Brunson or Steve Gaines or Ed Young.
Here is what we would get, if they are true to their faith, and as biblical inerrantists they interpret the bible literally:
1. This president might not be able to make the executive decisions to properly retaliate against terrorist threats to our nation. Jesus Himself told his followers: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matt 5:39). A president true to the teachings of Jesus might have a hard time resisting the evil-doers.
2. The president would hold a pre-tribulation viewpoint of the return of Jesus Christ, that Jesus will come again for his followers prior to the 7-years of tribulation and the coming of the Antichrist in Revelation. Do we want someone with this viewpoint having their hand on the nuclear button?
3. The president would not be apt to point the most qualified people into positions on his cabinet, as he would have a bias against women as they should mostly be silent, if they need to know anything they should ask their husbands, and should be in subjection to their husbands according to the Bible. The President would have to make sure no homosexuals were in any leadership positions. No self-respecting, obedient evangelical could appoint a homosexual to any position.
4. The president might not be able to reform welfare, and would have to increase entitlements, as Jesus told his followers that whosoever asks for your cloak, give him your tunic as well. (Matt 5:40)
5. The president would be compelled to "share Jesus" with all heads of state, and hand them tracts and try to get them to pray and accept Jesus, or to at least go with him to church so they can hear a sermon from the megachurch pastor on how to be saved and baptized. This could have serious consequences on the ability of the president to gather the support of our allies when he is pushing his religion on them.
6. The president would have to encourage people to give 10% of their income to their local church as a plank in his economic platform, so that God could once again bless our country and remove the curse on our economic system and also help keep the judgment of God from falling.
7. The president would not be the most powerful man in the world, but his mega church pastor would, as the president would have to submit to the authority of his mega church pastor, and submit to the discipline committee of his church if he goes astray.
8. We would have to be sure to swear in the president with either the KJV or NASB bible, and not the NIV - although the president might not be able to swear at all, as the bible says "....do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your 'Yes' be yes, and your 'No', no, or you will be condemned." (James :12, NIV)
9. The president would likely take the cue from his pastor in regard to criticism, and regularly tell people to stop listening to his critics, would brand the critics as "gossips" and "nuts" and perhaps even "sociopaths". Instead of doing his job as president, he might be distracted by holding meetings to see how the critics can be silenced.
10. All visiting heads of state would have to bow their heads before the meal while a prayer is made in Jesus' name blessing the food, and certainly no alcoholic beverages would be served no matter how traditional that might be for a head of state.
Ridiculous? Taking scripture out of context? You say that an evangelical Christian president would NOT do these things necessarily? Of course. That is my point. An evangelical Christian candidate should not be judged on his faith or his religious leaders (Jeremiah Wright?) or how someone else characterizes their religion!! Rather, they should be judged on their record of leadership, on the fiscal and foreign policies that the candidate puts forth and what moral values he or she has lived for many years.
And that is what we will judge our candidates on, not their religion, and certainly not on how someone else like Jeffress characterizes their faith. Jeffress got his face time in front of the cameras, and he might even parlay it into a talk show someday on Fox News...but the people of our country will still vote based on the principles and policies of the men and women running for office.
Jeffress' message was: With all other things being equal, we should prefer an evangelical Christian for president of the United States. Jeffress was trying to persuade evangelical Christians that they should pray for and vote for an evangelical Christian in the White House. He said that such a person would be "indwelt by the Holy Spirit" and help them make right decisions.
There is no correlation between what constitutes a solid leader of the executive branch of our government, and what makes a devout follower of Jesus Christ. In fact they might be contradictory at several key points. An evangelical MIGHT make a good president, but so might an atheist, or a Mormon, or a Jew make a better chief executive. In fact, I would argue that a very competent president would have to make decisions contrary to his or her faith as a Christian.
But let's suppose Jeffress got his way, and we elected a staunch Southern Baptist conservative, someone who is in lockstep with the teachings and doctrines that the Southern Baptists stand for. Suppose we elected a person who listens to and agrees with the theology and teachings of the typical Southern Baptist mega pastor like Robert Jeffress or Mac Brunson or Steve Gaines or Ed Young.
Here is what we would get, if they are true to their faith, and as biblical inerrantists they interpret the bible literally:
1. This president might not be able to make the executive decisions to properly retaliate against terrorist threats to our nation. Jesus Himself told his followers: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matt 5:39). A president true to the teachings of Jesus might have a hard time resisting the evil-doers.
2. The president would hold a pre-tribulation viewpoint of the return of Jesus Christ, that Jesus will come again for his followers prior to the 7-years of tribulation and the coming of the Antichrist in Revelation. Do we want someone with this viewpoint having their hand on the nuclear button?
3. The president would not be apt to point the most qualified people into positions on his cabinet, as he would have a bias against women as they should mostly be silent, if they need to know anything they should ask their husbands, and should be in subjection to their husbands according to the Bible. The President would have to make sure no homosexuals were in any leadership positions. No self-respecting, obedient evangelical could appoint a homosexual to any position.
4. The president might not be able to reform welfare, and would have to increase entitlements, as Jesus told his followers that whosoever asks for your cloak, give him your tunic as well. (Matt 5:40)
5. The president would be compelled to "share Jesus" with all heads of state, and hand them tracts and try to get them to pray and accept Jesus, or to at least go with him to church so they can hear a sermon from the megachurch pastor on how to be saved and baptized. This could have serious consequences on the ability of the president to gather the support of our allies when he is pushing his religion on them.
6. The president would have to encourage people to give 10% of their income to their local church as a plank in his economic platform, so that God could once again bless our country and remove the curse on our economic system and also help keep the judgment of God from falling.
7. The president would not be the most powerful man in the world, but his mega church pastor would, as the president would have to submit to the authority of his mega church pastor, and submit to the discipline committee of his church if he goes astray.
8. We would have to be sure to swear in the president with either the KJV or NASB bible, and not the NIV - although the president might not be able to swear at all, as the bible says "....do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your 'Yes' be yes, and your 'No', no, or you will be condemned." (James :12, NIV)
9. The president would likely take the cue from his pastor in regard to criticism, and regularly tell people to stop listening to his critics, would brand the critics as "gossips" and "nuts" and perhaps even "sociopaths". Instead of doing his job as president, he might be distracted by holding meetings to see how the critics can be silenced.
10. All visiting heads of state would have to bow their heads before the meal while a prayer is made in Jesus' name blessing the food, and certainly no alcoholic beverages would be served no matter how traditional that might be for a head of state.
Ridiculous? Taking scripture out of context? You say that an evangelical Christian president would NOT do these things necessarily? Of course. That is my point. An evangelical Christian candidate should not be judged on his faith or his religious leaders (Jeremiah Wright?) or how someone else characterizes their religion!! Rather, they should be judged on their record of leadership, on the fiscal and foreign policies that the candidate puts forth and what moral values he or she has lived for many years.
And that is what we will judge our candidates on, not their religion, and certainly not on how someone else like Jeffress characterizes their faith. Jeffress got his face time in front of the cameras, and he might even parlay it into a talk show someday on Fox News...but the people of our country will still vote based on the principles and policies of the men and women running for office.
Based on the definition of the term offered by sociologist George Barna (www.barna.org), an "evangelical Christian" qualified constitutionally/otherwise by his age/birth place, values, attitude, knowledge, skills, experiences, etc.--and whether or not he can make a majority of the voting public both like and trust him--SHOULD prove to be a better president than any other person--including other born-again Christians who cannot be termed "evangelical" (see Barna's definition before casting stones here) due to his spiritual maturity, else he probably is not truly an "evangelical" believer.
ReplyDeleteJeffress is correct about Mormonism as a cult; he ran far ahead in making the statement at this time, if it were needed at all. My counsel emailed to Fox News and CNN reporters since: "Do the whole job in reporting on this: an objective study shows that Mormonism's claims are counter to those of Christianity's, which pre-dates it by 1700+ years; either report 'Mormons do not consider themselves cultic' or else--there being no difference--report 'Coptic Christians, who actually may be considered Mormons, are facing great difficulty in Egypt currently."
Interesting times we live in right now . . . "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
By the way, the content of your list doesn't match the definition of George Barna for what makes a Christian an "evangelical" one; instead, your list describes what a "Fundamentalist" Christian is/does/thinks/etc. There's a difference (e.g., you probably come closer to being an evangelical Christian than a Fundamentalist Christian).
ReplyDeleteWhat are Cults ?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it who you Follow?
What is it when someone identifies his wife as the Holy Spirit?
Getting answers directly from God = Anointed!
Then goes on and accuses his critics of being SICK?
Steve Gaines
The same pastor who used his wife for a podium, shaming her for soaking his Bible with a water hose.
Donna Gaines
What flavor Kool-Aid is your Mega Pastor serving?
I wish someone would ask Romney if he considers faiths other than Mormonism to be cults. I think he would have to answer yes to that question.
ReplyDeleteHe would answer no, because he likely is not a very devout Mormon. And why should we care how he views other religions?
ReplyDeleteYou can be sure that if he is the nominee, his Mormonism will be attacked mercilessly by his opponents to scare people.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Interesting times we live in right now . . . "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." "
Oh no, the Get Out Jail Free card just was played. Just put your head in the sand and all will be well.
I wonder how many Mormons have come to Christ through Jeffress' "winsome" words...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Interesting times we live in right now . . . "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." "
Mega Pastors don't even believe that... Living in Fine Homes, Driving Fine Automobiles, Wearing the Finest, the Best Education for their Children, Eating in the Finest Eateries, the Best-est Medical Care, and Working In and Building Large Edifices .
Their Living the Dream Now....
.
...and Unlimited Time Off/Fine Vacations...
ReplyDeleteI had a good laugh at this post. Well done!
ReplyDelete"What Would a TRUE Evangelical, Southern Baptist President Be Like?"
ReplyDeleteJimmy Carter and Bill Clinton...after all, they claimed the above.
KNowing what you know today would you vote for Carter or Reagan?
ReplyDeleteCarter was a born again baptist who taught Sunday school.
Reagan was a divorced Hollywood actor who thought people were basically good and rarely attended church most of his adult life.
Yet, who was the better president?
Personally, I think Romney is not conservative. He voted for socialized medicine in Mass. It is not his Mormonism that bothers me but his lack of credentials as a true conservative who sees government as the problem.
I am leaning toward Herman Cain.
WD, you can define "evangelical" any way you like but your list fails the "logic test" imo. Generally accepted definitions surely would not exclude amils or users of other than the KJV/NASB (like my ESV)and not all eschew alcohol consumption.....but, nevertheless, your point is taken.
ReplyDeleteThe underlying problem is the conflation of worldly affairs (politics for example) with the mission of the Church and the individual believer. A Christian who is sold out to Christ is not going to be running for President; he's too busy with things of importance.
Ed - you missed my point. I wasn't trying to define an evangelical, I was pointing out how someone COULD chooose to define it in order to reject an evangelical based on their faith.
ReplyDelete"He voted for socialized medicine in Mass."
ReplyDeleteMSNBC: "White House Used Mitt Romney Health Care Law As Blueprint For Federal Law"
Mega Pastors don't even believe that... Living in Fine Homes, Driving Fine Automobiles, Wearing the Finest, the Best Education for their Children, Eating in the Finest Eateries, the Best-est Medical Care, and Working In and Building Large Edifices .
ReplyDelete=============================
The pastor I was saved under had none of the above, but he was a millionaire with how he showed Jesus to all that were associated with him.
The sorry thing about these Mega pastors is the "stain" they have given the true God given pastors that are not like them. I believe blogs like this is a wake up call that the day of the Mega is over.
Watching the little dried up Robert Jeffress on TV is a joke in itself - claiming he speaks only for himself, the question is why did he use the pulpit as his mouthpiece.
Now he's backtracking and the good people have
given him a standing ovation.
Bless all you good pastors who don't try to copy the Mega Pastors.
I am leaning toward Herman Cain.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you leaning toward Cain, Do you like what you hear. A recent election of change sounded real good. More "change" is to come, that is pocket change.
WD, you are correct; I did miss your intent. You say "...or how someone else characterizes their religion"...Aye, there's the rub!
ReplyDeleteBut, the fact is there are objective facts about the adherents to any religion, and to Christianity (which I'd rather not call a "religion")
So, is it not fair to use these facts?.....especially if we scrupulously avoid the wild characterizations which are thrown about?
FACT: Christian theology teaches that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, an eternal, not created being.
FACT: Mormon theology teaches that Jesus Christ is a created being.
....and many other such distinctions not including underwear styles.
So, can one not consider these facts in determining for whom to vote.
The issue is compounded here because we are in the midst of millions of "cultural Christians"--people who check "Christian" simply because they know they are not Jewish or Muslim. We've had professing Christians in office before and survived. You've cited the example of Jimmy Carter--he showed up about the time I was converted and I actually voted for him "because he was a Christian"....so I have first-hand experience with that....lol. Let's not forget that Bill Clinton and Al Gore are both Southern Baptist deacons.
Anyway, I think it would be interesting to have a genuine Christian for President, but another professor such as we've had in the past or such as we see on the debate platforms.....my expectations are low.
As an aside, re your man Cain. Were you impressed by his use of the "race card"? And then lying about it the next day? I hated to see him revealed as just another politician....
Washington Post:
ReplyDelete"If Mitt Romney is the Republican presidential nominee a year from now, it will be in part thanks to one of his primary rivals — Herman Cain.
In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO is tied for second place with Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 16 percent — a 13-point drop for Perry and a 12-point rise for Cain since early September. Romney is once again in the lead with 25 percent of respondents’ support.
While Cain is likely to hit a ceiling in the near future, he’s effectively dug into Perry’s base and helped expose the frontrunner’s weakness. Fracturing the anti-Romney vote has made it all the easier for Romney to win.
On CNN recently, Cain said that if Perry was the nominee today, he could not support him “for a host of reasons. Him being soft on securing the border is one.” Cain said on Fox News that Perry “was not up to primetime” in the last debate. He called the racial slur on a rock at Perry’s hunting camp “insensitive” (although he later walked that comment back, saying, “They painted over it.
Even if Cain collapses, as Bachmann did, enthusiasm for his campaign has delayed consolidation around Perry and exposed that candidate’s weaknesses. With New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie out of the race, no one is competing with Romney for moderate Republicans. "
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"The sorry thing about these Mega pastors is the "stain" they have given the true God given pastors that are not like them. I believe blogs like this is a wake up call that the day of the Mega is over. "
Did We forget to mention the gushy Retirement Funding these Mega's Pastors are heaping upon themselves.
or how much SBC, of Nashville has in investments stashed away for that "Rainy" day, surely not a watch for the return of......
I know you were trying to be funny....it didn't work.
ReplyDelete"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD" Ps. 33;12
You can't have a nations whose God is the Lord without the Leader knowing the Lord.
Thank God for Rick Perry.
He will bring revival back to our nation.
We cannot afford to have a pagan in the White House any longer.
We need a man who trusts in the name of the Lord!
Tom,
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to elections, there is categorically no such thing, as a separation of faith and politics.
Every law, on every book, and every decision made in every branch is a product of someone's faith.
There is no such thing as non-faith.
An Athiest believes there is no God, and therefore makes his decisions as such.
An agonistic believes he doesn't know anything for sure, (and get's mad when you agree with him) and makes his decisions as such.
I have paid no attention to Jeffress, or what he said, but the real is this:
The only course and source of actual and true wisdom is limited to the confines of Jesus Christ. That is not a matter of interpretation, individual belief, or evangelical ideology. That is a matter of dark black ink on bright white paper.
All the opinions, and convictions, and personal beliefs in the world cannot move the truth a half inch.
The fact is that there is no such thing as true wisdom outside of Biblical salvation.
Colossians 2:3 that in Christ (are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge) - A man outside of Christ has no access to true wisdom.
I will never be so foolish as to say that every man that is saved is using the access that he has. There are many saved morons that do not have to be if they would learn of the wisdom that comes from God through Christ to the saint.
But there is no athiest with access to true Godly wisdom.
There is no true Mormon with access to true Godly wisdom.
There is no unsaved Baptist preacher, for that matter with access to true Godly Wisdom.
For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the righteous. Prov 3:32
The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; Psalms 25:14
I would much rather have a saved idiot, governing our land, than a depraved genius. I am far more worried about his standing before God than I am his IQ. Knowledge and prosperity is not the issue, or we could vote the devil in and do well.
The Bible has made it abundantly clear to us, who it is that we should prefer when selecting rulers, "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." 2 Sam 23:3
The primary problem is that too often we are lacking in such a list of candidates.
Jeff H. said...
ReplyDelete"I would much rather have a saved idiot, governing our land, than a depraved genius. I am far more worried about his standing before God than I am his IQ. Knowledge and prosperity is not the issue, or we could vote the devil in and do well."
Speechless ... WOW...
Referencing the current Christian in the White House, are you?
WOW ... so the Change must be working for you.
I know a lot of preachers are enjoying this downturn also, makes for more damnation preaching.p
Jeff - your comment of preferring a saved idiot...unbelievable. It is that opinion that makes people not trust the judgment of Christians.
ReplyDeleteI'll take a guy like Romney with his proven executive leadership over a "saved idiot" everytime. It is the "saved idiots" that I fear most in our culture, as they do really stupid things in the name of religion.
Let me ask you...do you seek out grocery stores that have saved managers? Do buy at Office Max over Office Depot if the president of the company is saved? Do you inquire the faith of the cook who prepares your food?
Jeff H.
ReplyDeleteSince you like scripture...
Here's how some past (godly idiots?) ruled in the past:
2 Chronicles 10: 4-19
"v4 They said, ‘Your father (DAVID) forced us to work very hard. Reduce the hard work and the hard labour that your father made us do. Then we will serve you.’
v5 Rehoboam answered, ‘Come back to me after three days.’ So, the people went away.
v6 Then King Rehoboam asked for advice from the older men. These men had advised Solomon when he was alive. He said, ‘Tell me how to answer the people.’
v7 They replied, ‘Be kind to these people. Please them and give to them a favourable answer. Then they will always be your servants.’
v8 But Rehoboam did not act on the advice of the older men. Instead, he asked the young men who had grown up with him. These were the men who advised him.
v9 He asked them, ‘What is your advice? How should we answer these people? They said to me, “Your father made us work very hard. Reduce the hard work that he made us do.” ’
v10 The young men who had grown up with him answered him. They replied, ‘Speak to the people. The people said, “Your father forced us to work very hard. Now make our work easier.” You should tell them, “My little finger is thicker than my father’s body.
v11 He forced you to work hard but I will make your work even harder. My father hit you with whips. But I will hit you with whips that have sharp points.” ’
v12 After three days, Jeroboam and all the people returned to Rehoboam. The king had said, ‘Come back to me after three days.’
v13 The king answered them in a severe manner. He did not follow the advice of the older men.
v14 But he followed the advice of the young men. He said to them, ‘My father forced you to work hard. But I will make you work even harder. My father hit you with whips. But I will hit you with whips that have sharp points.’
v15 So, the king did not listen to the people. God caused this to happen. So, the *LORD could do what he had promised to Nebat’s son Jeroboam. He spoke this promise by Ahijah, a *prophet from the town called Shiloh.
v16 All the *Israelites saw that the king refused to listen to them. Then they said to the king, ‘We have no part in David. We have no part in Jesse’s son. People of *Israel, let us go to our own homes. Let David’s family rule their own people.’ So, all the *Israelites went home.
v17 But still Rehoboam ruled over the *Israelites who lived in the towns of Judah.
v18 Hadoram was the officer who forced the people to do hard labour. Rehoboam sent him to the *Israelites. But they threw stones at him until he died. King Rehoboam ran to his *chariot and he escaped to Jerusalem.
v19 Since then *Israel has refused to obey kings in the family of David.c
Tom,
ReplyDeleteDoes an unsaved person have access to true wisdom?
Does the Bible teach us to prefer, (rightly understood, not the exceptional religious quack)true, God of the Bible, fearing people to be our rulers? refer back to 2 Samuel 23
Tom, the Bible says that the wisdom of the Lord is foolishness to the world. They will never trust our judgment, because they think we are foolish for trusting Christ.
They do not trust our judgment, because we do not follow their wisdom. Spiritual wisdom, and worldly sense, do not go together in any effort to please the Lord.
(I'm not speaking about every day common sense either)
"the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Cor 2:14"
The question is, when given the opportunity would you choose someone who is wise according to the populace, or wise according to the Spirit?
The wisdom of the Spirit will never be chosen by the world, but must never be compromised by the saved.
Grocery store managers, and office max managers aren't elected by me. I have no say, in who runs their businesses. But yes, in any of my business dealings, whenever possible, I choose to do business with a Christian.
I do help choose who leads me.
When I use the word Saved Idiot, I am speaking of a saved man who humbly seeks to distance himself from the wisdom of the populace, and genuinely seek the leadership of the Lord, through the Word and Prayer;.
I am referring to the "best case Christian" which to the world constitutes an idiot.
Anon - sorry. I would have voted against Obama early and often, if I could have. Some preferred an Unsaved Idiot to get us in the mess we're in. Of which there wasn't much to choose from.
As I said, the primary problem is the lacking of a solid Biblical candidate. (though this time our options may be better.)
"but the people of our country will still vote based on the principles and policies of the men and women running for office."
ReplyDeleteSure wish that I could agree with you on this but a large majority of the electorate (the ones that get out and vote) do not know the issues or the candidates other than how well they speak, how good they look, what party they belong to, what religion they "claim:" to practice, how they don't like they way a candidate smirks,etc.
This country has gotten in the shape that it has because folks do not educate themselves on the issues and just like in a lot of churches and denominations "trust" what someone is saying is "gospel".
Until people take control of the "facts" and thoroughly understand the issues and vote based on knowledge and not emotion and hearsay we will continue to decline as a nation.
Just like the health care bill where Pelosi said we had to pass it before we could find out what is in it. This same rubbish mentality pervades our culture and after it was passed we are finding out that if you get cancer at 74 y.o. there will be no treatment available for you and when you sell your home and "if" you make a certain amount then 3% or so goes back to the feds to pay for it.
I believe we've already tried a couple of "saved idiots" in the WH. Their track record is not favorable.
ReplyDeleteIt's sickening how the sacred right to vote is so tainted by this kind of idealogy.
BEST QUESTION OF THE DAY:
ReplyDelete"Let me ask you...do you seek out grocery stores that have saved managers? Do buy at Office Max over Office Depot if the president of the company is saved? Do you inquire the faith of the cook who prepares your food?'
October 11, 2011 3:58 PM
"Anon - sorry. I would have voted against Obama early and often, if I could have."
ReplyDeleteSo you voted for Obama based on the fact that he "said" he is a Christian?
He has not performed one action in my opinion that indicates he operates in office, or lives his life, based on biblical values.
It's scary how you apply that Scripture, my friend. Really scary.
If being a 'saved idiot' is a qualification for one becoming POTUS, I suggest that many of your anon commenters put their name in the hat. It sounds like many of them qualify. But to be honest, in their case, I have to question the 'saved' part! UGH!
ReplyDeleteIn all election cycles on all levels across the nation, it seems the U.S. voting public gets to choose between what it considers the best of what actually are several poor choices. Where are the candidates which may considered truly good based on all reasonable criteria necessary for governing/leading well??
ReplyDeleteSad . . .
Watchdog
ReplyDeletePlease sound like you know what you are talking about when writing about the endorsement of "sound evangelical" versus an "atheist" or what a pretrib president might do. This present Neoconservativism movement, religously and politically, is truly far from sound theistic perspective. Please do some investigation and read Richard Wumbrand's stuff on atheistically led governments. The problem with Jeffries statements is that he has absolutely no clarity on these issues to a secular audience. May the cross be the only offense!
As I said, the primary problem is the lacking of a solid Biblical candidate. (though this time our options may be better.) "
ReplyDeleteYou Mean Perry?
The real problem - with many evangelical and other church "leaders" - is that they, and we, as Christians do not understand Christianity - true Christianity. "We" are following the world's approach by thinking in terms of domination of worldly matters, even in national matters. Read Scripture and find which of the World Kingdoms, set up by God, ever had a "Christian" leader. (God does choose our worlds governmental leaders - He says so clearly.) Think of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. When the government of Rome was superceded by an ecclesiastic ruler (the Papal leaders) we experienced the dark ages, and only the Reformation could remove it's power. The motivation for the Reformation was Scripture in the hands (hearts or minds) of Godly men, motivated by the Spirit of God. The original Baptist movement in America was sternly against any marriage of politics and church. Today, the majority of Baptist organizations (I cannot refer to them as churches for they ceased long ago to preach the gospel as a priority.) The strongest followers of the world's approach concerning government, inside and outside of the "church" have been Southern Baptists.
ReplyDeleteWe need to study Scripture. (As my pastor says, the Bible is not a lazy man's book.) Instead, though, "we" as "Christians" have thought to dominate culture by lobbying and voting and taking political control. This IS NOT GOD'S WAY!
(For some of you this may be news.) The Kingdom of God is hear now. Jesus brought it. On that great feast of Pentecost, Peter preached what the prophets foretold. The Kingdom, the one not of this world, arrived. If we are really of Christ, then we should know and understand that we are citizens of that Kingdom. That Kingdom is ruled by the Righteousness of Christ, and by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, from the very throne of God. This, I know, is very seldom preached, and hardly ever preached in the majority of Baptist "churches."
What is our armour? What is our weapon? Ephesians 6:10-17 "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:"
and Zechariah 4:6 "Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
In Christ