Posted on 03/28/2012 8:43:56 PM PDT by TJA
“He’s earned it” sounds remarkably like the Bob Dole 1996 slogan “it’s his turn”.
The Romney campaign will be as successful.
Why did Romney put that dog on the car? Did it have something to do with Mormonism? Did the dog die?
Whd did GHWB get to issue two endorsements of Romney, not counting Babs’ little gushy spill. Shouldn’t Dole get another chance to endorse and Elizabeth too?
From what I have read, the dog didn't die, but ran away when he was finally released.
It was cruel beyond measure. As an animal lover, I would like to punch Mitt in the nose for that trick!
Good question Theodore.
I don’t blame Rubio. He didn’t force us to this point in history. He seems to be a realistic man, as opposed to the purists among us. Barring a fantasy showdown in Tampa, Romney basically has earned the nomination. Why fault Rubio for stating the obvious?
That said I do like the idea of a knock-down drag-out floor fight that produces a big surprise and maybe some excitement among the American people for sound government. Gingrich is my choice and I hate it that Americans don’t see the value right now in being helmed by a grumpy, wizened, staunch older man.
Their loss.
People of Wisconsin and Maryland, do not believe in Mitt and do not vote for him! He does not explain strong than Newt and Rick and (preparer for shock) when Mitt done his speech yesterday, he said, “thank you” instead a “thank you and ‘God Bless America.’” Believe me, Mitt is not a truthful.
People of Wisconsin and Maryland, do not believe in Mitt and do not vote for him! He does not explain strong than Newt and Rick and (preparer for shock) when Mitt done his speech yesterday, he said, “thank you” instead a “thank you and ‘God Bless America.’” Believe me, Mitt is not a truthful.
Happy to help. Since this is a broader discussion of Christians in politics and less about Santorum or Romney, those who are not interested in the question of Christians being involved in politics probably will want to end here. The links you requested are here:
“Does ‘Two Kingdoms’ theology misrepresent Hodge?”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/co-urc/message/25065
“Repentance to Heal the Nation”
(This is a thread that started on a different topic and turned into whether Christians should be involved in politics.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/44733
“Green Baggins, 2K, Westminster-West, and gay marriage”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/co-urc/message/25024
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/44786
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/44811
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2862357/posts
The discussions focus on what's sometimes called “Radical Two Kingdoms” or R2K or “Escondido Theology,” being advocated by Dr. R. Scott Clark, Dr. David Van Drunen, and Dr. Michael Scott Horton at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, Calif., often known as Westminster-West. All of these men have done a lot of good things, but their views against Christian political activism are flat-out dangerous.
More recently, I was alerted to the case of Rev. Todd Bordow, the pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, who made a case on the Puritan Board arguing that there is no Christian position on whether bestiality — sex with animals — should be allowed by the civil government.
Sometimes things need to be seen to be believed, so here's the post:
“Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state's role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don't want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That's allowed. That is the distinction. Another example - beastiality is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I'm content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions, that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.”
Puritan Board post 105:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/qs-radical-two-kingdom-ers-68417/index3.html
I agree with his opposition to theonomy, but otherwise I cannot in any way concur with his statement that “I don't want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality” or “personal practices” such as bestiality. This simply is **NOT** something on which Christians or church members can agree to disagree, let alone ordained officers of the church.
As a Calvinist I believe in total depravity, and we've obviously got our own problems in conservative Reformed circles. There's something really wrong when I have to commend the Roman Catholic Church for warning Catholic pro-abortion politicians not to take communion, while conservative Presbyterians are saying that's not a proper subject for church discipline.
It's hard to believe, but unfortunately, as the links cited document, there are now theologically conservative Reformed ministers saying it's okay for church members to vote in favor of abortion and gay marriage, and even for bestiality. Apparently not only babies but also the kitties, doggies, cows, goats and pigs aren't safe!
Since Free Republic is read by a number of people who aren't familiar with the Calvinist church world, I need to make very clear that although a number of the R2K advocates are Orthodox Presbyterians, this is definitely **NOT** the Orthodox Presbyterian position. The United Reformed advocates of this position are even farther away from their own theological heritage, which dates back to Abraham Kuyper, a Christian political and ecclesiastical leader of the Netherlands in the late 1800s and early 1900s who founded a Christian university, a daily newspaper and church periodicals, led a conservative church secession that eventually became the second-largest Protestant denomination in the country, and was largely responsible for the growth and success of a pre-existing Christian political party, eventually becoming Prime Minster of the Netherlands.
The OPC seceded from the liberalizing Presbyterian Church USA in the 1930s; Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia was founded by about half of the faculty members from Princeton Seminary in the 1920s when the PCUSA General Assembly reorganized the board of Princeton and put liberals on the board of what had been until that date a strongly conservative seminary. The United Reformed Churches in North America is a relatively young secession denomination dating back to the Christian Reformed split in the 1990s over issues such as ordaining women, toleration of theistic evolution at Calvin College, and growing controversy over homosexuality.
The URCNA definitely is strongly conservative on all of those theological issues, as is the OPC. However, there's not a lot of precedent in the URCNA on questions of political involvement despite a Kuyperian emphasis on Christian cultural transformation which dates back to the mid-1800s, On the other hand, in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, there are modern precedents which make quite clear that the OPC should not be blamed for the actions of a few outspoken ministers and professors.
The OPC went after Rev. Lee Irons a few years ago because of his wife Misty Irons who was publicly making a so-called evangelical Christian case for gay marriage. To put it mildly, that incensed OPC members in California. The state was fighting over legalizing gay marriage, and not that many years ago First OPC of San Francisco had to fight a court battle when they got sued for trying to fire a homosexual organist. The decisions at the presbytery and general assembly level are complex, but the end result is Rev. Irons got forced out of the ministry, his church disbanded, and the ex-pastor and his wife joined the PCA where he was later elected a ruling elder over OPC protests.
I need to make clear that the lines on this are not clearly drawn between liberals and conservatives. The OPC and URC are theologically conservative denominations by any definition of that term. The questions include how to translate conservative Christian convictions into action in the political realm, whether it is appropriate for churches (as opposed to church members) to speak on political issues, and in some cases, whether there is a Christian political position which should be advocated or even enforced on issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage.
In a few cases I believe R2K advocates are trying to carve out room in the church for liberal or even socialistic politics. However, most of the theological conservatives defending this stuff are doing so not because they agree, but because of an unbiblical view that Christians shouldn't be involved in explicitly Christian political activism.
That view has a very long history in Southern Presbyterianism where it was used to defend the church's silence on slavery and later on discrimination against blacks, all based on one section of the Westminster Confession of Faith which in my view was grossly misinterpreted by Southern Presbyterians. If all these people mean is individual Christians rather than the church as institute should be involved in politics, fine. Typically pastors don't have the skill sets to be involved in politics anyway. But to say there is no Christian position on the key issues in modern politics such as gay marriage and abortion, or that we ought not to participate in the the culture war, is not just wrong but dangerous.
Bottom line: I strongly believe we need to be spending our time fighting Satan's agenda wherever it shows up, and given how bad things have gotten in the United States, those who actively discourage Christians from fighting the culture wars are doing something dangerous and must be stopped. Our freedoms as Christians are under assault, we're fighting rear-guard actions to protect what is left of our freedom, and America in a generation may be unrecognizable if the liberals win this war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.