Posted on 12/25/2008 6:43:35 PM PST by gscc
If you didn't wince a bit while President Bush attempted last week on national television, no less to give an account of his Christian faith, well then maybe you too ought to go back and take a refresher course in Christianity 101.
I take seriously the testimony of friends who have worked closely with the president, who speak of the sincerity of his profession of faith in Christ and of his personal commitment to walk in biblical obedience.
But let's face it. Bush, based on what he told the folks on ABC's Nightline, wouldn't have passed a basic membership interview in most churches I know. "What do you think faith gave you that you needed?" the reporter asked. "It gave me strength and strength and understanding. There's love, universal love. My faith at this point in my life has enabled me to accept people's prayers and this made a huge difference in my life. There's a lot of dramatic moments and pressure. There are calm moments. How do you know? It's about prayer. For many people, it's a crutch, but for me it is it's the realization of a power of a universal God, and recognition that this God became manifested in human. And then died for sins."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldmag.com ...
Yeah, sure.
This is about something much bigger that one man and his faith. This is bigger then a discussion of loyalty to a political party or some website. It is not just about defending one’s nation or a war cause.
This is about the Lord Jesus Christ, sinful man's only Savior, the Messiah and his sacrifice for all mankind's sin.
When someone so influential, famous, a public figure etc proclaims he is a Christian — But then speaks/proclaims a gospel that is in conflict/contradicts the Truth — Well then this becomes not about discussing GW as much as it becomes about defending JESUS and there is nothing more important than that and nothing is more important for a Christian then defending Christ's Lordship and the true Gospel.
another strong agreement with you
“..he needs some serious Bible Study.”
Has it ever occurred to you that Bush may interpret the Bible through the eyes of a politician to justify his political decisions, like most politicians do? Politicians have no private life—politics IS their life.
“so now YOU have the inside track and can judge -—and you do-—who is saved and who is christian or not?”
Do you belong to a church? Can anyone of any belief or persuasion apply for membership in your church and be accepted in without any examination or statement of faith? Is it a believe nothing and everything at the same time church?
The Biblical officers of a New Testament church are required to listen to the testimony of those seeking membership, and to determine if there is a doctrinal basis for membership. For the reason, read carefully Acts 20:28-30.
We were discussing whether Mr. Bush could become a member of our church based upon the answers he gave to Biblical matters during a public interview. On the basis of his answers, their would not be any agreement on the part of our elders that Mr. Bush holds the Scriptures themselves to be of Final Authority with regard to the origins of the universe or the nature of God as to the inspiration and preservation of His words.
Mr. Bush could attend our meetings to listen to the teaching and preaching of God’s word, but he could not be a member. He could not speak on the platform of our church. But we would welcome him to attend, and we would assure him of our prayers for him to be convinced by God’s Holy Spirit of the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures.
Mr. Bush was publicly tested with regard to his stand for the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures and failed the test.
Oh no! Oh no! Did you have to show that picture? Nightmares, here I come.
Luke 6:39-45
39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
KJV
Mr. Bush's faith has enabled him to accept people's prayers??!!
Who has been offering prayers up to Mr. Bush, for him to accept?
Regards,
Politics makes strange bedfellows. W made a bona fide attempt to express his faith simply and straightforwardly and was bludgeoned for it for 8 years, at home and abroad. His was a bellwether presidency in the sense that it probably represents the last overtly Christian presidency. When he was reviled, he reviled not back. He spent exorbitant sums (which we really didn't have) to help quell the ludicrous plagues in Africa (just like the Good Samaritan). He spent ALL of his political capital doing the right thing vs. terror, to the outright derision of the left and of the world at large. He behaved himself in as Christlike a manner as can be done in that office and we'll never even see it attempted again, IMHO.
Now, as to your assertion of my ignorance, of Bush himself, or of the Christian faith, I suppose we could do that debate, if you'd like.
So says John Leland.
I could hardly care less.
Take it up with God.
I will love hearing the answer.
You do care more.
That’s why you respond, and that’s why you respond with ridicule of the Bible — A give you Acts 20:27-30 as i9nstruction for the elders of a church to guard its membership. I add 2 Timothy 3:14 through 4:4.
If the Bible is not your Final Authority, you will say that you could hardly care less. But is you purpose no to disuade others from believing the Bible?
Tit 3:10 instructs, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; . . .”
The church has the responsibility to reject hereticks. It doesn’t tell us to harm, kill, burn at the stake, drown, steal from, chase, or threaten. It merely says “reject.”
There are people who must be rejected from membership in a Bible-believing church. Who? Obviously, people who do not believe the Bible.
“You respond with ridicule of the Bible.”
Incorrect.
I hold the Bible in the highest regard. This is because it is the Word of God.
Consequently, it should be guarded from the pretentious holdings of those who deem themselves to have the final interpretation on It.
Jesus is the alpha and the omega— not you my dear friend.
Consequently, you dimly understand what scriptures mean and foolishly lash out at those who fail to hold in your Court of opinion on such matters.
But scripture is a sharp sword which can cut through even your moral pretenses.
God will judge us. Too bad for your judgmental posture.
Have you ever been the pastor of a church and been responsible for the spiritual guardianship of a local assembly?
You are worked up because we set rules for our church. You have not been asked to join, nor have you applied to join.
I wonder if it is because you can not discern the Scriptural responsibility of local church elders that you have determined that I make myself “alpha and omega.”
I gave you a couple of passages of Scripture that you have not addressed in response. One was in Acts chapter 20 where the elders were instructed to take the oversight of the local assemblies and guard against both those inside and out who either rise up with or bring in unscriptural doctrines or practices.
2 Peter also speaks of those who would bring in damnable heresies and etceteras (2 Peter). Pastors or elders who guard the flock are not making themselves “alpha and omega.” They are carrying out a duty assigned to them.
In these things, judgments must be made about what people do believe or not believe from the professions of their own mouths.
If you are a member of a Christian church, perhaps you would like to describe how your church receives or does not receive people into the fellowship (or, membership, if you will) of your church. Don’t your pastors or elders discriminate anything at all for the protection of the flock, especially for the protection of those who are very young in the Lord?
Usually people who respond to things as you have come from a very liberal and loose church affiliation where just about anything goes. I don’t know about your church. How do the elders of your church determine what goes and what doesn’t go? Somebody on earth, hopefully guided by the Scriptures and the Spirit of God, makes those kinds of judgments in the church.
Somebody is given “the rule over” the church who “watch for your souls”. (Hebrews 13:17) Church members are commanded by Scripture to obey those who have “the rule” for that specific reason. Read the whole chapter. You will see “Remember them,” “obey them,” and “Sualute them.”
It is all too easy to accuse those, “my friend”, of trying to be “alpha and omega” while they often must agonize in prayer before God over very difficult decisions for the spiritual safety of the flock. This includes decisions about who may enter in, and sometimes who must be put out.
In our church, actually, the church body ultimately decides who enters the flock. The elders of the church must lead the process, however, as they are the ones specifically told to take heed and to take oversight.
And we have heard people for over 30 years accuse watchful, discerning, discriminating pastors of wanting to be “alpha and omega.” But usually those people who accuse this way are pretty loose and worldly, and they really believe nothing except what benefits themselves, not edifying the body of Christ.
In reality, I have served as an elder for the past six years of my life in a Christian church. I have ruled on questions precisely of the nature you describe. I am not going to pretend that I lack understanding of Scripture in the manner you describe— though you clearly seek that.
It is that judgmental sense of things that I detest. I have little doubt that when Jesus ran afoul of Scriptural interpretations among his spiritual elite, they had the same thoughts. Let’s not kid ourselves, the men judging Jesus knew scriptures better than you or I. I do believe in the integrity of scripture. I have little faith in the integrity of powerful individuals “interpreting” it.
The origins of this thread are comments made by President Bush in response to a journalist. IF the journalist is accurately reporting the matter then it is slightly interesting. Nonetheless, it is not President Bush speaking in a church setting.
Honestly, I don’t think the thief hanging on the cross would make it past your interpretation schema.
You leave a question then as to what you use as a final authority when judging. “Judge” is a scriptural term. “ . . . Do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Cor. 5:12)
I think it has been fairly well authenticated that President Bush verily low-rated the authority of the Book of Genesis in his answers to the reporter.
Church setting or not a church setting. President or not president. If he were to attempt join a Bible-believing church, even his public answers would would be a point on which to question him.
I have read two books that claim to contain Mr. Bush’s testimony of conversion to Jesus Christ. I read them specifically looking for that testimony. I have yet to read any Biblical testimony from Mr. Bush on any faith of his in the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ as the foundation of his faith.
Coupled with his compromise on the issue of the Genesis account of creation, I still determine that the Scriptures hold little authority to him.
Judgmental attitude. How about a firm Scriptural attitude. That honors Christ. Christ on earth was dealing with Jewish leaders of whom it had already been attested had replaced the authority of the word of God with their own traditions. They were making their judgments of people and situations not based on the words of God, but on their traditions, making the word of God of none effect.
Jesus Christ never rebuked men who held the authority of the Scriptures as their Final Authority. Israel’s leaders were not people who were using the words of God with a bad or judgmental attitude toward people. He was rebuking people who had REPLACED the authority of the words of God with traditions. There is quite a difference.
Move in to the epistles and note that judment in the local church is required for the doctrinal and moral purity of the churches.
The thief on the cross. To the dying Saviour: “Remember me when thou comest in to thy kingdom.” The thief knew the identity of the Saviour and His purpose: to be the King. His faith was in Christ as sin-bearer, One wou would not stay dead (he had a belief in the Resurrection), and King.
The thief went to be with Christ in Paradise. He never did try to join a local New Testament Church. He died an agonizing death for a crime he had committed. Though he believed on Christ and was saved, he was not set free from the consequences of an earthly act of the flesh.
If Christ had miraculously delivered him to go on living on this earth, he would have to have gone to the apostles at some subsequent point and been baptized and join a New Testament church. Then he would have been under church discipline like anyone else. If he had continued to live along with the Apostles, he would have entered the period governed by the Epistles, as we are today.
A reading of the Epistles reveals a fairly strict order of church discipline and “judgment” of doctrine and practice; that which the modern apostate church tends to loathe and avoid in violation of the Scriptures.
“I still determine that the Scriptures hold little authority to him.”
Your judgment matters little.
The scriptures reveal the truth and reality of Jesus Christ— not the other way around.
Your judgmentalism is out of control.
Jesus Christ is fully capable of saving President George W. Bush whether you care to confirm his salvation or not.
“Your judgmentalism is out of control.”
Your manner of discussion is on the level of a seventeen year old.
How do you determine whether someone is eligable to join your church? Do you not listen to the words they speak? Or do you not read the words that they write? Do you not have to make a determination of eligibility based on WORDS?
For membership eligibility purposes you must “CONFIRM” (to use your word) somebody’s salvation. And the only way to do it is by listening to the testimony they speak with their mouth, or by reading words that they write on paper.
That is, unless you claim a special gift of knowledge.
If you are an elder for your church, do you make determinations for membership based on feeligs, vibes, feel-good nonsense? What? I can only believe you make these determinations exactly the same way that we do. You ask people whether they are a Christian, and you ask them for a testimony, and you have to make a determination as to whether their testimony (is sound as to whether it) matches the Scriptures.
If that’s not the case, then I would have to suppose that just anyone at all can join your church, regardless of what they believe or what they practice.
You might think that because a man is a president of the USA that he particularly should be treated with a lower level of discrimination. Nope. Perhaps he should even be questioned more rigidly, since he has been foolong around for so long in the obviously wicked political domain.
Yes, we do ask for a written testimony of salvation. We ask that church members take a church membership class where we clarify church doctrines and expectations. We reserve membership to those we think earnestly have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
This is not a thread beginning with President Bush applying for church membership at either one of our churches. Personally, I cannot imagine that even the interpretations of this journalists would constitute a basis for rejecting President Bush for membership. If you and your church want to deny him membership— which he never applied for as far as I understand— then go ahead.
Keep this example in mind:
I think this Christian has every right to his opinion. I flat out think he is wrong. I don’t think it is even close.
As my tagline suggests, I am fed up with hateful Bush bashing. It comes from very sincere conservatives— including conservative Christians. Obviously it comes from hateful leftist reactionaries.
I think all the Bush haters actively confuse the intensity of the knowledge they have from the Media with some actuality of reliable judgement about who Bush is in his soul. I am saying— Back off. This has gotten way out of hand.
Secularists sincerely want to murder him and Christians sincerely want to send him to Hell. I don’t agree with either camp. I am confident that President Bush is a Christian. I am also confident that you are a Christian. But at the end of the day, I am not going to pretend to judge you on the matter. And yes, as an Elder I have passed judgment on the question for our church. That to me is a distinct matter from this thread. IF Bush were applying for Church membership, my personal sense of his statements were easily trump what a journalist said he said. I have never once been quoted accurately by a journalist.
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.