Can you point to some items in the post that are factually incorrect?
Here's one: <>As an example, Barton's historical work tracking the Christian roots of the nation are apparently plagued by exaggeration and poor scholarship.<>
After years of hearing the same thing, I bought one of his books. I think it was his 5,000 Year Leap, but I'm not positive.
Whatever the work, I remember thinking that it was the most thoroughly footnoted history book I'd every read. To the extent that sources were available online, I checked probably 15-20 of them.
Every one of them was accurate.
Whether someone disagrees with the lessons he draws from history is an entirely different matter.
yeah, the fact that there is no proselytizing...a pejorative word totally abused to score cheap points.
I like Ted Cruz - he’ll make a great Vice President - but *if* there really are solid connexions between him and the Dominionists...that really is a problem, regardless of how much his supporters on FR want to screech and caterwaul.
Dominionism is not authentic biblical Christianity. It has several problems, largely related to its confusion of Old Testament blessings with New Testament promises, which then bear out into a plethora of weird doctrines, ranging from Old Testament law keeping to the “home church” movement to prosperity “gospel.” The one thing that unites them is the general belief that the government needs to be controlled by Christians, usually in the sense of “establishing the OT law as the law of the land.”
I can’t say if Ted Cruz is wrapped up in all that or not. His recent “don the full armour of God” rhetoric may just be tubthumping to whip up Iowa evangelicals ahead of the caucus. But if he is associated with that realm of doctrine...it’s troublesome.
Yes. The provided blog which is used to accuse Rafael Cruz of claiming his son 'anointed' is spun up bullsh*t. The video offered from the blog is an obvious hit piece. It takes less than 8 minutes of a 1 hr sermon and spins them falsely to create a nonsensical conclusion.
Here is the WHOLE service from that day. Cruz's sermon is about the last hour or so...
Does it talk about anointing? Yes it does. In a typical Pentecostal fashion. It is speaking to the congregation generally and about Christians generally. It never once selects anyone particular and claims a specific anointing.
And here are hours of Rafael Cruz preaching. Both in churches and at political events. Anyone with a true heart would listen to the man, at least as quickly as they listen to his detractors.
REALLY. You guys have to get your smear tactics in line. Is he the anointed king of the Christians or is he the conservative plant of CFR and Goldmann Sachs - because he can't be both.
all this crap-slinging just to justify voting for Trump. Y'all should be ashamed... If you still knew how.
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the article is that it relies entirely on guilt by association. Peruse the entire article and ask yourself, where does Ted Cruz endorse the idea that Christians must conquer the seven domains of society or else Jesus won’t come back?
Not. One. Place.
The “hit” in this hit piece is what propagandists and advertisers call “transfer.” Take something you know people hate at a gut level, and associate it with the subject for which you wish to generate hatred. After a certain quantity of this associative technique is used, eventually folks become programmed to automatically transfer their hatred for the one thing to the subject of interest. It is an ugly tactic that relies on human emotional behavior rather than appealing to our better, rational selves.
As for Ted Cruz, he is a Southern Baptist, and so his eschatology is much more likely to be standard premillenarian belief, not “kingdom now” theocracy. His dad, even if he were a classic dominionist, falls well short of the dominionism I have right next door to me. Having spent many years as a Southern Baptist, I can tell you these folks next door are really not compatible with Southern Baptist theology or practice, and would never make it past the membership class if they were open in what they believed. Are there infiltrators? Sure. I would expect that. But the two cannot openly coexist. Eschatologically, they are opposites. Dominionism, had it reared it’s head in my old SBC church in Indiana, would be tarred and feathered by the elders as an evil variation on some liberal version of postmillennialism (which may be a fair analysis).
So trying to push the idea that dominionisn is not a denomination, while technically true, is misleading, as those denominations that have traditional premillenarian eschatology will not provide a welcome environment for dominionism.
As for Beth Moore, she has moved on and is no longer at First Baptist of Houston. I have attempted to contact the church there and discover the whys and wherefores of that departure. I suspect it is because she was indeed becoming too controversial in some of her views, and was no longer welcome there. Yet, having read some of her posts on the matter, she has clearly attempted to show she hold the Scriptures in higher regard than her own “revelations.” My own pastor believes God speaks to him, and needs to have such conversation with God to be an effective leader of the flock. So some of this is murky.
For example, she has been accused of promoting “new age” practices. One can make an argument that is the case, IF she in fact promotes something like “contemplative prayer,” which is all the rage right now, and it does indeed turn prayer into a self-hypnosis, mantra-repetitive experience designed to alter consciousness. I know something of this from personal experience, as it was something I was into before I was converted. It is a gross error getting too great a foothold in the church.
However, if one wants to be fair, “contemplative prayer” is showing up all over the place, not excluding once-austere organizations such as Donald Trump’s wildly liberal Presbyterian denomination, the PCUSA.
Now, please don’t misunderstand. Just because The Donald goes to that church, I do not assume he is OK with “new age” contemplative prayer, or that he share’s his denominations’ willingness to endorse gay marriage, or their efforts to boycott Israel into economic submission to their enemies. No, I would never use a propaganda technique like Tranfer to try and take The Donald down. I prefer taking him down for the things that have actually come out of his own mouth and are a matter if the public record. Because I’m rather hesitant to violate the ninth commandment and bear false witness against my neighbor. But if they give their own testimony, like saying Kelo is good, or we just gotta live with gay marriage because its the law of the land now, or that hate crime legislation to protect gays is a good thing (even though it’s basically adding punishment for thought crimes), then that open testimony is fair game.
Just sayin ...
Peace,
SR