Skip to comments.
"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More
Institute on Religion and Democracy ^
| Mark Tooley
Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 361-378 next last
To: nobdysfool; Cvengr
Maybe CV embraces "Love Story theology"...
"Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry."
To: Cvengr
We are judged first by our name in the book of life and then by the Book of Works. Sin was judged on the cross. God is looking for righteous works in the coming jusgment. If one fails to have salvation, their works are good for nothing and burnt up. Those not saved are then discarded into the Lake of Fire.
Where is the "Book of Works" mentioned in Scripture?
282
posted on
09/02/2003 8:59:07 PM PDT
by
snerkel
To: nobdysfool
Actually, in a tangental sort of way, this debate underlies everything else. In some ways, what we're seeing with this gay agenda in the churches is the end result of Arminian doctrine. It didn't start out that way, but this is where it eventually leads.
Appeal to motives. The gay agenda in churches is not the end result of Aminian doctrine. It is the end result of people basing Truth on popular opinion and/or feelings instead of Scripture.
283
posted on
09/02/2003 9:09:04 PM PDT
by
snerkel
To: snerkel
Appeal to motives. The gay agenda in churches is not the end result of Aminian doctrine. It is the end result of people basing Truth on popular opinion and/or feelings instead of Scripture.Opinions vary....:o)
284
posted on
09/02/2003 9:17:31 PM PDT
by
nobdysfool
(All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
To: Cvengr
Adam, all man had been imputed with sin and dead in the spirit until they believe in Christ and His sacrifice provided substitutionary atonement for sin, thereby allowing the Holy Spirit to make our faith efficacious for salvation. How does a dead man take the medicine that will cure him? So you do not mean REALLY DEAD just sorta dead I assume??
Could I have a scripture on the Holy Spirit making grace efficacious?
285
posted on
09/02/2003 9:24:44 PM PDT
by
RnMomof7
(Saved by Grace, Calvinist by a free will choice)
To: nobdysfool
Opinions may vary, but Truth IS universal. It does not change with time, is not based on popular opinion or majority votes. Truth, by defintion, has to apply to everyone, or it is not true. :)
286
posted on
09/02/2003 9:24:51 PM PDT
by
snerkel
To: RnMomof7
Is that like being "kinda pregnant"? ;)
287
posted on
09/02/2003 9:25:53 PM PDT
by
snerkel
To: xzins
These people are sex-addicts who are justifying and rationalizing their sick/unnatural behavior. They are simply in denial.
288
posted on
09/02/2003 9:26:04 PM PDT
by
scan58
To: snerkel
Opinions may vary, but Truth IS universal. It does not change with time, is not based on popular opinion or majority votes. Truth, by defintion, has to apply to everyone, or it is not true. :)Trust me, I agree. I also think you know what I mean by my statement about Arminianism, even if you may not agree with that. I think a case could be made.... :o)
289
posted on
09/02/2003 9:31:40 PM PDT
by
nobdysfool
(All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
To: snerkel
Good point. I favor understanding Christ's work on the cross as providing for a sacrifical unlimited atonement for all sin. Some arguments regarding lack of faith or unbelief as a sin against the Holy Spirit as not being paid by Christ on the Cross, I suspect are valid and sound, but might depend on theological framework structuring such arguments.
290
posted on
09/02/2003 9:31:42 PM PDT
by
Cvengr
(0:^))
To: snerkel
I think so. :>)
291
posted on
09/02/2003 9:31:49 PM PDT
by
RnMomof7
(Saved by Grace, Calvinist by a free will choice)
To: snerkel
Rev 20:11-14, also known as the book of deeds.
292
posted on
09/02/2003 9:38:40 PM PDT
by
Cvengr
(0:^))
To: Cvengr; lockeliberty; CCWoody; Dr. Eckleburg; drstevej; Wrigley; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; CARepubGal; ..
Here's a couple that stand pretty well on their own. Take your pick.John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Conditional statement. Only the ones who believe will be saved from perishing and have eternal life. Whosoever here is not every man, but the subset of men who meet the condition, i.e. belief.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Same statement, same condition, same outcome. Whosoever is not every man, but the subset of men who meet the condition.
There is more to salvation than just these verses, although they are a good start. They don't address the totality of the doctrine.
My statement stands, one scripture does not a doctrine make.
293
posted on
09/02/2003 9:42:34 PM PDT
by
nobdysfool
(All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
To: xzins; CCWoody; RnMomof7; Jorge
Libertarian Christian is an extremely difficult balance. It's virtually impossible to be consistent, imho."Libertarian Christian" is an extremely difficult balance, because it's not even a balance which should be struck.
We're called to be Christians. Not "Libertarian Christians" -- just Christians. Theonomically-astute Christians may end up identifying with a great many "libertarian" positions, but that is a consequence of applying Christian Ethical Logic to the voting booth -- not a "balance to be struck".
- Applying a simple test of the Ten Commandments and "What Would Jesus Do?" -- I cannot possibly imagine Jesus Christ advising his apostles to put a gun to a man's head and steal his money for the benefit of his fellow's education or retirement security. Ergo, it seems to me that a theonomically-astute Christian must support the ultimate abolition of all Social Security and Public Education -- these things are Theft. What's that? I can't be a "Liberal" anymore, I must be either a "Conservative" or a "Libertarian"? Okay, I'm fine with that -- but regardless of labels, I have an obligation to consistency of Christian Ethical Logic.
- Applying a simple test of the Ten Commandments and "What Would Jesus Do?" -- I cannot possibly imagine Jesus Christ advising his apostles to break into a private household, smash down his doors and threaten to blow the man's head off for consuming an herb (tobacco, hemp, grain alcohol, whatever) the man grew in his private garden. Ergo, it seems to me that a theonomically-astute Christian must support the ultimate abolition of all substance-usage laws affecting Adults on Private Property. What's that? I can't be a "Conservative" anymore, I must be a "Libertarian"? Okay, I'm fine with that -- but regardless of labels, I have an obligation to consistency of Christian Ethical Logic.
- Applying a simple test of the Ten Commandments and "What Would Jesus Do?" -- I cannot possibly imagine Jesus Christ advising his apostles to stand by and do NOTHING but pass out gospel tracts while a human baby is being killed, butchered, and ground into potting-mulch in front of their eyes. Ergo, it seems to me that a theonomically-astute Christian must support the ultimate abolition of all legal permission of Abortion, in all cases, everywhere (even "to save the life of the mother" should be the regrettable consequence of necessary ovarian-falopial surgery, not a deliberate act IMHO). What's that? I can't be a "Libertarian" anymore? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn -- regardless of labels, I have an obligation to consistency of Christian Ethical Logic.
There are some (relatively few) issues which are sufficiently logically-difficult that they may not be solved with a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test -- for example, Public Display of a Ten Commandments Monument on State Property (for myself, I do not support taxing an Atheist to pay for such a monument, but I do see accepting a donation of such as being morally-equivalent to the Public permitting a VFW-donated monument to War Veterans on public property, and well within the Public's "collective ownership" of the Public Commons).
However, MOST of the time (I'd guesstimate better than 95%), a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test will supply the theonomically-astute Christian with the Biblically-Correct answer on questions of Public Policy, whether economic or social or whatever. For is it not said:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Do we then imagine that Scripture leaves us without guidance at the Voting Booth? That "democracy" permits us to shelve our Bibles, in favor of our personal desires and prejudices, on Election Day? If so, then Democracy is an Idol, and American Christianity worships at her altar.
There is no need for us to "strike a balance" as Christians between Libertarianism and Christianity, because there is no balance to be struck. We should simply be Christians -- even on Election Day.
I tend to think that if all American Christians -- or even all Church-going American Christians -- were to get serious about Biblical Theonomy, even just so much as to rigorously apply a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test on all questions of Public Policy, it would revolutionize the Party Platform of the GOP. I also tend to think that we shouldn't expect any such change in our lifetimes.
So be it. IMHO, we should simply be Christians -- socially, culturally, and politically. In my case, that roughly translates into checking to see if there is a Libertarian candidate, and then checking his website to see if he is Pro-Life (30-40% of Party Libertarians). If he is not, then I go on to examine the rest of the electoral slate (Republican, Constitution, etc.) But regardless of Party Labels, the important thing (to me, anyway) is, does the Candidate advocate Christian Moral Ethics? Does he oppose Murder and Aggression? Does he oppose Theft and Contract-Breaking? Does he oppose Fraud and False Witness?
In short, I am not a "Libertarian Christian". I am not even, strictly speaking, a "Christian Libertarian" -- at least not if the two philosophical terms are supposed to be balanced (they are NOT balanced; they are not even in the same league).
I prefer to consider myself a "Theonomically-Minded Christian", which at present means that I identify myself in terms of tactical politics with the Pro-Life wing of "Libertarianism", most (but not all) of the time.
However, while the Platform of the Libertarian Party (which is already sufficiently flawed as it is) could change tomorrow, the Christian Moral Ethic changeth not. Am I a "Christian Libertarian"? I am to the extent that a Libertarian candidate endorses the Christian Moral Ethic. But it's purely a one-sided proposition; there's no "balance" with Libertarianism to be struck. Libertarianism must conform (and frequently does -- on Property, Parental-Rights, and Religious-Liberty matters) to Christian Moral Ethics, in order to warrant our interest; but Christian Moral Ethics are under no obligation to conform to Libertarianism.
Thus endeth the Rant.
(With apologies to Xzins for using his post as a platform; it's not that I think he generally disagrees on these points, I just wanted the segue -- and his post provided me one)
294
posted on
09/02/2003 9:52:36 PM PDT
by
OrthodoxPresbyterian
(We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty.)
To: nobdysfool
John 3:17 is my favorite verse. It doesn't begin with 'except'!
295
posted on
09/02/2003 10:27:06 PM PDT
by
Cvengr
(0:^))
To: nobdysfool
Good,..'Whosoever' takes the logical form of a universal statement, not an existential qualifier. For any x such that: believeth, forms that set. It's not, the existential qualification: There exists an x such that believeth, forming the set.
296
posted on
09/02/2003 10:46:41 PM PDT
by
Cvengr
(0:^))
To: RnMomof7
Eph 1:13
297
posted on
09/02/2003 10:52:24 PM PDT
by
Cvengr
(0:^))
To: RnMomof7
Eph 1:13, Isa 49:8,
Common grace leading to efficacious grace in 1 Cor 1:18,
2:14; Jn 6:44; Rom 8:7; 2 Cor 4:3-4.
298
posted on
09/02/2003 10:56:10 PM PDT
by
Cvengr
(0:^))
To: nobdysfool
In some ways, what we're seeing with this gay agenda in the churches is the end result of Arminian doctrine.Nice try dragging me into the debate, too. ;)
To: Cvengr; CCWoody; Frumanchu; drstevej; CARepubGal; snerkel; Wrigley; Alex Murphy
John 3:17 is my favorite verse. It doesn't begin with 'except'!Never said it did.
(Joh 3:17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
"Through Him" still implies a condition. The world cannot be saved except through Him.
300
posted on
09/02/2003 11:17:00 PM PDT
by
nobdysfool
(All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 361-378 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson