Posted on 10/29/2007 8:28:33 AM PDT by Invisigoth
The Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons and a few other faiths have three things in common – they believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died and was resurrected for our sins.
So what’s the problem?
The political pundits continue to try and make Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs a big issue as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. Different denominations of Christianity are just that – different denominations – which means different worship practices of the same fundamental Christian beliefs.
Some people have commented that they cannot support Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. When they are pressed to explain why that is objectionable, they stutter. Still others are skeptical of Mitt Romney based solely on hearsay or lack of knowledge about Mormons.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
James 1:27 says "Good and pure religion before God the Father is this: To care for the widows and orphans and keep oneself unspotted from the world."
On the other hand, Jesus DID give us the command to preach the gospel to all nations. I guess He didn't consider that to be 'religion'.
James 1:27 says "Good and pure religion before God the Father is this: To care for the widows and orphans and keep oneself unspotted from the world."
On the other hand, Jesus DID give us the command to preach the gospel to all nations. I guess He didn't consider that to be 'religion'.
We are to be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11.
My understanding is that 1) Mormons are not Christians, and 2) Mormons, for reasons of their own, have deliberately and explicitly set out to hoodwink Christians into believing that Mormons are Christians.
Romney plays both sides of every issue (far beyond just abortion), including playing the victim card as a Mormon.
What do you mean by "OK?"
(OK by whose standards?)
I mean if you look, for example, in OT times, who at times did God "put in charge" over Israel? If it wasn't some foreign hostile enemies, even when Israel had its own ruler integrity, the bulk of them did not "fear the Lord." I mean, at times, God in His sovereignty simply seemingly concluded, "They get who they want (or deserve)."
So, since the sovereign God has placed even wicked leaders into place with whom I disagree, my "OK" ultimately means nothing. (I mean even 2 Cor. 4:4 and 1 John 5:19 tells us that Satan is the "god" of this age/world...he's not exactly a global leader I would pick...but we wicked, evil, unrighteous folks deserve who we get.)
Now, a different question might be, "What kind of leaders might help our country to be steered in a more edifying public policy and spiritual direction?"
ANY faith is okay for our President. Though I might have an issue with a Muslim based on the current war on terror.
However, I would be most comfortable with someone most like me: a conservative Protestant, but more importantly someone who holds to a conservative theological interpretation of the Bible which informs his or her opinions and decisions.
That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for someone of a different faith since it’s far more important to me what stance they have on the important issues of the day, only some of which have a firm basis in religious and moral beliefs.
Romney gives me pause, but not so much due to his religion as his lack of a solid and long-established history of commitment to causes that I feel are important.
“So what’s the problem?”
Well, politically, at this point, it makes little difference.
What you’ve stated about Christ’s death for our sins and the resurrection, however, is so general that, of course, any of them would answer that they believe that.
When you ask whether they believe in the completeness and sufficiency of the work of Christ on the Cross, the differences are quite staggering, with respect to the Gospel and the efficacy of it. Some of the groups you mentioned require an endearment to their religious system for final salvation of the individual. The official dogma of some of them declares that there is really no salvation without obedience to their church creeds and sacraments. With some of them, the Atonement of Christ is only satisfactory if you continue in their church’s sacraments and rules.
I can’t find in the Scriptures ANY one particular organized church on earth that is a conduit of salvation. But some of those in the list you give believe that salvation is channeled through their priests, or sacraments, and system. This indicates a belief among some of them that God’s work in Christ on the Cross was, in the final analysis, insufficient.
And maybe they are right, too. But there beliefs are not those of orthodox Christians, and the author himself implies.
For political purposes, it just does not matter to me.
I get the feeling Colofornian wouldn't agree.
:::sigh:::: Okay, I figured the question was simple enough for you to understand. Let me rephrase.
What faiths could a candidate embrace that would not cause an issue for you as a voter.
Whoa wait. I don't believe that Christ was the Son of God? I must not have gotten that memo.
Satan was created by God as all other angels were created by God.
Psalm 148
1 Praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD from the heavens,
praise him in the heights above.
2 Praise him, all his angels,
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.
3 Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars.
4 Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.
5 Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for he commanded and they were created.
. . .
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.
I think you should read the church fathers broncobilly before you characterize what they say to others. Which of the church fathers have you read?
As an evangelical, I’ll say that if Romney was MORE Mormon (i.e., unabashedly and consistently pro-life and pro-gun), I’d support him with no reservation. Problem is, he’s drifted away from what I admire about my Mormon friends.
Well, I need to first issue this qualification: Before I look at a candidate's "denominational ID," I look at their spiritual fruit. Example: 1992 candidate Clinton & 2007 candidate Huckabee are/were both Baptists (Clintons are now Methodists, or at least, Hillary is)...but I don't see them in the same light...(and I think many here would agree).
So, after I look at social issue positions & voting record & electability (among other issues) I zoom in on spiritual fruit & character, which includes their other-worldly commitments. (You can't separate their other-worldly commitments from their character).
Now, those "faith" IDs that would not cause a trigger concern issue for me would be any of the historic Christian faiths (Protestant; Roman Catholic; Eastern Orthodox) or a Jewish candidate who calls upon the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There, I guess that represents the faiths of about 86% of Americans...and I daresay the number of Congressmen who are likewise linked to said affiliations is probably over 90 percent.
Well, let's just say that I don't care that he's a Mormon. But if he were a Muslim I wouldn't even consider voting for him. ...so religion does matter.
I think you should become a little suspicious about your sources of information.
I think if the Mormons ever get the feeling that Christianity is an abomination, it would be because of all the misinformed hate that gets poured out in their direction.
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.