New York Times: Ted Cruz just held a campaign event at the home of two gay businessmen, you know

Hotair ^ | 04/23/2015 | AllahPundit

[SeekAndFind]

This NYT story, an obvious attempt at a gotcha that’ll damage Cruz among his base, will do more damage to the two businessmen within their own circle of allies, I suspect. It’s one thing for Ted Cruz, social conservative, to socialize with gay friends. It’s another for gays to socialize with — gasp — Ted Cruz, social conservative.

During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay. He did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states.

The dinner and “fireside chat” for about a dozen people with Mr. Cruz and his wife, Heidi, was at the Central Park South penthouse of Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, longtime business partners who were once a couple and who have been pioneers in the gay hospitality industry.

“Ted Cruz said, ‘If one of my daughters was gay, I would love them just as much,’” recalled Mr. Reisner, a same-sex marriage proponent who described himself as simply an attendee at Mr. Weiderpass’s event…

Mr. Cruz also told the group that the businessman Peter Thiel, an openly gay investor, is a close friend of his, Mr. Sporn said. Mr. Thiel has been a generous contributor to Mr. Cruz’s campaigns.

If you think, as the NYT obviously does, that opposing gay marriage necessarily means you’re driven by hatred of gays, then yeah, that’s one odd dinner party. And in fairness, some of Cruz’s rhetorical flourishes during the gay rights/religious liberty debate did make him seem less likely to attend an event at the home of SSM supporters than, say, Jeb Bush might be. But Cruz doesn’t categorically oppose gay marriage, as the Times is forced to admit. He’s personally opposed but thinks the states should decide, even if that means the practice is gradually legalized. Nor is it news that Cruz’s base includes some prominent gay right-wingers. Peter Thiel, a libertarian, has been donating big bucks to him for years, starting back when he ran for AG of Texas. Weiderpass and Reisner are apparently strong supporters of Israel, an obvious point of common ground with Cruz. Other potential Cruz backers, although straight themselves, are outspoken in supporting gay marriage despite their alliance on most other issues with the GOP. The most famous example: David Koch, one half of the “Kochtopus” that haunts lefty dreams nightly. Cruz seems to respectfully disagree with most SSM supporters, assuming they’re not trying to shut down pizzerias for declining to cater gay weddings, and some famous SSM supporters seem to respectfully disagree with him. (Shucks, even Mike Huckabee cops to having gay friends.) If you liked him before reading this, why would you like him less now?

But I don’t know. Maybe I’ve achieved a status of such candy-ass RINO-hood that the Times’s radar on what will and won’t alienate social conservatives is better than mine. Supporting gay marriage obviously will alienate them. Attending a gay wedding might (although opinion seems to be divided on that) for a similar reason, namely, that some who regard marriage as a sacred union between men and women conclude that that means they shouldn’t tacitly recognize a gay marriage by witnessing it. It’s not clear what sacred precept is violated, though, by saying you’d love your daughter no less if she were gay; it’s even less clear which one forbids having dinner at a gay friend’s home. But I’ll leave that to the comments to hash out. In the meantime, WaPo finds 61 percent now support gay marriage, a new high nationally although not dramatically higher than the numbers have been in recent years. Republican opposition is strong at 34/63, but interestingly not as strong when you ask whether states should be allowed to ban the practice. In that case, support stands at just 52/45. Maybe there’s some small section of SSM opponents who think that gays nonetheless have a constitutional right to marry. Other than that, I’m not sure what explains the discrepancy.

[Gamecock]

**So, you tell them that maybe God loves them**

No.

That is not a Biblical construct. The whole Jesus loves you thing is a modern phenomena.

I tell them, in one way or another, hopefully over a long period of time, as has been with neighbors, that they are sinners and they have no hope except in Jesus.

New believers seem to be the ones most receptive to the idea of divine sovereignty. They almost sense it because they realize what just happened.

[Gamecock]

**But, what assurance do you have that you have “put your faith in Jesus”?**

Because I realize what a miserable sinner I am and look to Jesus for my Salvation, not my own works. Just like Scripture teaches.

**You have nothing to do with it, so how do you KNOW that you really have “put your faith in Jesus”?**

And yet that is how it is, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Praise be to God!

[rusty schucklefurd]

re: “That is not a Biblical construct. The whole Jesus loves you thing is a modern phenomena.”

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Begotten Son. That, whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

1 John 4:8
“Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”

“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8

“For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.” Titus 2:11

[rusty schucklefurd]

re: “Because I realize what a miserable sinner I am and look to Jesus for my Salvation, not my own works. Just like Scripture teaches.”

So, you think you are saved because you believe you are a sinner, or think you believe it? It’s not what you say, or think, or think you believe, or whether or not you believe you are a sinner, or whether you are looking to Jesus for salvation, or no matter what you think the Scriptures teach - it has nothing to do with anything about you or what you think you believe. That’s Calvinism’s God.

So, my question is again, what assurance do you have that you are one of the Elect? Just because you say or think you have belief doesn’t mean that you are saved. There is no real assurance for you. You might not be one of the few whom God has elected to salvation. You really have no way of knowing. Just a belief of a belief.

re: “And yet that is how it is, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Praise be to God!”

So, once again, you really don’t know whether or not the Holy Spirit has drawn you to Jesus. You think He has, you think you know, you think you believe - but that is no guarantee that you are correct.

If you can’t tell anyone else that God loves them or has chosen them for election - what makes you think you can know that about yourself as well?

[Gamecock]

“Jacob I have loved, Essau I have hated.” God.

[PieterCasparzen]

If you can’t tell anyone else that God loves them or has chosen them for election - what makes you think you can know that about yourself as well?

An example, to clarify:

Not you, not I nor anyone else can walk up to an atheist and tell them that they are among the elect and be certain that we are telling the atheist the truth or a lie. Because we can't predict the future and know whether or not an athiest will convert to Christ, live their life and die in Christ.

To tell people they "are" saved is not spreading the Gospel, but misleading people.

In spreading the Gospel message, the topic of salvation is of course most important - and the important concept to relay is the listener's need for salvation, for without their need for salvation, the listener will of course feel that they can safely ignore the Gospel message, even mock it.

Spreading the Gospel, of course, consists of personal testimony and quoting from Scripture. This serves as a CALLING of the listener to Christ, a calling of the listener by the Word of God, i.e., the quoting from Scripture. Those are the words that, upon hearing, the listener is affected by.

We can see from this how empty a lie it is to simply tell people they already are among the elect. They need not become convicted of their own sin, they need no feelings of guilt, they do not need to fear God's judgement - they just need to say the "magic words" of a profession of faith there on the streetcorner - without any study or knowledge of what they are professing to "believe in" and what that means. Why would they go to Church ? They would feel they are "saved". Church would be nice and fun, but it would be optional. They are "saved". What about that adulterous affair they're having ? Well, that's not "nice", but Jesus ultimately will forgive them. They need not worry about it, in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps they'll just "taper off" a little, out of "respect". Unless they start feeling unhappy in their marriage. Then, well, they couldn't help themselves. Jesus will understand. Someday they would like to get around to studying the Bible. Really studying it. That would be "nice". But they're ok if they don't get around to it just yet, they're busy. Jesus will understand. Oh, praying ? Oh, yeah, right. They would probably start praying every day. For a while. Then, maybe a few months go by, no prayers. It's ok, Jesus knows they are busy with life.

Now our dear "convert" starts attending a local Church, you know, one with a good band. Of course, the "teaching" and "preaching" that goes on there has nothing to do with Biblical doctrine, it's a bunch of wild fantasies about end-times, about being "inclusive" with homosexuals, standing up for the modern nation of Israel, and all the activities. Nothing about sin; that's an old-fashioned, abrogated thing from the OT. No more worries about sin, just try to be a "good person".

Of course, the above scenario is nonsense, not a real conversion. When we actually start honestly studying the Bible and taking it to heart, which only happens during and after a real conversion that was effected by God, we find this line of Scripture, which must be very curious to the unbeliever:

Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

It is not up to the person spreading the Gospel message to determine how the hearers make use of their hearing of the Word of God.

It is never without effect though - those whom God has chosen, the elect, God draws to his Word:

Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

And those who are not among the elect will hate and despise God's Word:

Psalm 50

"16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee."

The Apostle Paul under divine inspiration writes:

Romans 8

"9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

[Axenolith]

Yup, it’s not about keeping them from some type of “union”, it’s about their (or the powers that be)’s attempt to undermine a fundamental definition of civil AND social law in order to weaken and destroy the Republic.

The definition of “marriage” is the union of a man and a woman, from the bible to the common law. allowing that to be fundamentally corrupted opens the door to changing every legal definition known.

They could (and I would have no problem with it) have ANY other term as the definition of the “union of two people of the same sex”, “Garriage”, “Homoarriage”, whatever, but they CAN NOT alter the legal definition of what a marriage is!

[PieterCasparzen]

Just because you “think” you are saved is no guarantee that you are - remember nothing you do or say or think has anything to do with your salvation - it is all up to God’s own choosing.

So you're saying your salvation and my salvation - it's up to us ? I say the words, and I'm saved ?

Is that your assurance - you professed faith - "make it so" - and so it is ?

In that case, every evil wicked monster of a person that ever lived could simply utter the same profession, and bingo - they're all in heaven after they die.

[Axenolith]

Good on em! AFAIC, if they’re WHATEVER, and support the constitutional Republic, then they are with us.

I could give two s***s on what someone does as long as they follow the rule of law (Common) and don’t try to turn me toward their ideology through force or legislation.

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “So you’re saying your salvation and my salvation - it’s up to us ? I say the words, and I’m saved ? “

No, I am saying that the gospel of Calvinism gives no assurance of salvation because God does all the choosing regardless of what you do, say or think or believe. Whatever you think you know or think you believe - you have no sure way of knowing if God loves you and elected you to salvation.

Thinking you accepted Christ as your Savior, thinking you have repented, thinking you believe in Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection does not mean necessarily that you are one of the Elect. None of your thoughts or actions have anything to do with God’s election.

Calvinism’s God has “limited atonement” (limited love). Calvinism’s God condemns some babies, even unborn babies to eternal hell. Calvinism’s God turns love, courage, sacrifice, humility, cowardice, despair, selfishness, etc. into meaningless words because we only “act out” a predetermined blueprint set in motion by Calvin’s God.

There is no human will - only automatons carrying out predetermined thoughts and actions, yet are held accountable by Calvinism’s God. Calvinism’s God says that when Jesus said, “God so loved the world”, he didn’t really mean it. When Paul says “whoever will call upon the name of the Lord” it doesn’t really mean “whoever will”. When Peter says that God does not desire that any should perish, he didn’t really mean that.

Look, I said before this is not going to change each other’s minds on this subject. I believe that you sincerely love the Lord and are trying to serve Him as best you can in the power of the Holy Spirit. We will find out the answers to all these things one day in God’s glorious Kingdom. So, I will just let it go at that. You can have the last word.

[PieterCasparzen]

Just simple logic Rusty - what is your assurance ? I know you don’t see mine (I’ll provide it), but what is your assurance ?

How do you know you are saved ?

[Lexinom]

No, I am saying that the gospel of Calvinism gives no assurance of salvation because God does all the choosing regardless of what you do, say or think or believe. Whatever you think you know or think you believe - you have no sure way of knowing if God loves you and elected you to salvation.

The "gospel of Calvinism", i.e. the biblical teaching on soteriology, is the only thing that can provide assurance of salvation precisely because of its monorgistic (i.e. God doing everything) nature. Would you not in a heartbeat sooner trust God than fickle man? Or is God somehow not trustworthy to save and pass by whomever He desires and according to His secret purposes?

The notion of "accepting" - i.e. tolerating or putting up with - the sovereign Creator of the universe (Jesus is, after all, fully God and fully man) is, frankly, naive.

[PieterCasparzen]

Rusty, here’s a great assurance chapter. As you can see, it’s based on evidence and testimony. It is an incredibly rich portion of Scripture; I wrote up, just for my own understanding, a little analysis. This chapter is very challenging, IMHO, but incredibly wonderful in its witness and richness of its meaning.

This is just one part of assurance, certainly other parts of Scripture can be applied to the topic.

Put plainly, the true believer does not place their faith in their own abilities or their own righteousness, but they place their faith in God fulfilling his promises. Of course this winds up being most comforting, as there is no object of faith more certain.

1 John 5

“1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.”

[PieterCasparzen]

To clarify a bit further some points:

From the point of view of my mind - nothing is predetermined.

I can not predict the future. I do not know what the future holds. I could walk out my door tomorrow and a piano could fall on my head and kill me. I have no idea of anything about what will happen tomorrow.

So I can not use predestination as an excuse for me to not follow God’s commandments.

I am without excuse. I simply need to obey God’s commandments if I love God as I profess to love God.

If I do not obey God’s commandments but I profess to love God, I am a lying hypocrite.

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “How do you know you are saved ?”

My assurance is based on the promise of God’s Word, that if we confess our sins, confess that Jesus is Lord, He promised to forgive us, indwell us with His Spirit, and make us a new creation in Christ Jesus. That promise is not dependent on feelings or emotion, it is not dependent on my righteousness, it is all dependent on the absolute promise of God and what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross. God extends that offer of grace to all men, but we have to respond in faith to that gift.

I believe God makes that faith available to all men - but, we have to respond in repentance - we have to accept that gift. You think He limits that gift of faith to only the Elect. I don’t believe that. I understand why you do because you believe that man is so corrupt tha he is totally incapable of responding to God. And, I do agree that man is incapable of saving himself, that he, by his own righteousness, can never save himself or remove the guilt of his sin.

However, though I believe the image of God is “effaced” from man, greatly marred, I do not believe that God’s image is completely “erased” from him, that is, that God has given all men the ability to respond to His love and repent. Therefore man is without excuse if he refuses to grab hold of the lifeline God has graciously thrown to him. I do not see the act of “grabbing hold” of God’s lifeline a “work”, or taking away any glory or act of God. Without Christ’s willing sacrifice, death, burial, and resurrection, man would have no hope of salvation. Calvinists see the act of responding as a “work” as well as an impossibility. I don’t.

Look, people have been arguing over this for over 400 years. If you want to believe in Calvinism, that is your right. I just don’t want to argue about it anymore now. As I said before, I know you love God and are trying to please Him. My Calvinsit friends, so far, have granted the same toward me, though we disagree. But I do speak up from time to time, just as you have.

[rusty schucklefurd]

A cuple more thoughts, we haven’t delved into “free will” that much, but it is my observation that one of the common themes throughout the Bible is that God seems to speak to man as though man defiinitly DOES have the ability to choose and obey, or, to refuse.

Just a cursory review, Joshua urges the people of Israel to “choose this day whom you will serve”, Moses saying, “choose life” rather than death, the blessings and cursings Moses lists at the end of Dueteronomy all seem to imply that the people of Israel had a real choice, real freedom to choose. When Jonah finally obeyed God in preaching judgement on the Ninevites, and the Ninevites throwing themselves at God’s feet in repentance. When Jesus said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalm, you who kill the prophets, how I longed to gather you as a hen gathers her chicks, but you would not.” When Paul makes his case in Romans, the first three chapters, that man is totally without excuse for not knowing God, in fact, he makes the case that by mn’s own stubborn will, they “exchanged the truth of God for a lie.”

Another thought I had recently was the story of the rich man asking Jesus what must he do to be saved, and, when Jesus told him to sell all he has, give it to the poor, and follow Him, the rich man turned away. Then Jesus said something very interesting, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” Now, why would that be? If God is the one who chooses the elect, regardless of anything man does, why would it be any harder for a rich man to be “chosen” and therefore saved than anyone else? If Calvinism is true, it wouldn’t be. Calvinism would say this statement by Jesus is nonsensical, because it is not just a case of it being “harder” to enter the Kingdom of God, it is impossible for any man, regardless of their social status, to enter God’s Kingdom.

[PieterCasparzen]

I believe God makes that faith available to all men - but, we have to respond in repentance - we have to accept that gift.

Then those who make the right choice earn or merit their salvation by making the right choice.

Such thinking is contradicted by Scripture.

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “Then those who make the right choice earn or merit their salvation by making the right choice. Such thinking is contradicted by Scripture.”

If someone offers you a gift, and you receive and accept that gift, you think you now merit that gift and “earned” it?? That makes no sense. I understand that Calvinists say such things, but I just do not get how responding to God’s offer of salvation through Jesus somehow endows the one receiving the gift as having “earned it” or “merited it” or is a “work.”

The condemned, dying, helpless sinner grabs hold of God’s unimaginable gift of salvation, and you think that grants the sinner some kind of merit? That the sinner’s positive response takes away from God’s glory somehow? You don’t need to respond to my post because you and I are not going to agree. But, I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss it with you.

[PieterCasparzen]

It means you were smart enough or “good” enough to make the right choice and accept the gift.

Those who don’t accept it are either bad, immoral people or just dumb.

Who would want to spend eternity in hell if they could just profess faith in Christ and spend eternity in heaven ?

[rusty schucklefurd]

re: “Who would want to spend eternity in hell if they could just profess faith in Christ and spend eternity in heaven?”

Those who do not want Christ to be Lord of their lives.

“Profession” of faith is not just saying some words - it is the attitude of one’s heart - God sees our thoughts and motives - God provides the faith to believe to all men, but not all men want God’s Lordship, even if it means hell. As Paul said, “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” As John said, “they preferred the darkness over the light.”

The ones who willingly confess their sins, accept God’s forgiveness through His Son, and allow Him to be Lord of their lives, are saved from God’s wrath - but, does that make them better, smarter, or more righteous than those who refuse to believe? No. The Lord said, in John 16:5-11,

“It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment”.

This means the Holy Spirit is at work in the hearts of all men - He is convicting all of us of our sin and our need of a Savior. For some, the Spirit’s conviction produces humility and repentance in their hearts. For others, it seems to merely harden their hearts even more against God.

Does that mean those who respond to God’s Grace take something away from God’s glory and mercy and saving act? Is it something the helpless sinner can boast about and say, “I accepted God’s salvation, look how ‘holy’ I am!”?

As Paul would say, “May it never be!!” No! We have nothing to boast about except of God’s mercy and love toward us. We were helpless sinners without hope. God offered His greatest gift to save us - His Son. There is absolutely nothing for us to claim credit for or boast about.

Soldiers who lay down their lives for our safety and freedom deserve our respect forever. Accepting their bravery and their gift of freedom that we enjoy can never take away from the gift, the honor, and glory of the sacrifice of themselves for our country. Neither can we who humbly receive God’s gift of mercy somehow claim credit for what God did for us.