Like the Blind Leading the Blind: Donald Trump and Evangelicals

The sermon contains doctrine that is more Pentecostal than Southern Baptist, to be sure, and some points with which I strongly disagree (I am an historic premillennialist, not a postmillennialist), but nothing which suggests Rafael Cruz is either NOT trusting in Jesus or that he IS trusting in his own works.

And other than the eschatology and the wealth theology, this is nothing new. As I have said before, all the way back to the reformers and before it has been taught that believers are given their life work, whether secular or ecclesiastical, by appointment and purpose of God, to work out God's plan in the world.

So we should have great scientists and great economists and great presidents and great musicians and writers and lawyers and brick layers and bus drivers and whatever else there is, who do all they do for the glory of God and for the spread of the Gospel and of god-honoring life in every way. There is nothing unusual in believers believing what Christ and the apostles taught on these matters. I dissent from the dominionists in that I do not think we will be in charge until after the fully visible Second Coming of Jesus, but while we wait, we are still to be salt and light.

As for salvation itself, what Rafael Cruz presents at the end of his talk is just a standard evangelical alter call, in which the hearer is invited to trust in Jesus for the washing away of all their sin in the blood of Jesus. Admission of the need of forgiveness is a recognition that we cannot save ourselves. It is the man who doesn't know he needs to be forgiven has no understanding of his very dangerous position before God.

So I ask you again: Do you have evidence you can direct me to that Rafael Cruz does not trust Jesus? You are the one making this charge. You ought to be able to back it up.

Peace,

Yes, that’s the rub with dominionism. It is a form of postmillennialism, which has roots in most mainline denominations, that the Church brings about utopia before Christ returns. Modern dominionism takes that theology and adds an extra layer of charismatic energy to it. But it does not have a sound basis in Scripture. In it’s most extreme forms, supernatural conquest of apocalyptic proportions is involved. But it has a Scripturally sound aspect to it which is believed by nearly all Christians of all denominations, that we should be salt and light in a sinful world by living godly lives and glorifying God in all we do.

This is why discussing it is sometimes confusing. Which end of the spectrum are we talking about? I have seen secularist articles disparaging it that make no such fine distinctions. To the unbeliever, it’s all dangerous theocracy. The Christian rejection of gay marriage has even been used as an example of dominionist thought, which is ludicrous, of course, but the ordinary secularist does not seem to get the distinction.

Peace,

I agree with but I wasn't really talking about spiritual conversion. I was talking about a political stance. Most people at that age don't generally change their politics.

I see, and thank you for the clarification. In his case, I think because he was operating in a deep blue state, he was "in the closet" for a long time and now can be more open about his conservative leanings and instincts. I say instincts because he is not an idealogue with a shelf full of Hayek and Buckley. He really is centrist on a lot of things -- but for me, he's conservative on the most pressing issues now -- immigration, borders, economy, trade deals, sovreignty, political correctness, ditch obamacare, cut waste and spending, pay down the debt, strengthen military, take no crap from ISIS. If a few thousand more gay marriages happen before he gets around to social issues, I'm not bothered.

I have not researched this area closely. Nevertheless, I repeat he is not an idealogue. So to expect him to support one bank bailout (TARP) in one set of conditions during which he was not in office means that he will support every other bank bailout in every other set of possible conditions post-2016 is an ideologically-framed question that no one can answer.

I believe his entire first four years would be taken up with repairing life-or-death damage to our system in multiple venues. The time for a robust return to various schools of politcal thought will be after we are out of the political-economic Emergency Room, so to speak. Right now we are on life support and not expected to live if a Democrat is elected. He may not be an elegant surgeon; but he is a capable emergency crash interventionist, if you will.

A lot of people on this board blindly support him no matter what he says or does. Sadly, thatâ€™s the same Kool-Aid that the dimmos drink for their leaders. Itâ€™s a form of idolatry. They worship him, and anytime anything is said against their idol, they react as if a blasphemy has been committed. Thatâ€™s why they get so upset.

I can understand how Trump appeals to the masses, to the silent majority that isn't generally well-informed. Trump doesn't have positions, he says what he thinks is best for him when he needs it. People know him from TV. But what surprised me the most about him is the number of so-called conservatives here on FR who not just blindly follow him, but rabidly attack any perceived threat to him. On a conservative website. Sigh.

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.