Calling People to Faith

Almost all of us actually do, which is how we know; two years ago I was actually banned from one for daring to challenge conservative orthodoxy in general and protesting the belittling of Barack Obama in particular -- I mean, if you don't agree with his policies you have the right to say so, but calling the man a "socialist" is simply a slur and cannot be interpreted as anything but a personal attack.

It is equally lame for Conservative blogs to ban Liberal commentors. If the idea of wealth redistribution is not overtly Socialist or Marxist, then what could possibly qualify? I thought you would play the "it's racist" to disagree with President Obama card.

"This has absolutely nothing to do with "salvation" -- remember, many of Jesus' enemies were themselves religious zealots, the Apostle Paul being chief among them. And she's right in that the sites you visit are full of hate, which I recognize when I see it. "

What constitutes a "hate" site? It seems that merely disagreeing with Liberal assumption is an act of hate.

"I've personally witnessed that from the anti-abortion side -- 22 years ago Operation Rescue was very, very big in my city and I know personally two persons who were busted in demonstrations. But the group was self-righteous and extremely arrogant, which is why it got nowhere. "

Unfortunate example.

"And in fact, a major benefactor of conservative causes who is local to me is also a primary benefactor of Planned Parenthood. So there's not the natural linkage between anti-abortion and the right wing that you think there is. "

Any Republican who helps someone who profits from Planned Parenthood ought to be confronted. But no one can defend this morally repugnant organization and yet Liberals do on a daily basis. They cover up infanticide and statutory rape while deceiving women about the development of the unborn baby. Yeah, that is consistent with social justice.

How do you come to the conclusion that Mr. Wallis has implied he will need to rely on guns and weapons of the state to fulfill the core principles of Jesus Christ?

It is equally lame for Conservative blogs to ban Liberal commentors. If the idea of wealth redistribution is not overtly Socialist or Marxist, then what could possibly qualify? I thought you would play the "it's racist" to disagree with President Obama card.

Many of my white Christian friends didn't vote for Obama and I wouldn't call them racist, yet many white folks didn't vote for him based on that reason alone. Besides, the issue was and is not "wealth redistribution," which is just a smokescreen, but power and authority in the greater society, which many conservatives feel is their birthright and have no intention of sharing with anyone they feel is beneath them -- basically, they want the right to push everyone else around. That's why it's a miracle that more blood wasn't shed than it was in South Africa under apartheid.

What constitutes a "hate" site? It seems that merely disagreeing with Liberal assumption is an act of hate.

Not at all. The problem is that such "disagreement" is simply mindless and often based on faulty or bogus charges. In fact, many conservative organizations made their marks by demonizing "liberals" -- that is, anyone who disagreed with them even a little bit. It's one thing to disagree; it's another thing entirely to distort their opponents' views.

Any Republican who helps someone who profits from Planned Parenthood ought to be confronted.

Money talks, and this guy's got a lot of it -- over $1 billion -- and you don't even have a conservative movement in this country without him. So confronting him just isn't going to happen.

Ridiculous.

Ridiculous.

"If you're serious about working things out, then you have to admit that what you believe might be wrong or hurtful to others. If that happens, we may be able to proceed because the "liberals" have always done this."

"always"? Again, I don't think this word means what you think it means.

"Truth be told", I have never seen you be humble. But I could be wrong.

Pastor Jeff:
You asked me if this was my ultimate conclusion.........
"1 Truth is revealed to each individual through the Canonical Scriptures alone as interpreted by the Holy Spirit alone to that individual alone. "

The Scriptures are the final Arbiter of Truth. We will one day stand before God and be judged according to this Word.

I didn't just glibly dismiss Plato. I added Jesus to the Mix and chose the Word of the Creator over the words of a mere creation.

You would do well to learn the true history of "liberalism," not the cheap, watered-down version parroted on ill-informed websites and right-wing Christian media more obsessed with cultural authority. You would learn that it was the "religious left" that you so despise that built schools, hospitals etc. that actually serve the people -- and that even fought abortion back in the day. (Yes -- the left.) On the other hand, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time praised Roe v. Wade because he saw abortion as a "Catholic" issue.

BD you stated, "That's not what you said."

WHat are you refering to?

BD That's still irrelevant as far as Paul's concerned."

How is it irrelevant?

1. I try not to align myself with those who call evil good and darkness light. That's why I am a Liberal Social Gospel Christian.
2. I try not to " help others to justify the sin for which He died". That's why I work for social justice.
3. I don't "help propagate the pre-emptive murder of the fatherless, of the orphan in the womb, when we align ourselves with those who deny that the unborn have been created in the image a holy and just God?"
4. I don't "partner with those who want to persecute our brothers and sisters for remaining faithful and walking in obedience to our God?" and I suspect your definition of persecution based on other commenters of your "ilk"'s (a word not unfamiliar to you when commenting on Rev Wallis on your own page) definitions as being any sort of opposition to your agenda.

The Epistle of 1 John powerfully states that Christians ought to love one another, obey God's Commandments, and have Jesus as the proper object of faith.

1. To which a social gospel seems to have something besides Jesus as the exclusive Savior of mankind and only Lord that ought to be obeyed.

2. If your view of social justice advances gay rights then you are helping such a sin, homosexuality, become normative.

3. If you support pro-abortion absolutists like President Obama then yes you are helping to bring about the oppression of the orphan and it's pre-emptive murder in the womb. This leads to outright infanticide as well. How can Christians support those who tolerate infanticide?

4. 1-3 taken together, the advancement of a Liberal social agenda will necessitate the persecution of the Church in America. You should know your biblical history, when such sins: sexual immorality, the murder of children are tolerated it means those who oppose such sin will suffer.

BD you stated, "That's not what you said."

WHat are you refering to?

BD That's still irrelevant as far as Paul's concerned."

How is it irrelevant?

Then your Jesus is impotent and not Lord of all and I choose to reject your portrayal of Him. I am glad that He has saved your soul, however. I hope you can hang on until the rapture.

Jesus is Lord,the only Lord we ought to obey. That is why I oppose the Liberal agenda that gives the Church's mission to the State. Call the Church back to what it ought to do not plea for the State to replace it.

So God's people are free to live according to Scripture without resorting to the unbelievers, just as Paul said.

That's not what you said.

Regardless, they are all offered to devils.

That's still irrelevant as far as Paul's concerned.

"We are called to be holy and separate from the world"

Do you have a mortgage? Do you shop or dine out on Sundays? Do you have credit cards? Do you have a telephone in your home? Do you use zippers on your clothes?

Just checking on your separation quotient.

Completely missing the point. What is with the materialistic focus you have? This is about a value system focused on our standing before God as His priesthood.

Liberals attack you Todd because of your attitude.

Thanks for that suggestion. I would say it was informative and also it did maintain much spin. Not unlike say articles here written about James Dobson , Pat Robertson, or Evangelical leaders who have taken their ministry outside of the realms of bringing the Good News to bringing it into the political field from a more conservative political philospy .Christ is my Hope , and who gives us mercy and grace. Not Social Justice. Social Justice is a belief that includes government providing much more help with the poor. It is as wrong for me to condemn that belief as evil as it is when perhaps a zealous Sojourner writer takes the same bent but with opposing views.

Using the good guy/bad guy "good against evil" into the conversation. Social Justice became a dirty word in some denominations when the message of it became watered down with political alliances and support for programs that needed politicians in power who also supported controversial programs such as abortion, gay rights, Condemnation of Israel, and a host of other subjects that split denominations further apart , not closer to unity. Evangelical Churches and Universalistic Ministers walked side by side with King, those two belief systems are wide apart . I would say Sojourners would be closer to the Universalist belief system , and politically also. The article you suggested bears that opinion also.

Hopefully you will not mind me having this conversation with you , but noticed you always have a condemning statement to start every blog. Could it not be that many people who write here, who do not share your Faith but also can and do write about serious problems we face . The Church faces. That the church has allowed serious problems to be ignored . That we chose for a while to be concerned about that someone would live in Heaven and get to know Christ, but we forgot to make sure their visit here on earth was not overwhelmed with poverty and despair. But yes it does seem the organizations itself is more concerned with political unity, based on a ideological certainly that their concept of Social Justice is more important then sharing the individual teachings of Christ. People actually look at others from a point of view as do republicans and democrats so often do .

I would say this is a political organization based with people who have a religious belief system . Having that said , I don't think you need to alert people of the evil behind it , just as those who feel the need to alert people to alert us of the evil of James Dobson . I think it hurts you within your soul more then the good it does. Discernment is still alive and well in the church . The people here who support Wallis only see your comments as hateful, and those who agree with some of things you say may wonder why you do not take the time to share the positive instead of the negative . I for one could always find enjoyment with a disagreement between a brother or sister when we have Christ in common it makes no difference . Those who do not have Christ , why be upset with them acting just the way anyone would who did not have Christ in their life ? Just my two cents. I tend to stay away from those on the right or left who have my way or the highway approach . God Bless . Sorry if sounded at all like preaching .

BD you stated "Uh -- not every Christian was Jewish and thus a part of "Israel.""

In 1st century Roman Law, as well as current Roman law in this country, the right to freely contract is a vital part of God's provision for his people. Any body can agree among themselves to, in the case of a dispute, to resort to another group or body to settle their dispute. It doesn't have to be the Courts themselves. And this judgment will be recognized and honored and executed by the Courts. So God's people are free to live according to Scripture without resorting to the unbelievers, just as Paul said.

BD You also stated..... "Paul was specifically talking about food -- and his attitude was, "Go ahead and eat it because it doesn't really count." "

I Cor. 10:20 "But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils..."

He starts off making a broad statement about the sacrifical reality of the nations. The "things" is a broad term which encompasses the specific of "meat". The particular question of issue of meat in no way negates the whole body of "things" offered to idols. Regardless, they are all offered to devils.

What, not wanting to advance the sin of homosexuality or abortion? Why does the Liberal conception of social justice seek to propagate things so clearly condemned in God's Word? Why do "Liberal Christians" adopt a world view wholly foreign to Scripture, actually standing in antithesis to it? We are called to be holy and separate from the world not embrace it's values so we can see how to live the Christian life in distinction to it, not like it.

Matthew 5:33-34 "Again, you have heard that has been said of them from old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all:"

What, not wanting to advance the sin of homosexuality or abortion? Why does the Liberal conception of social justice seek to propagate things so clearly condemned in God's Word? Why do "Liberal Christians" adopt a world view wholly foreign to Scripture, actually standing in antithesis to it? We are called to be holy and separate from the world not embrace it's values so we can see how to live the Christian life in distinction to it, not like it.

PastorJeff:

When Satan offered the Nations to Jesus in exchange for worship, the response of Jesus was the Word of God, "Thou shalt have no other God's before Me." The offer was legitimate.

Is Jesus so impotent that He can't sovereignly decide to allow Satan to exercise delegated authority for the strict purposes of God. Is the fact that Satan exercises authority some sign that God has lost control of his own kingdom.

Matthew 25 sees Jesus gathering the nations before him and separating the sheep from the Goats. Jesus also talks about the wheat and the tares. Same thing. After that final separation takes place, God's people inherit the kingdom "prepared for them from the foundation of the World."

You are right about the Judgment of Satan on the cross. You are correct about "all power being giving to Jesus."

Tell me, this judgment that was rendered, when will it be fully executed against Satan? Even in Secular Courts, when a trial takes place and a judgment is rendered, that judgment is not effective immediately. It must be executed. And before that occurs, a writ of execution must be issued. So there's a time lapse between the judgment and its execution.

Jesus is no different. Yes Satan has been judged, but the execution of that judgment has not taken place yet. Until it does, we are responsible to proclaim God's message of reconciliation to a lost and dying world. We are to invite the world to enter a new kingdom.

None of this renders our Lord impotent in the slightest.

Jesus specifically commands His believers to "not swear at all".

That was Paul, actually. And that only applied, really, in the church.

Wrong -- God is in the process of doing that even now, as He is not bound by time. (Remember, you're dealing with someone who subscribes to Reformed theology.)

I'm not sure if you're responding to me or not. It didn't show up as a rep,ly on my disqus page. But I browsed thru your recent responses and didn't find anything that directly replied to me.