"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More

Institute on Religion and Democracy ^ | Mark Tooley

[drstevej]

Maybe CV embraces "Love Story theology"...

"Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry."

[snerkel]

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?

[snerkel]

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.

[nobdysfool]

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)

[RnMomof7]

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?

[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. :)

[snerkel]

Is that like being "kinda pregnant"? ;)

[scan58]

These people are sex-addicts who are justifying and rationalizing their sick/unnatural behavior. They are simply in denial.

[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. :)

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)

[Cvengr]

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.

[RnMomof7]

I think so. :>)

[Cvengr]

Rev 20:11-14, also known as the book of deeds.

[nobdysfool]

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.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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)

[Cvengr]

John 3:17 is my favorite verse. It doesn't begin with 'except'!

[Cvengr]

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.

[Cvengr]

Eph 1:13

[Cvengr]

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.

[The Grammarian]

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. ;)

[nobdysfool]

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.