# Your thoughts on this?



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

http://www.bushrevealed.com/


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Sadly Adam, this is true........Bush has turned out to be a universalist (in my opinion). His stand on abortions is not truly a stand at all.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

I just can't believe that I didn't know everything on that page! I have been a hard core conservative Republican for YEARS and this has me wanting to align myself with the Constitutional Party now!

http://www.peroutka2004.com/index.php

This man truly takes a stand for Holiness!

George W. Bush has praised Islam as a great religion, celebrated Ramadan in the White House, and stated that Christians and Muslims worship the same God/god. He has appointed open sodomites to high office, including sodomite Michael Guest as the U.S. Ambassador to Romania. Bush supports sodomite civil unions. He believes there should be so-called &quot;exceptions&quot; to a ban on decriminalized child-murder (i.e., abortion), but won't fight even for that much of a ban because he doesn't believe the country and Congress is ready to ban child-murder (how's that for &quot;reckoning without God&quot; ?). Bush is a hypocrite when he and his cabinet officials call for cutting off the supply of dollars to foreign terrorist organizations like al-Queda, but nevertheless continues to fund with U.S. taxpayer dollars, America's largest abortion domestic terror organization, Planned Parenthood (Murder, Inc.), which slaughters over 200,000 unborn American children per year, by surgical abortion alone; and yet, receives approximately $100 million per year through the HHS Appropriations bill (via Title X and Medicaid) which George W. Bush signs, and the Republican-majority US House and the Republican-majority US Senate vote to approve !!

:no:

[img:46e74599ab]http://www.peroutka2004.com/images/peroutka2004_masthead_400.jpg[/img:46e74599ab]

[Edited on 6/2/2004 by houseparent]


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 2, 2004)

*WOW*

truly disappointing and eye-opening....namely the parts about abortion.

I knew of his weak stance on Islam, but dismissed it as simply ignorant of the religion.....I heard comments that could be seen as universalist from him, but also heard things like &quot;Salvation is impossible outside of Christ.&quot; I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on these issues as a misinformed, young, immature believer. 

But most disgustingly, namely because his perverse stance is so clear now...is the part on abortion. He got my vote (and was going to get my vote this fall), because I thought he was at least resolved to end Murder, Inc. (Planned Parenthood). Unfortunately, his resolve there is apparently weakened as well.

Now, the question comes up, where does my vote go?

there is no doubt that right now, he is the most likely candidate to be able to actually do something about abortion....and given the chance, I think he would (even if still allowing for certain murderous exceptions....it's still many lives saved). If he is in Christ, it's by the skin of his teeth. I have many disagreements with the man....but in comparison to anyone else with a chance at winning in the fall, he is a genuine saint!

I do not feel comfortable or confident casting my vote for G-Dub, but I find it very hard not to do what I can (namely voting for him) to end the atrocities of abortion. 

by the way, I doubt any believers in here doubt the horrific nature of abortion.....but the way I see it, America is about 7 times worse than Nazi Germany on this issue....40 MILLION government-sanctioned murders in the last 30 years.

OH Precious Lord, save our people and glorify yourself! What loathsome sinners we are 

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 2, 2004)

Yeah, it just goes to show all the more that there's an increasingly blurred line between the two major parties. Anymore, no candidate from either major party ever has much going for them.

Chris


----------



## blhowes (Jun 2, 2004)

Adam,
Thanks for the link. I've never heard of him before. Will his name be on the ballot, or will it require a write-in vote?

Do you agree with his foreign policy? He quoted something that Adams said about how we basically need to look out for ourselves? I wonder if Adams' view would have been any different if he had to deal with attacks like 911? Maybe not.

Bob

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## dswatts (Jun 2, 2004)

Yet how can anyone deny the [b:733a861e3d]fact[/b:733a861e3d] that if many Christians vote for the Constitution Party rather than for President Bush, they are handing the presidency to John Kerry? What rights will the unborn have if he is elected and allowed to appoint judges &amp; justices?

It is a difficult decision that faces us.

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## cupotea (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:860463e30e]What rights will the unborn have if he is elected and allowed to appoint judges &amp; justices?[/quote:860463e30e]

The same rights as the unborn have now. None. Look at what is happening in San Fran as we speak. A federal judge has ruled that the PBA Ban is unconstitutional and infringes on a woman's right (RIGHT????) to choice.

I firmly and fully believe that it is our duty as Christians to vote according to our faith and leave the outcome of the election to our sovereign God.


----------



## dswatts (Jun 2, 2004)

&quot;I firmly and fully believe that it is our duty as Christians to vote according to our faith and leave the outcome of the election to our sovereign God.&quot;

Amen.

&quot;Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief.&quot;

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

Every vote involves a compromise of principles.

Is the Constitution party advocating an amendment to the Constitution acknowledging the Lord Almighty? Is it prepared to expell all Muslims? Is it prepared to use the magistrate's power to enforce Sabbath laws? Will it enforce the 1st commandment? The 2nd? Does it acknowledge and confess that Biblical theology is Reformed theology?

If we're going to vote based on Biblical principles and not care about the result, let's make sure that we go the whole way.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 2, 2004)

[b:57a6e8f3ff]Dwayne wrote:[/b:57a6e8f3ff]
Yet how can anyone deny the fact that if many Christians vote for the Constitution Party rather than for President Bush, they are handing the presidency to John Kerry? 

Maybe consciences can be appeased by the idea that votes given to John Kerry by Christians voting for the Constitution Party may be offset by the votes given to Bush by those who vote for Ralph Nader.

Bob


----------



## cupotea (Jun 2, 2004)

A compromise of principles? 

I didn't say that I didn't care about the result, but as a Christian I am not responsible for the outcome of an election. That is Christ's domain. It is my duty to do what is right before God, and for the life of me I cannot see how any Christian can argue that doing right before God is voting for either major party given their overt or covert platform.

Voting for a candidate that has shown themselves to be an enemy of God by their actions, in my opinion, makes [i:4b458f0c4f]me[/i:4b458f0c4f] complicit in their sin.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:1adb706dd4][i:1adb706dd4]Originally posted by Newly Reformed[/i:1adb706dd4]
A compromise of principles? 

I didn't say that I didn't care about the result, but as a Christian I am not responsible for the outcome of an election. That is Christ's domain. It is my duty to do what is right before God, and for the life of me I cannot see how any Christian can argue that doing right before God is voting for either major party given their overt or covert platform.

Voting for a candidate that has shown themselves to be an enemy of God by their actions, in my opinion, makes [i:1adb706dd4]me[/i:1adb706dd4] complicit in their sin. [/quote:1adb706dd4]

But my point Suzanne, is how do you describe an enemy of God in this context? One who tolerates Muslims is an enemy of God in some sense. Muslims worship the devil. Does the Bible encourage that at all? So if we are talking about [b:1adb706dd4]principles[/b:1adb706dd4], then a candidate who tolerates idolatry is no more worthy of support than one whon says kind words about idolaters.

How can we on [b:1adb706dd4]principle[/b:1adb706dd4] (not on pragmatics) say that the 6th commandment is more important than the 4th? God doesn't. You have to be careful when you start thinking that God requires us to vote for one man over another solely on principle. In that vein, I can understand how you could not vote for Bush, but to vote for the Constitution party is hypocrisy.


----------



## dswatts (Jun 2, 2004)

Elder Greco!

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## cupotea (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:3fdc35e418]In that vein, I can understand how you could not vote for Bush, but to vote for the Constitution party is hypocrisy.[/quote:3fdc35e418]

I respectfully submit that I have not said anywhere that I am voting Constitution party. I have merely said that I cannot and will not vote for Bush.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

I don't know if his name will be on the balet or not, I ordered materials from them and I will keep you all updated!

I am pretty excited about it.

In the mean time check out this article:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=104


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:cb8423d6c3][i:cb8423d6c3]Originally posted by Newly Reformed[/i:cb8423d6c3]
[quote:cb8423d6c3]In that vein, I can understand how you could not vote for Bush, but to vote for the Constitution party is hypocrisy.[/quote:cb8423d6c3]

I respectfully submit that I have not said anywhere that I am voting Constitution party. I have merely said that I cannot and will not vote for Bush. [/quote:cb8423d6c3]

I'm sorry Suzanne. I should not have implied that. I was simply following what has been said by others on a dozen or so Bush threads here. I did not have you specifically in mind, except that your language on principle was helpful.

Forgive me for putting words in your mouth.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

:no:

Well, now I read that this party will grant no special privledge to Israel and they would not provide aid to them either.

Sickening!

I can't vote for a party that will ignore Israel.:thumbdown:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Adam,
Why is Israel to be treated specially?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:f8dc986cc9][i:f8dc986cc9]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:f8dc986cc9]
:no:

Well, now I read that this party will grant no special privledge to Israel and they would not provide aid to them either.

Sickening!

I can't vote for a party that will ignore Israel.:thumbdown: [/quote:f8dc986cc9]

I would vote for a party that would withdraw all foreign aid. My tax money should not be going overseas to the tune of $$$billions per year.

The modern state of Israel is a political entity, pure and simple. It has no particular spiritual significance, at least none revealed in the Word of God. In fact it holds policies and takes actions which dishonor God.

It should have no special privileges.


----------



## dswatts (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:e5c06fd3a1][i:e5c06fd3a1]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:e5c06fd3a1]
Adam,
Why is Israel to be treated specially? [/quote:e5c06fd3a1]

I also wonder why?

As I understand the Scripture, the promise of God regarding the inheritance of the land was made to [b:e5c06fd3a1]all[/b:e5c06fd3a1] the descendants of Abraham; sons of Ishmael as well as Isaac.


 tcalbrecht!!!

Grace, 
Dwayne


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

So because of that we should allow Israel to stand alone in the midst of that region?


----------



## dswatts (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:d6da07889d][i:d6da07889d]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:d6da07889d]
So because of that we should allow Israel to stand alone in the midst of that region? [/quote:d6da07889d]

No, not necessarily, but I think a lot of Christians' view of foreign policy in regard to Israel is more dispensationally driven than anything else.

Just my :wr50:

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:2171199e8e][i:2171199e8e]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:2171199e8e]
So because of that we should allow Israel to stand alone in the midst of that region? [/quote:2171199e8e]

Yes, unless we're prepared to give aid and support to every other small country in the world that experiences strife as well. But surely no one would advocate that, because, simply put, America isn't the world's police department. In my opinion, the best foreign policy is one of strong defense, free trade, and non-intervention. But even if you disagree with the &quot;non-intervention&quot; part, Israel is no more entitled to our helpful intervention than is any other small country.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

So the ONLY democracy in the midst of it's non-democratic enemies (who also happen to be our enemies for the most part) does not deserve aid?

And this is a Christian ideal?

Are we to be so afraid of dispensationalism that we take this stance?

What other small countries sit in a position even close to Israels' position?


----------



## JohnV (Jun 2, 2004)

I'm with Adam here. The history of the Netherlands is significant for me. During WWII many Dutch helped out the Jewish people, not just because they were oppressed, not just because they were singled out, but because they were dingled out for oppression because of what they stood for. They wer yet the race of God's OT people, and did not deserve that kind of treatment at the hands of man. Even if it was God's judgment, it was our Christian duty at the same time to aid. So they do hold some spiritual significance for us. 

Even on the pragmatic side, the mid-east is a strategic spot, economically and militarily; and America has no choice but to have a vested interest in things there. It is her responsibility to the world to do so. Clearly not for Dispensational reasons. 

I also don't like the idea of cutting off all foreign aid. A rich country must be benevolent with it wealth, or risk losing it providentially.

But I'm Canadian. It's not like we don't live in a glass house.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

Whew! I was getting ready to move into my cave.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:b94bbd6ea2][i:b94bbd6ea2]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:b94bbd6ea2]
So the ONLY democracy in the midst of it's non-democratic enemies (who also happen to be our enemies for the most part) does not deserve aid?

And this is a Christian ideal?

Are we to be so afraid of dispensationalism that we take this stance?

What other small countries sit in a position even close to Israels' position? [/quote:b94bbd6ea2]

Where is it defined in our constitution that the US should be the playground monitor of the entire world?

Why should we prop up an anti-Christian government on the pretext that it is a &quot;democracy&quot;? Does the fact that one pagan country has a particular form of government make it more desirable than other pagan countries with different forms of government?

I think we make too big a deal out of this democracy thing. Democracy is not the only legitimate (biblical) form of civil government. Democracy clearly does not work for certain societies. In fact several of our founding fathers warned it it was only meant for a Christian (not Judeo-Christian) people, those who could be self-governed by biblical standards (one reason why our society is failing today).

The biggerst foreign policy mistake of this country is to try and take &quot;democracy&quot; around the world and force it on other countries with the hope they will all play like good little boys.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

What about this?

Romans 15:27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things.


----------



## dswatts (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:0be8c0c10a][i:0be8c0c10a]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:0be8c0c10a]
I'm with Adam here. The history of the Netherlands is significant for me. During WWII many Dutch helped out the Jewish people, not just because they were oppressed, not just because they were singled out, but because they were dingled out for oppression because of what they stood for. They wer yet the race of God's OT people, and did not deserve that kind of treatment at the hands of man. Even if it was God's judgment, it was our Christian duty at the same time to aid. So they do hold some spiritual significance for us. 

Even on the pragmatic side, the mid-east is a strategic spot, economically and militarily; and America has no choice but to have a vested interest in things there. It is her responsibility to the world to do so. Clearly not for Dispensational reasons. 

I also don't like the idea of cutting off all foreign aid. A rich country must be benevolent with it wealth, or risk losing it providentially.

But I'm Canadian. It's not like we don't live in a glass house. [/quote:0be8c0c10a]

John, 

I didn't say that American government's reasons for supporting/defending Israel were dispensational; merely that many Christians 'no questions asked' support for Israel is driven by their dispensationalism.

I certainly agree that we should defend the defenseless, and not stand by and allow the genocide of any people, be they Israeli or Palestinian.

And I do agree that America has been blessed by God, and should be benevolent. I merely question if that entails unlimited, unqualified support of Israel, as some seem to think it does.

Just my :wr50:

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:cc1f93afec][i:cc1f93afec]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:cc1f93afec]
Where is it defined in our constitution that the US should be the playground monitor of the entire world?

Why should we prop up an anti-Christian government on the pretext that it is a &quot;democracy&quot;? Does the fact that one pagan country has a particular form of government make it more desirable than other pagan countries with different forms of government?

I think we make too big a deal out of this democracy thing. Democracy is not the only legitimate (biblical) form of civil government. Democracy clearly does not work for certain societies. In fact several of our founding fathers warned it it was only meant for a Christian (not Judeo-Christian) people, those who could be self-governed by biblical standards (one reason why our society is failing today).

The biggerst foreign policy mistake of this country is to try and take &quot;democracy&quot; around the world and force it on other countries with the hope they will all play like good little boys. [/quote:cc1f93afec]

Amen - especially with regard to your last sentence, Tom. We say we want to rescue other countries from foreign coercion, only to then try and coerce our own form of government on them.

[quote:cc1f93afec][i:cc1f93afec]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:cc1f93afec]
What about this?

Romans 15:27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things. [/quote:cc1f93afec]

But Israel has [i:cc1f93afec]not[/i:cc1f93afec] been &quot;partakers of [our] spiritual things,&quot; for they deny Christ just as much as does Islam or Buddhism.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:deb72bbf68][i:deb72bbf68]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:deb72bbf68]
I'm with Adam here. The history of the Netherlands is significant for me. During WWII many Dutch helped out the Jewish people, not just because they were oppressed, not just because they were singled out, but because they were dingled out for oppression because of what they stood for. They wer yet the race of God's OT people, and did not deserve that kind of treatment at the hands of man. Even if it was God's judgment, it was our Christian duty at the same time to aid. So they do hold some spiritual significance for us. 

Even on the pragmatic side, the mid-east is a strategic spot, economically and militarily; and America has no choice but to have a vested interest in things there. It is her responsibility to the world to do so. Clearly not for Dispensational reasons. 

I also don't like the idea of cutting off all foreign aid. A rich country must be benevolent with it wealth, or risk losing it providentially.

But I'm Canadian. It's not like we don't live in a glass house. [/quote:deb72bbf68]

The Dutch helped Jews living in their own country, or perhaps Jews that came into the Netherlands. Perhaps my history is a bit off, but I believe the principle involved did not single out the Jews because of special favor with God. I believe the Dutch would have done the same had the group in question been Mennonites. It was an application of the biblical principle of protecting the &quot;stranger within your gates&quot;. It does not matter what the ethnic or religious background of that stranger may be.

And let's make the distinction between individuals within a rich nation using their (relative) wealth to help people in other countries, which they are free to do, and the government of a supposedly rich country using confiscated taxes to help others. It's not the government's job to be compassionate with my money.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:6ee1efffcd][i:6ee1efffcd]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:6ee1efffcd]
What about this?

Romans 15:27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things. [/quote:6ee1efffcd]

Adam,

With all due respect it's called pulling a verse out of context.

Rom. 15 is speaking of gentile Christians helping jewish Christians in a specific situation. It's also speaking of the church helping its own. It would be analagous to a sending church that has fallen on hard times receiving help from a daughter church that God has prospered materially.

It is not speaking of a &quot;gentile&quot; government helping a &quot;jewish&quot; government, whatever they might be.


----------



## dswatts (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:8a5d2991e1][i:8a5d2991e1]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:8a5d2991e1]
[quote:8a5d2991e1][i:8a5d2991e1]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:8a5d2991e1]
What about this?

Romans 15:27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things. [/quote:8a5d2991e1]

Adam,

With all due respect it's called pulling a verse out of context.

Rom. 15 is speaking of gentile Christians helping jewish Christians in a specific situation. It's also speaking of the church helping its own. It would be analagous to a sending church that has fallen on hard times receiving help from a daughter church that God has prospered materially.

It is not speaking of a &quot;gentile&quot; government helping a &quot;jewish&quot; government, whatever they might be. [/quote:8a5d2991e1]

 Tom...you beat me to the punch on that one!

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

What about a Christian Nation helping a Jewish one?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Adam,
I have no problem with the idea that we help Israel because of who we are, America, as a nation. Other than that, it has nothing to do with anything else!

The question remains, is America a Christian nation?

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:4675c6a8a7][i:4675c6a8a7]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:4675c6a8a7]
What about a Christian Nation helping a Jewish one? [/quote:4675c6a8a7]

First of all there are no &quot;Jewish&quot; or &quot;Christian&quot; nations, at least not presently. There are countries where Jews and Christians live. That doesn't make the nation either.

Second, it depends on what you mean by helping.

I believe it is OK for one nation to sell aid and arms to another country that is facing attack. It would be analogous to me selling a handgun to my neighbor to he can protect his family.

I do not believe it is OK for one nation to tax their citizens to pay for the protection of another nation. A handout is not necessarily helping.

If a nation does not have the financial wherewithal to pay to protect itself, then perhaps it has no business being a sovereign nation. It could become a protectorate with ultimate governing authority being with the sponsoring nation. That way the citizens would have the full rights and privileges of the sponsor.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

Israel is not a Jewish Nation?

I am not looking for debate guys, I have just never heard that one before.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:7df7123b6c][i:7df7123b6c]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:7df7123b6c]
Israel is not a Jewish Nation?

I am not looking for debate guys, I have just never heard that one before. [/quote:7df7123b6c]

In a modern sense, perhaps. In the biblical sense, no, it isn't.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:61339e4340][i:61339e4340]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:61339e4340]
[quote:61339e4340][i:61339e4340]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:61339e4340]
Israel is not a Jewish Nation?

I am not looking for debate guys, I have just never heard that one before. [/quote:61339e4340]

In a modern sense, perhaps. In the biblical sense, no, it isn't. [/quote:61339e4340]

And even if it was, that wouldn't make it any more in line with God's will today than if it was a Muslim nation.

Chris


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

Wow, I am more confused now than I was a few posts agouzzled:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 2, 2004)

Adam, surely you acknowledge that if it's principles and not pragmatics we're talking here, a Jewish nation is no closer to God's will today than is a Muslim nation, for they both equally deny the One Christ.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

Sure, no problem there.

It just seems blatently obvious (no offense) that we should support Israel. They and their Islamic neighbors my deny Christ but Israel is the better friend and much closer to us politically.

I also happen to believe that literal Israel is to be blessed and not cursed according to scriptures. Didn't even a dumb donkey know that?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:9ceae8c670][i:9ceae8c670]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:9ceae8c670]
Sure, no problem there.

It just seems blatently obvious (no offense) that we should support Israel. They and their Islamic neighbors my deny Christ but Israel is the better friend and much closer to us politically.

[/quote:9ceae8c670]

I have no problem with supporting any political friend. That doesn't man we should give away our children's future and fortune in foreign aid to such &quot;friends&quot;.

[quote:9ceae8c670]
I also happen to believe that literal Israel is to be blessed and not cursed according to scriptures. Didn't even a dumb donkey know that? [/quote:9ceae8c670]

What do you mean by the term &quot;literal Israel&quot;? I suspect there is some baggage here that needs to be unpacked.

There is biblical Israel and there is modern Israel. The two are not the same. Biblical Israel no longer exists.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 2, 2004)

My theology will never cause me to stop backing Israel.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:c9aeb5ab84][i:c9aeb5ab84]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:c9aeb5ab84]
My theology will never cause me to stop backing Israel. [/quote:c9aeb5ab84]

But what is your &quot;gut&quot; reason for doing so? By going so far as to say, &quot;I also happen to believe that literal Israel is to be blessed and not cursed according to scriptures,&quot; you [i:c9aeb5ab84]really[/i:c9aeb5ab84] make me suspicious of there still being some &quot;Dispensational blood&quot; in you (no offense). Tell me how you collectively interpret the following verses: Matt. 3:9, Luke 19:9-10, John 8:39-41, Acts 15:8-9, Rom. 2:28-29, Rom. 4:11-12, Rom. 4:17-18, Rom. 9:6-7, Rom. 15:8-9, 1 Cor. 1:22-24, Gal. 3:7-9, Gal. 3:13-14, Gal. 3:28-29, Eph. 2:11-22, Heb. 8:13 and 1 Pet. 3:6.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Authorised (Jun 3, 2004)

Whoa. As for me, I'm a Zionist to the bone and I reject this silly replacement theology. How do you regard Israel becoming once more a nation after 2000 years in light of Ezekiel chapters 36-38?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

Aaron, would you feel comfortable calling yourself as &quot;Dispensationalist&quot;? Or would you deny that label?


----------



## Authorised (Jun 3, 2004)

Dispensationalist? Not in any sense of the word, if you mean to say that dispensationalism is where people where saved by different means throughout history. 

Can't I be orthodox and still affirm that Israel has not been swept out of the picture, as the Bible has stated?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:0f1da65fdc][i:0f1da65fdc]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:0f1da65fdc]
Dispensationalist? Not in any sense of the word, if you mean to say that dispensationalism is where people where saved by different means throughout history.[/quote:0f1da65fdc]

The word can actually have a broader meaning than that; just the tendency to view God's focus on different major groups of people to be of different natures and extents during changing time-periods, even if that focus is not necessarily salvific in nature, is considered &quot;Dispensationalistic&quot; to some extent.

[quote:0f1da65fdc][i:0f1da65fdc]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:0f1da65fdc]
Can't I be orthodox and still affirm that Israel has not been swept out of the picture, as the Bible has stated? [/quote:0f1da65fdc]

Orthodox? It depends upon what you mean by that term, and even that is an issue sometimes debated. However, while one [i:0f1da65fdc]can[/i:0f1da65fdc] interpret God's post-OT dealings with &quot;Israel&quot; that way and still possibly be &quot;orthodox&quot;, one [i:0f1da65fdc]cannot[/i:0f1da65fdc] believe that and be [i:0f1da65fdc]Reformed[/i:0f1da65fdc] in the fullest confessional sense of the word.

When interpreting passages like Ezekiel 36-38, which &quot;Israel&quot; do you take those chapters to be referring to - physical or spiritual. As shown by the verses I referenced above, there is a clear biblical distinction.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Authorised (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:c90413182b]
one cannot believe that and be Reformed in the fullest confessional sense of the word. 
[/quote:c90413182b]

Please. I could probably pick a random doctrine in which to believe and find one reformer to back me up. Perhaps we should read [u:c90413182b]Of the Jews and their Lies[/u:c90413182b] by Martin Luther for a church service. I think that would be very edifying. Or maybe we should paint the church with pictures of Satan giving birth to the pope out of the &quot;exit-only&quot; hole. After all, Martin Luther did have those drawings commissioned, and we wouldn't want our reformed brethren to miss out on that blessing. No, wait! Lets run into my &quot;Bible&quot; church at Christmastime and destroy the nativity scene! You're in good company there. 

I hereby proclaim: He that does not curse the devil while he farts is an Arminian.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:06ef73073f][i:06ef73073f]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:06ef73073f]
[quote:06ef73073f]
one cannot believe that and be Reformed in the fullest confessional sense of the word. 
[/quote:06ef73073f]

Please. I could probably pick a random doctrine in which to believe and find one reformer to back me up. Perhaps we should read [u:06ef73073f]Of the Jews and their Lies[/u:06ef73073f] by Martin Luther for a church service. I think that would be very edifying. Or maybe we should paint the church with pictures of Satan giving birth to the pope out of the &quot;exit-only&quot; hole. After all, Martin Luther did have those drawings commissioned, and we wouldn't want our reformed brethren to miss out on that blessing. No, wait! Lets run into my &quot;Bible&quot; church at Christmastime and destroy the nativity scene! You're in good company there. 

I hereby proclaim: He that does not curse the devil while he farts is an Arminian. [/quote:06ef73073f]

There's no need to get into a combattive or insulting spirit. We are here to discuss issues [i:06ef73073f]to the glory of God[/i:06ef73073f], and if we cannot do so properly, we should refrain from discussing those issues.

That being clear, I said you cannot believe God still has a special place for physical Israel today in His covenantal plan and be Reformed [i:06ef73073f]in the fullest [b:06ef73073f]confessional[/b:06ef73073f] sense of the word[/i:06ef73073f]. I nowhere said that one should agree with everything that every Reformer said. Look at the WCF, and then ask yourself if it agrees with your view of modern-day Israel. If it does not, you should be honest with yourself and others as to Reformed theology's disagreement with you on that point. As Matt said in an article of his on APM, &quot;You cannot reject aspects of Covenant Theology and call yourself Reformed&quot; (taken from &quot;What Does it Mean to be Reformed - Really?&quot; at http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm).

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 3, 2004)

Adam and All(even Scott B),
Im so glad your finally seeing what im seeing with Bush. I know and ask your forgiveness for not doing it in a gnetle way. But im glad to see your actually looking at bush not through the lenses of the christian coalition-or God only votes republican viewpoint(if that makes sense). Only god can help Bush we can only pray he turns away form sins just like I pray that God will continually turn me away from my sins as well more than likely world leaders or men of power wont tunr away from their agenda but it has happened but it is not something I would expect. All we know is that somehow God has a plan and is working it through all of us. Some of us will make it others will turn away but God will be Glorified!! I agree with Bush that God made him president of our nation. I disagree with Bush in the sense that God is using him in a different way then being that new christian leader to take back our nation from being a religous melting pot and den of adulters. I personally dont think there is even going to be an election(I know Patrick is going to  when he reads that ha ha) the only thing we can do is Love God honor our family and persevere to the end things are bad now and getting worse like not that I endorse him rumsfled said the war is just begining and it is it is.

blade


----------



## Authorised (Jun 3, 2004)

I have no problem with any part of the Westminster confession. 


Combative and insulting? I guess I'm not *really* reformed because I don't believe or do believe some things about Israel? Ridiculous beyond any measure of human comprehension.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:42cdc56c90][i:42cdc56c90]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:42cdc56c90]
Combative and insulting? I guess I'm not *really* reformed because I don't believe or do believe some things about Israel? Ridiculous beyond any measure of human comprehension. [/quote:42cdc56c90]

I'm talking about your speech like, &quot;No, wait! Lets run into my &quot;Bible&quot; church at Christmastime and destroy the nativity scene! You're in good company there.&quot; That is being sarcastic in a non-edifying way, as you continue to do in your last post. We don't need to make a doctrinal dispute a personal issue, talk in a smart-alek way, or slander each other. I respectfully ask you to stop.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Authorised (Jun 3, 2004)

Telling me I'm not reformed is not a doctrinal issue.

I'm not attacking you, I'm making light of your arguments by extending them in a logical fashion.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 3, 2004)

Guys please settle down were here to discuss together not go at each others neck keep the conversation on topic settle disputes that are not related via u2u.

blade


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:e93edbb359][i:e93edbb359]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:e93edbb359]
Telling me I'm not reformed is not a doctrinal issue.[/quote:e93edbb359]

If you look at enough past threads on this Board, you will see that yes, it absolutely is. We've even had discussions and debates here as to whether or not Reformed Baptists (of which there are [i:e93edbb359]many[/i:e93edbb359] on this Board) should call themselves &quot;Reformed&quot; or not. We've also discussed things such whether or not all credobaptists have a &quot;Dispensational&quot; streak to them. When we were discussing &quot;The Passion&quot; and its relation to the second commandment, many of us attempted to show that if one believes such images of Christ are acceptable, they are not in-line with Reformed thought on that issue. We discuss whether or not certain view's of each other's are Reformed [i:e93edbb359]all the time[/i:e93edbb359] here on Puritan Board. If you were not prepared to receive any answer, you should not have asked, &quot;Can't I be orthodox and still affirm that Israel has not been swept out of the picture?&quot; I was simply giving you my mind's answer to your question, which I still believe.

[quote:e93edbb359][i:e93edbb359]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:e93edbb359]
I'm not attacking you, I'm making light of your arguments by extending them in a logical fashion. [/quote:e93edbb359]

Challenging you on a view of yours being in-line with Reformed thought is purely a doctrinal issue, and is perfectly reasonable. It does not logically lead to the kind of speech you were making.

By the way, Blade, thanks for getting this thread back to its original topic. Since we wanted to discuss Israel's place in the world today, we should have created another thread. My apologies.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 3, 2004)

its easier to start a new thread so we dont cram in to many conversations in one topic.

blade


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

So, Blade, since you don't agree with so much of what Bush stands for, how exactyl do you plan to vote in November? Do you think the Constitution Party is a valid &quot;replacement vote&quot; instead of Bush? Do you plan to vote at all in light of the candidates?

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 3, 2004)

chris,
I may vote for the constitution party if their is an election. then again I may not vote for them. I have not made up my mind yet. I do know that bush is a wasted vote - should I vote for him just because he is there? because he breaths? no He is not a leader for america or christians and Lord willing God will raise one up.

blade

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:f55e92ca70][i:f55e92ca70]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:f55e92ca70]
My theology will never cause me to stop backing Israel. [/quote:f55e92ca70]

What good is your theology if it does not inform your actions? uzzled:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:e331b34dc0][i:e331b34dc0]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:e331b34dc0]
chris,
I may vote for the constitution party if their is an election. then again I may not vote for them. I have not made up my mind yet. I do know that bush is a wasted vote - should I vote for him just because he is there? because he breaths? no He is not a leader for america or christians and Lord willing God will raise one up.

blade

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Bladestunner316] [/quote:e331b34dc0]

I basically agree with Fred's point that if it's Christian commitment and morals that one's looking for, [i:e331b34dc0]every[/i:e331b34dc0] vote inevitably compromises - and that the Constitution Party probably has just as many things that we should consider non-Christian than does Bush, since no commandment is more important than any other, and they surely don't acknowledge the exclusive truth of Reformed theology.

And you can vote on one of two things: principles or pragmatics. If it's the former, the Const. Party will be a compromised vote just like Bush will. If it's the latter, voting for the Const. Party will obviously do nothing (pragmatically). 

I realize you didn't say you had definitely decided to vote for them yet, but I'm just re-emphasizing points that had already been made in this thread which also happen to summarize what I think about the Const. Party as well. Just my :wr50: (but not really mine!).

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 3, 2004)

I understand Its disapointing that there really is no one to vote for that can do anything. So why vote? Its like saying should I read my bible to just read my bible so that it looks like im spiritual? If there is no one to vote for there is NO ONE to vote for plain and simple. I dont see anything wrong with abstaining form voting if there is no current canidate that would justify voting for them.

blade


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:c4fd32adec][i:c4fd32adec]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:c4fd32adec]
[quote:c4fd32adec][i:c4fd32adec]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:c4fd32adec]
My theology will never cause me to stop backing Israel. [/quote:c4fd32adec]

What good is your theology if it does not inform your actions? uzzled: [/quote:c4fd32adec]

I just can't see how any theology clearly says to abandon Israel as an allie of the United States.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 3, 2004)

Check it out:

http://www.conceptwizard.com/conen/conflict_2.html

This is why I support Israel


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 3, 2004)

houseparent,
Israel today is a whore baal worshiper we shouldnt abandon them in an evangelistic sense but to join with them is purley wrong.

blade


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 3, 2004)

Our Nation is a Baal worshipping whore as well in my opinion. But I am not going to set sail to find a new land.

And if you want to talk abandoning Israel I am going to need to see some scriptures that would support such an idea.

[Edited on 6/3/2004 by houseparent]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

Adam, another thread was already started for the purpose of continuing this discussion about Israel. We should keep this thread to its original topic. You have a U2U I just sent you.

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 3, 2004)

Where? Theology?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 3, 2004)

show me in the ohter thread scriptures that tell us to support a whore? or the wicked?

why is israel so freeking important????

why not sudan,ethipia,norway,antartica????

blade


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

Here: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4910. BTW, if you hadn't ever used this feature before, the &quot;Today's Posts&quot; link at the top of the page is always the best way to keep up with various discussions.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:81524a9d27][i:81524a9d27]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:81524a9d27]
Check it out:

http://www.conceptwizard.com/conen/conflict_2.html

This is why I support Israel [/quote:81524a9d27]

Adam,
What does this prove. OK, I will grant you this, it is sad. But no sadder than the plight in Haiti or the sin that occurs in parts of Africa.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Jun 4, 2004)

I don't see a Biblical need to defend Israel. They do not need our help. They are tough soldiers, they've survived so far.

Perhaps I see a historical pseudo-reason to resolve the situation, what with the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration. Why Britain saw a reason for an Israel is beyond me; maybe they were afraid of the Zionists or something.

I'm developing a wonderful &quot;Hey, I don't care&quot; attitude towards politics (I've always cared, so this is fun new territory). But Israel needs no economic or military aid. They are industrialized about a bajillion times more than their neighbors, and guess what they picked to specialize in...weapons manufacturing.

America has a pretty unethical history of &quot;promoting and defending democracy.&quot; Usually it's because we don't appreciate how cultural our democracy is, and we're eager to force an American system on other nations.

I don't want to sound relativistic about politics, but you can agree with me that the Republic of the United States of America in the early 1800s was more of a true republic than what's governing now. Our Republic has an American flavor. It tastes pretty bitter.


----------

