Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, Aug 3, 2007.
I havent alway agreed with chuck but Ihave njoyed is writings at times. I did not realize he was part of the tinfoil hat club.
It's a growing club...membership dues are nominal. If you'd like an application send me your fax number and I'll getcha goin.
Would that Chuck Baldwin would fight for the gospel as much as for this broken country. AFter all, he is a pastor with the charge to "Preach the Word" isn't he? It is a pox on the church when her ministers are known more for their politics than their gospel. Or perhaps their politics is their gospel
"Furthermore, I believe that my devotion to God does not, in any way, contradict or conflict with my devotion to my country. In fact, my devotion to God augments my devotion to my country." - Chuck Baldwin
Would that pastors would once again fight for their country and the Christian liberty established therein, that we not live in bondage to socialistic/communistic ideology.
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." - Galatians 5:1
I believe this too. So what? The point is that Chuck Baldwin is apparently known more for his politics than for the gospel of Christ.
Where are pastors told to fight for their country and Christian liberty? I am not aware of that command for pastors. Perhaps you can find it and point it out to me.
This is typical of most pastors today who use the Bible to advance their own agenda. Gal 5:1 is talking about freedom from sin and life in Christ. It has nothing to do with politics whatsoever.
With such a glorious message of real hope to preach, why would a pastor use his influence for the false hope of the American political system?
It's the American political system that brought liberty to a people and made it so its people could evangelize the world with the gospel. You're either in favor of liberty or in favor of bondage. God help us when your political system prevails.
I do not always agree with Chuck but he has nother web site where he speaks to a great many issues in the church. His focus is not simply politics. Although I would not seperate the two as if we live dual lives. I do not remmebr the link but I believ it is called "In plain Sight" But I have seen evidence that he is not in fact simply known for his politics alone.
Thank you for that balanced observation.
No it's not. The world was being evangelized for 1700 years before the American political system came along. The ability to evangelize comes from God, not the government. Perhaps the government is God to some people, since they seem to depend on it to spread the gospel.
Probably. I am in favor of liberty.
When it does, God will be helping us because the kingdom of Jesus Christ will have come just as he promised it would.
Until then, I will cast my votes in the American political process and pray for good leaders. I won't sell my soul for it, and I certainly won't tie the gospel to the horses of Washington DC.
What of people that would desire to bring God back into its government, are you in favor of them or opposed to them?
I've seen no evidence to support your claim. You spend far more time criticizing those that would promote liberty than you do supporting them. The most rabid defenders of the Constitution you are antagonistic towards.
What value is there in praying for good leaders but not support them? Which should God apply as a priority, your prayers or your actions? Chuck Baldwin is a Christian, a patriot and a defender of the Constitution. Are you going to pray for him while you work against him or would you just see him as being a bad leader?
I am not sure how to answer since God was never in government. The God of the founders was not the God of Scripture in many cases. It was the tip of the cap to a supreme being, but not really the God of the Bible. Therefore, I am ambivalent. Furthermore, I wonder if the current state has not given us a soft church. Let's assume that God was in government in 1963 (the usual date given). How much good did that do us? That government gave us what we have.
Would not we better off depending on God for the work of the church rather than the government? The early church survived great and flourished with a hostile government. The Chinese church is flourishing with a hostile government. The American church is abysmal with a somewhat supportive government. What would be better?
That is pure and utter nonsense and you know it. I support liberty as much if not more than you do. The fact is that we disagree about the promises of God for his church. I assure you without any fear of contradiction that I support liberty as much if not more than you do.
I am not sure. You will have to ask someone who thinks we shouldn't support good leaders. I can't answer for a position I don't hold.
The question doesn't seem to make sense. Is there a word missing?
I didn't know he was a leader. I have never seen him lead anything. I am not working against him. I don't even know him except for what I have seen here. I can't help but notice in your description you don't identify him as a pastor. Isn't he one? Isn't it ironic that what should be his main calling in life is something you don't even list about him?
I think you are trying to pick a fight where there is none. You are being dishonest about my views of liberty and freedom. You are not even addressing the biblical issues of whose shoulders the responsibility for the church and religious freedom fall on. And I think that is telling.
As usual in this kind of discussion, there is a lot more talk about the First Amendment than there is about the Great Commission. That probably tells us all we need to know.
I am for Christians in government. I think we need more. I can't tell you one person in government that I know of that I would believe their testimony of salvation in Christ. So I am not against Christians in government. I simply think Pastors have a higher calling than politics. Let's not undermine the gospel by pretending we need government help or government sanction or government protection to see it work.
Well, I made an error again presuming you knew what you were talking about. Dr. Chuck Baldwin is a pastor of a Baptist church in Florida. Dr. Baldwin is a former candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States of America. He and Michael Peroutka for the Constitution Party on a Constitutional platform, foremost of which includes the tenants of freedom and liberty. Both of the positions I just cited are positions of leadership.
I kick myself for even getting into another dialogue with you, much less two on the same day. You're a socialist, I'm a Constitutionalist and the two just don't seem to mix.
Including the content of the article in the OP, you are the first to mention the word "amendment".
What a sad state of affairs. Might be a cause for pastors to start supporting Christians so that we can get them back into our government.
Christians in government is good but not the ones that have already exhibited an ability to lead a people? How might the gospel benefit if we had an actual Christian in the executive branch of our government rather than cigar "smokers" and sodomite promoters?
Will you be renouncing your 501c3 status then?
I do know what I am takling about. I knew he was a pastor. That doesn't make him a leader, particularly a leader of me. And leadership is not a position. It is influence. Baldwin may have influence in his city in Florida, and I hope he does. That doesn't really make him a leader in the nation. So we need to clarify what we are talking about. I have nothing against Chuck Baldwin except that it appears he mixes Christianity and politics.
That's an out and out lie. It is absolutely shameful.
I take the position that government should stay out of everything that the constitution does not authorize them to do.
However, it's funny how you were the one blasting Walmart for not paying enough (a distinctly socialist position), while I was the one defending the constitutional view that the government has no business setting wages. Honestly sometimes I think you take a contrary view simply to argue with me, rather than actually thinking through what you are saying. I wish our conversations could be different, but I think that would require some more careful reading and thoughtful responses on your part.
Here again, you think I am against Chuck Baldwin. I am not. My concern has nothing to do with Chuck Baldwin. My concern is with pastors who talk about politics as if the gospel depends on politics, and the church would be more successful is we had Christians in government. The greatest expansion in church history took place under a very hostile government who killed most of the people who walked day by day with Christ.
A friendly government can't do for the church what Jesus can and will. Our trust is to be Him, not the government. I am all for the government being friendly towards religion, but I am not for depending on the government as if that will be the silver bullet that will protect the church.
I fear Baldwin and some like him (even here at the BB) are too dependent on the government. If we were communist tomorrow, the church would probably be stronger almost overnight. (I am not wishing for that, but making an observation based on history.)
So please stop misrepresenting me, and think about what I am actually saying.
So? I brought it up to point out a problem that it seems that Christians are concerned about the wrong thing.
I agree. I am all for supporting Christians for government. If Peroutka and Baldwin had been serious candidates, I would have strongly considered voting for them. But they weren't. They did not have a serious chance to have an influence. I would like to see a good candidate who is unashamedly Christian.
I think ones who have already demonstrated an ability to lead people are great. Why would you think I would disagree? Are you reading what I am actually writing? It doesn't seem so.
I don't think it would. The gospel benefits from the authority of Christ in heaven and earth (Matt 28:18), not from someone in the WH.
Don't have it.
I hope you have a great night and a great weekend.
You said you didn't know he was a leader and now you're saying being a pastor doesn't make him a leader. I know we're speaking English but it really seems like we're speaking two different languages.
...and when anyone gets up and speaks this message like Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin do you stand by their side or do you criticize them?
I wish you would have read that thread more carefully as never did I advocate for gov't intervention on that issue. I find Wal-Mart and their business practices to be morally reprehensible. It's a morality issue, not a legal one.
Alright, continue to hope that this nation turns into a totalitarian state so we can all be persecuted and be sure to criticize anyone that tries to prevent this from occurring.
It wasn't relevant to the thread.
If people would vote for principles over politics they would've been serious candidates. It would sound as though you vote for whoever is the more serious candidate before you would vote for the ones that match your principles.
You said pastors shouldn't be in politics, I guess it's irrelevant now as you've indicated pastors aren't leaders anyway.
Leaders have influence over the people being led. In the case of our 42nd president you have a leader that says "oral sex" isn't "sex" so you have children thinking this to be the case. In the case of our 43rd president he's pretty much demonstrated that sodomy is an acceptable practice and so the nation follows his lead. If you had a leader who encouraged people to repent and believe the gospel, I think it might have some sway if God powered the words.
And I you.
There are many pastors who aren't leaders. They are simply hirelings showing up, talking, going home, and leading no one. Furthermore, the context was national politics, and Baldwin does not seem to be a leader in that arena.
I generally agree with them when their issue is about the constitution.
Okay, fair enough. I find them to be business people, doing what they are supposed to do. It would be morally reprehensible if they were forcing someone to work. They aren't.
See, again, this is just a silly comment. I don't hope that the nation turns into a totalitarian state. The line immediately above your statement said that. Why in the world would you lie about what I said? At least be honest with my words. When I say, "I am not wishing for that" that means that I am not hoping this nation turns into a totalitarian state. You were wrong to say otherwise.
It was relevant to my point.
To the first, perhaps. But we have to deal with the world we live in, not the one we would like to live in. I generally vote for the candidate who matches my principles closest who has a chance to win. I consider anything less to be a dereliction of duty to this country. My vote is not about me, but about this country and its future.
I think there are plenty of pastors who are leaders, and plenty who are not. I think there are great Christian leaders who are not pastors who could and should be in politics. I simply think pastors have a higher calling, a more important job.
No, we don't have children thinking oral sex isn't sex because of the 42nd president. If they think that, it is because their parents and their church have failed. Let's put the blame where it belongs. Clinton was morally reprehensible without any question. But he is not the cause of people's wrong views about sex.
Um, No. He hasn't "pretty much" demonstrated that. Furthermore, it is not the job of the government but the job of the church.
I agree. They are called pastors. If pastors would quit preaching politics and preach the true gospel, we would perhaps see a change in God's providence and sovereignty. The president is not a pastor.
I was subscribed to Chuck Baldwin's newsletters for about a year, and would still be if I hadn't changed service providers, and therefore, email addresses and servers.
Of course, it would have been easy to simply look for the link and reset my email address with them, but although I enjoyed reading their articles I find that it is rubbing me the wrong way.
Their articles and contributors do not urge to any violent action, but I am simply not made up personality-wise to protest and sign petitions. I have a tendency to go to more, uh, direct action, and that is something in my past which is already under the blood of the Lamb.
I agree that pastors should stick to what they were called to do by God, if it be so that they are called of God, to pastor a citizenry which is far better than any citizenry of any country in this fallen world until their King beckons them home.
That being said, Mr. Baldwin and his contributors, without exception, are patriots who love this country of their birth here in this plane called time, but I think Mr. Baldwin's talent for research and facts would better serve the King of kings.