Pastor endorses McCain from pulpit

Wow, sounds like the opposite of my sermon except I described the conservative view as the pathway to hell ... :thumbs:

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

Yet another liberal lie.

 

Aww but see? I believe the government is doing plenty for the hungry sick and afflicted. Most of the ones who dont take advantage of a government program for housing, education, or mental rehab are addicts or alcoholics, and dont want the help anyway. they will take a check so they can buy more drugs or booze, but they dont want any structured responsibility, thus they stay destitute.

It is the church's job to go out and witness to the destitute, not the government.

However, even though your idea of the conservative view as being the gateway to hell is strictly a MATTER OF OPINION.....the liberal view of promoting abortion and gay rights is strictly against biblical doctrine, and as a pastor even you have to admit that.

When it comes to opinion or biblical doctrine, I will choose the biblical doctrine any day.

AJ

 

Well, let's see.

1. Your usage of this passage is incorrect covenantally--this is the Judgment of the Nations just prior to the Millennium, where the nations (ethne, ethnic groups) are judged based on how they treated Israel during the Tribulation.
.
2. The passage has nothing to do with the actions of governments, it has to do with the actions of individual Gentiles.

3. There are NO instructions to secular government found in the Bible, except a requirement to keep order and punish evil doers (Rom 13:1-8).

4. There are many instructions given to individuals and the churches, such as: 2 Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.

Conservative churches and individuals give far more to charity and helping the poor than do liberals. Conservatives believe in voluntary giving where there is moral oversight. Liberals believe in confiscation of the money of others to give to whose over whom there is no oversight.

Any professing Christian who supports a politician who stands for Gay Rights and the murder of infants needs to check out his salvation.

As with Obama, who proclaimed that he would rather "follow the Sermon on the Mount" than "some obscure passage in Romans), those who say such things reveal that they know neither the Scriptures, nor the power thereof.

 

Add to this the poor stewardship of funneling money through governments. Very little of the money actually gets to the needy.

 

but still Rev, there is government help if the person qualifies, and if they accept the oversight that goes with it. The conservatives have never denied helping folks out, but they have fought against folks using the system to live off of indefinately.

AJ

 

MajorB, I'd still like to hear your thoughts on the constitution's intent when it comes to seperation of church and state.

AJ

 

Conservatives never condone government entitlement programs. And those on the Republican side who do are not conservatives.

 

Amen, Amen, and AMEN !!!!!!!

Yup. Sounds like he should write a translation.

 

You crack me up, we are the government. Your vote and support for elected officials gives you a voice that is heard at the capitol.

Can't give what you don't have. If you have more you can certainly give more, I don't doubt that.

Witht his standard we can't vote for any candidate. All are guilty of something that is anti-biblical and to say one is worse than another so I can support the lesser of the evils is hypocritical.

He won't get my vote for Pastor or spiritual leader but what does this have to do with being President. I voted for Bush, he is no biblical example of Christian living either.

 

So now scripture is my opinion. My text clearly said those on his left saw me hungry and gave me no meat. I take that as no meat giving no right hand standing.

I didn't make this a liberal or conservative sermon, my congregation has both. I simply taught scripture regarding the patch way to hell. This passage seems fairly clear to me. Not sure why it would offend so many to see scripture.

And for the record, I did preach this as personal accountability which I believe surfaces in all aspects of onces life. I don't believe a Christian should have a world view except that they believe in Christ. After that, your world view is found in his word. What we get held accountable for is how we taint HIS world view with OUR world view. (I am not talking salvation)

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Sounds to me like the left with be the right and the right will be the left come the judgment... (just kidding, thought it was strange irony though).

 

No no....I am sorry if I misstated what I meant. Scripture is scripture, and I never meant to imply that you consider scripture as opinion.

What I mean is that your idea of conservatives not living up to the biblical instructions to take care of the needy is your opinion. Your taking that scripture and applying it to conservative views as the gateway to hell is strictly your opinion. I think they give every oppurtunity possible for a person to better themselves, and this doesnt violate any scripture. That is my opinion, and you have yours.

However, the liberal promotion of abortion and gay rights is NOT a matter of opinion. The Bible plainly opposes these issues, and the Dems boldly promote them. This is based on fact, not opinion.

And like I said, I will take biblical truths/facts over man's opinion any day.

AJ

 

It's not "against the law" for a pastor to endorse a candidate from the pulpit.

 

The word "conservative" in my initial statement was not a direct quote from my subject. However, it is a common conservative view point to do nothing for his fellowman in need but he instead condemns his fellowman for being in his predicament. I guess it's a matter of opinion of that is right or not.

 

It's questionable that all churches are non-profit. Maybe technically they are, but there are plenty where the pastor lines his pockets with the tithes. Think of those "pastors" who own Lear jets (I think Benny Hinn maybe Copeland), mansions (Joyce Meyer) and others.

 

Has it occured to you that every one of the examples you gave are "word of faith" false teachers that are in the "business" of religion to make money?

They are not the usual example of someone pastoring a church. I dont know of any pastors in my town that are in it for the money, though there may well be.

AJ

 

We had a local mega church pastor who chastised his parishioners for having to give up his jet.

They are raising money now to get his jet back. What's even crazier, they sent a letter to our church asking us to donate.

In the spirit of Christian love I started to take up a love offering explaining fully what it was for then sending them an empty envelope stating this was what we collected for their cause. My wife has told me I have to stop doing stuff like that because I don't make a lot of local ministers very mad.

 

Yes, I know they are Word Faith teachers. But they are still counted as ministers and their churches are still churches in the eyes of the IRS, false teachers or not.

But I've digressed from the OP.

 

Again, our church takes no second place to taking care of the poor. But certainly murdering an infant must be seen for what it is.

 

The intention of the first amendment was never to restrict the church, but to keep the government out off the church. It takes a tortured reading of the first amendment to the constitution to cut off free speech from ministers only!

Separation of church and state is a term never used in any official document of the United States until 1947, when SCOTUS, desperately looking for a "hook," dug up a two-paragraph note from Jefferson to the Danbury (CT) Association of Baptists who had written complaining about paying TAXES to the state of CT to support the established Congregational church. In that note, Jefferson used the term "high wall of separation," and it sat frozen in history until 1947. Despite his words, Jefferson did NOTHING to change the CT situation. The Congregational Church in CT was not dis-established until 1841, when the CT legislature voted to dis-establish it.

History is my profession--National Board Certified Teacher (History)

The Constitution does not mention "separation of church and state." What it says, plainly, for anyone who understands the language of he day is to forbid Congress from establishing a government-operated and government-sponsored denomination.

The only other direct mention of religion in the constitution is in Article VI, section 3, which forbids a religious for public office.

Nothing in Jefferson's letter in any way prohibits or even limits religious people from expressing their faith in any context, especially in questions of moral importance. All such usages are the result of an invention of SCOTUS in Everson v. Board of Education.

Without being tedious, let me give one example which should transmit a more accurate picture of even the most liberal founders. Thomas Jefferson permitted the largest church in DC to meet in the chambers of Congress, and he authorized the USMC band to play for the services. James Madison did not vary from the practice, which continued almost up to the Civil War. Imagine someone suggesting that today!