President Jimmy Carter's New Book

gb,

I have no idea what "dominionism" is. Perhaps this is because Im not in or from the South? No one I know of wants the church to be in charge of the government. We know where that got the world before. But neither do we want to be ignored and sidelined simply because we ARE "religious."
Especially in THIS country, where we are supposed to be able to vote according to our beliefs.

Im not talking about voting in order to get a CHURCH run country, Im talking about voting in order to see RIGHT taking place. Since we ALL have an equal vote, any one of us....including athiests, can vote any way we see fit. If the "religious right" wins, then they have the right to see the things they believe in happen. If the "liberal left" wins, then THEY have the right to see the things they believe in happen.

 

The problem(s)?

If you are pro-life,
If you are against same-sex marriage,
If you believe homosexuality is a sin,

then (it seems) you are one of these fundamentalists who are ripping America apart.

HankD

 

What rights are we taking away from non-Christians that you think they ought to have?

we have just as much right to vote according to our beliefs as they do. The non-Christian people of our country vote according to their conscience, too. This idea that it is only Christians voting according to their belief system is ridiculous. Everyone has a belief system, whether its athiest, Christian, or somewhere in between.

We have already made murder illegal. This is because those who believe its wrong to murder "won the vote". Same with all of the other rules that already exist in our country.

Christians are not trying to take rights away from those who don't believe in God. We just want OUR ideas to have equal opportunity to win in the public forum. If they are voted down, so be it. But we have the right to try, just like everyone else does.

 

Actually, that is the law. Pastors need to stick to preaching the gospel, not politicking. If they want to do that, abide by the same rules as every other PAC, including paying taxes. Otherwise, churches become an illegal dodge around campaign laws.

 

I said "political comment", MP, not endorsing a particular political candidate.
A pastor, or anyone else, has the right to give their opinion about any political issue.

 

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Carter's work with the UN, one of the most "blasphemous" organizations on the planet, and his "Executive Order" to create the "Dept of Education", which gave Government control of the "Schools", to begin the "dumbing down" of education, says more about him than any words that comes out of his mouth, or book.

 

Jimmy Carter himself said he "disagreed" with Paul concerning the role of women. In making that statement he revealed alot about himself and his view of the authority of Scripture over his own life. He simply disregards Paul's teaching and formed his interpretation that would fall in line with his political views. It should be the other way around. The fact that Jimmy didn't say Paul was wrong just that He disagreed tells me that He is a man that picks and chooses what parts of the Bible are true and also what parts of it he likes to apply to his life and the parts that he doesn't.
He seems to pride himself in following the teachings of Jesus. Well Jesus was obedient to all the Scriptures.
Jimmy Carter should serve as a reminder to all SB folk as to why the conservative resurgence was an absolute must.
Carter is just another in a long line of liberal theologian/politicians.

I firmly believe that socialism is well on its way in America so just get ready. People like Carter, the clintons along with liberal denominations are going to help usher it in. Alot of the laws that have been put in place for terrorism etc... will probably one day be turned on true christians.
As christians we are to obey the goverment until obeying the goverment demands that we disobey Scripture. Such as condoning gay marriage, abortion etc... It is people like JC and others on this board who want to view issues that are clearly presented as black and white in the Bible as "shades of gray" in our culture that are going to help in bringing the judgement of God upon our land.
Persecution will come to true christians in this country.Already both political parties hate the fact that evangelicals have such sway in elections. I'm sure behind closed doors there are plenty of republicans who loath the evangelical base that basically won Bush his elections. Without us he never would have stood a chance.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle are going to get tired of us "evangelicals" and they will begin to find ways to deal with us. We still have our rights but your living with your head in the sand if you think the ground work is not being laid to take those rights away.
One day it is going to cost something to serve Christ in this country and when it does we will find out where everyone stands.

 

Are your beliefs determined by what your parents or siblings say they should be? Mine aren't.

 

This is simply not the case. There are millions are active church members in the US that don't agree with people like Moehler and Pat Robertson. Extremists that trash great men of God like Billy Graham. Their takeover of the SBC was NOT about beliefs. It was about POWER. I'll leave it up to the Lord to judge them for what they've done.

 

Then, you've got that "great Christian President Bush" who believes that Christians and Moslems worship the same God and will find their way to heaven through different paths. How anyone who calls themself a Christian can support this charlitan is completely beyond me.

 

Straight and Narrow,

Al Moehler an extremist? You gotta be joking?
Why are you so concerned about the SBC? Seems to me the American Baptist need to get their house in order.
BTW, Billy Graham has always preached the clear Gospel message. The problem with Billy has always been his associations with the R.Catholic church which preaches the false gospel of "works salvation". The last pope included muslims into the church without having to convert to RC. Mother Teresa believed the same.
Bush is a methodist. They have some really wacked out ideas these days concerning salvation. Bush could be a victim of bad theology even though he is born again or he could think he is saved and he isn't.
I've read a book or two that pretty well documents his conversion so I don't know if he is a charlitan or not.
Just before you go claiming bush is a religous pluralist just remember that there have been alot of people that have made professions of faith at a Billy Graham Crusade that have been sent back to liberal churches that didnt preach the Gospel.
So in a since Billy Graham is only a step or two away from proclaiming that there is more than one way to heaven himself by working with so many denominations that do not adhere to salvation by grace through faith alone. BG has always preached the Gospel but he has rubbed elbows with liberals all his life never calling into question their practices that were not biblical.

 

sense not since sorry.

 

This is simply not the case. There are millions are active church members in the US that don't agree with people like Moehler and Pat Robertson. Extremists that trash great men of God like Billy Graham. Their takeover of the SBC was NOT about beliefs. It was about POWER. I'll leave it up to the Lord to judge them for what they've done. </font>[/QUOTE]I normally don't quote such long posts, but your response to mine here did not make any sense whatsoever to me.
How did my post you quoted have anything to do with someone's "takeover" of the SBC? And, since Im not in the SBC, I really have no idea who or what you are talking about anyway. The liberal MEDIA does not know nor care about all the internal differences betwixt the SBC, ABC, IFB, GARB, RCC, Methodists, LUtherans, Mormons, JWs, etc and etc and on and on. They do not see a real difference. They consider us ALL to be conservative Christians, and frankly they do not care that most of us here would object to that.

 

That would make a "Good sermon".

 

An article about dominionism can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

 

I skimmed Carter's book the other day at the store while waiting for my car to be serviced.
Even after just a cursory reading, I can see that Mohler's comments are a complete distortion of Carter's views. And Carter points this out in a reply in the Christian Post.

I think Mohler owes Carter an apology for misrepresenting him.

There's no doubt that Carter is a "moderate" or even "liberal" Baptist. But even so, he is a tremendously Godly man who has given his life in service for others.

 

So when evangelicals could not get teaching jobs at SEBTS that was about academic freedom, not power? Come now, let's not be naive here. The other side of the aisle is guilty of the same abuses.

How does a small group of men take over the SBC by a majority vote? When a man stands on the Convention floor to protest Article 1 of the new BFM and says, "After all, it's just a book" in reference to the Bible, and the entire debate floor, moderates included, stops cold and grows silent, it certainly is about beliefs. I know moderates who voted for the BFM that day because of that man's statement on the floor.

Is requiring missionaries, seminary professors, and denominational employees a new practice? No, in 1969 Roy Honeycutt and the folks at SBTS required it of their staffs. We can't help it that so many of them didn't actually believe the Abstract of Principles they signed.

On the other hand: Has the SBC exchanged one set of practitioners of nepotism for another. Yes, absolutely they have. There are many people in the SBC that feel disenfranchised by the current leadership. Their latest thing has been to castigate the Founders Fellowship churches. One wonders who or what will be next.

Bobby Welch has personally been involved in his own church's newsletter. Jack Graham has talked about "certain seminaries" teaching Calvinism (referring to SBTS), Danny O'Guinn has gone after them, Johnny Hunt has gone after them, the list grows each year at the Pastor's Conference. They are free to address those issues from their pulpits, but they are not free to violate the 9th commandment and teach their people that Calvinists believe things they do not believe, and they have no business going after "certain seminaries," when those "certain seminaries" are not in violation of the BFM or their own Abstracts of Principles. If they wish to make Calvinism the issue, they need to reread the BFM 2000 and the Abstract of Principles shared by SBTS and SEBTS. The Abstracts clearly affirm at least 3 points of the soteriological doctrines, and the BFM 2000 was intentionally read to include both views on election and regeneration in the Convention.

Are some of these men talking double speak when the ask us to do things and get on board with their programs? Yes, you bet they are. For example: -This is the profile for a major proponent of the Million Man Dunk (the Baptize a Million campaign) the current SBC President is promoting.

2001
3506 members
203 baptisms
253 other additions
2200 primary worship attendance

2002
3812 members
296 baptisms
190 other additions
2100 primary worship attendance

2003
4011 members
209 baptisms
137 other additions
2031 primary worship attendance

2004
4163 members
237 baptisms
204 other additions
1874 primary worship attendance

Consider this: To quote an acquaintance of mine that drew attention to this one his blog:

Keep in mind, the pastor of this church has the nerve to say the Founders churches are in decline based on their baptism stats and put himself up as a model church. If this is the state of the SBC leadership, there are serious problems they need to address.

More and more young pastors in the SBC are feeling disenfranchised, not just the Calvinist ones, I'm talking about many others in the conservative ranks. They tire of the backslapping of the Good Ol' Boys at the Convention every year. They are looking for substance. They want denominational officials who will do real work, like write real Sunday School material, not the useless mess that Lifeway publishes. The teachers in my own church look at me and say it doesn't teach people that know nothing anything, and these are just country folk. Many members and pastors are choosing to leave the Convention to serve independent churches. The largest SBC church here has 5000 members; but it's attendance is still down, and its begun losing members. 100 years of revivalism has given us a small reformation but left us with a cadre of nepotistic leaders and theological and practical anemia. The SBC is now even having to ask itself if its membership is regenerate.

 

Mohler has not learned anything from criticism. A man like that is doomed for failure.

I listened to his radio address and have read a large portion of the book so far and agree with you. I Emailed Mohler and asked is he has read the book and received no response.

Men like Mohler can get by with that kind of lack of integrity and scholarship because noboody holds him accountable.

 

It is absolutely false to say that those who argue against "conservative, fundamental Christians" mean those who go to church on a regular basis or vote their beliefs. In reality, there is very little difference between Moslem fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. Both define their religion in terms of a very rigid set of beliefs and values. Christ dealt with a group of people who did the same thing, the Pharasees.

Your religious rights aren't being taken away. Your "right" to impose them on the rest of society is being taken away. Actually, that's a right you never had.