Great quote from First Baptist Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress, speaking to Dave Weigel:
“I think there’s now an evangelical tri-lemma,” says Jeffress, who still backs Perry but doesn’t have illusions about his current electoral oomph. “Do you vote for a Mormon who’s had one wife, a Catholic who’s had three wives, or an Evangelical who may have had an entire harem?”
Funny. But Catsmeat, you’ll need to stand me a drink at the Drones, old boy, because I am sorely vexed over how any Evangelicals, or other Christians, are willing to trust the thrice-married Fink-Nottle, who, let us remember, started the acquisition process of wives No. 2 and No. 3 while he was still married. Yes, yes, forgive seventy times seven, and all that. But to forgive someone doesn’t mean you trust them to have the character required to be president. Me, I’m far more concerned about Fink-Nottle’s slippery character regarding policy and, well, basic integrity. Why do pro-Gingrich Christian “values voters” find Fink-Nottle so much more appealing than Romney, especially given that they aren’t far apart at all on policy, and they’re both epic flip-floppers?
I think two reasons. The minor reason is anti-Mormon bigotry. They’d rather have a sleazy multiple adulterer with a messiah complex rather than a buttoned-down Mormon who as far as anybody knows has been a faithful husband and good family man. The major reason is that Newt knows how to preach a tent revival, while Romney comes off like a respectable Mainline dullard who footnotes his sermons. The people want entertainment, and fire in the belly. Simple as that. If Fink-Nottle says he’s sorry, cheap grace will rain down on him like confetti on closing night at the convention. They want to toss Obama that bad. All that stuff about Bill Clinton and bad character? Forget about it. That was then, and he was a Democrat. Newt sounds good. These credulous souls will apparently sell their good sense for a pot of message.
Are you a pro-Newt Christian? Tell me why I’m wrong. Serious, open question.
Re: JonF, it is not a coincidence that people who believe as you do so often resort to hand waving and philosophizing rather than Scripture.
I resort to the Tradition of the Church, which holds much more weight for me than Old Testament verses wrenched out of context as convenient proof-texts. And that Tradition condemned the attitude you have here– that the OT is normative for Christians as it was for the Jews. I am a member of the New Testament Church, not a member of Old Israel*. The Old Testament meanwhile, though still useful (for beautiful hymnography, for typological allegories etc.) is a dead letter for us Christians as Law. The OT pointed to Christ, but now Christ has come. In short, I do not accept Old Testament literalism of type you are attempting to argue by as valid. If I were convinced of that I would have to become an Orthodox Jew instead.
Re: Christians are supposed to view religious pluralism as a positive good
Religious pluralism is simply a fact of life that we must needs live with in this world. Sporadic attempts over the ages to ignore that fact, or worse, to overrule it by force, have led to great evils. Does the name of Torquemada mean anything to you?
And really, why should you care about the faith or lack thereof of the secular ruler? He’s here today, gone tomorrow. You will not find yourself one whit closer to salvation by being governed by a true saint, nor one whit farther from it being governed by an atheist or even a satanist. “Put not your trust in princes and sons of men in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to his dust, on that very day his deeds perish.” Remember whose kingdom is NOT of this world?
Re: As I said, the burden of proof is on you to explain to me from Scripture….
I am under obligation to accept your definitions and axioms. In fact, as I make clear above, I do not. I reject Sola Scriptura and affirm the living Tradition of the Church.
Re: You are not ariving at Enlightenment liberalism from a plain reading of Scripture
Enlightenment liberalism is a reality of our culture, as Neoplatonism was for the Church in its formative years. I reject the excesses of both, of course, but I welcome the virtues of both. And really, it is the Church’s job to transform and sanctify culture in every age. It did so with ancient Neoplatonism, and it ought do so with Enlightenment rationalism too. I am a Christian, but I am also a 21st century American. So yes, I affirm the Enlightenment virtues too. I make no bones about that.
Re: Roman’s 13 tells us that God ordains rulers
Yes indeed, and there’s no fine print about whether a non Christian ruler is valid or not. Considering who was wearing the purple at the time Paul wrote (does “Nero” ring a bell) this strongly suggests that political authority does not in the slightest require theological correctness for it to be valid and “ordained by God”.
To be very blunt here your arguments are so far removed from sound Christian thinking that I would have an easer time buying into the LDS’s take on matters than this political heresy you preach.
Re: Has God changed?
God’s essence, being timeless, does not change. God’s actions in time do change. Else the Incarnation would be impossible, else Creation itself would be an impossibility as God would be frozen forever in the moment of “Let there be Light”.
* Note: I leave open the question of whether Old Israel continues to have a special relationship with God apart from the Church. In the past the Church said No, but in recent times that No has been superceded by Maybe; it’s isn’t urgent for me to decide that question as I am not a Jew and my salvation comes from Christ not from the Law