An Election Night Open Forum

Bart Barber,

Brother, I highly respect your thoughts on the issues. I hope that you will understand that there will be less abortions under the Dems.

Again, Jess, that is wishful thinking. The Democratic party passionate in its support of the murder of babies in their mothers’ wombs. You can justify it and rationalize it, but no matter how often you say it, it will still not be true.

The Democratic Party is enthusiastically supportive of killing babies in their mother’s wombs – passionately!

NOTE: I edited this comment because it gave an impression I did not intend to give. Not all Democrats are passionate supporters of abortion. But the party is. I made this comment late last night. My focus was on the party and its platform, but the way I worded it gave the idea I was making a blanket judgment on all Democrats. That was not my intent, and to avoid further confusion, I have edited my comment.

I stand by my intended point. The Democratic party has become the party of abortion – passionately and enthusiastically. That is, in my judgment, heinous.

“Democrats are passionate supporters of the murder of babies in their mothers’ wombs.”

That’s the kind of talk that people make online but won’t so outloud face-to-face. I bet you wouldn’t go up into your friend Dwight McKissic’s church and make such a statement outloud.

Your comment is just one example of why your denomination, the denomination you serve as 2nd Vice-President, will forever struggle with racial inclusion and achieving ethnic diversity.

8-in-10 minorities yesterday voted for Obama and close to that percentage will continue to vote for Democratic candidates in the foreseeable future.

A very significant percentage of those 8-in-10 minorities are regular church-goers, they are Christians. You can live in SBC Republican lala land and continue with the rhetoric. But don’t kid yourself, your rhetoric and your attitude towards people who vote DIFFERENTLY than you do is one important reason why true racial reconciliation and ethnic diversity is highly unlikely.

Racial reconciliation need not support the murder of babies.

I don’t support the murder of babies, sir. Again, that’s the kind of talk that people feel comfortable saying online but not in the real world, to real people, to the 8-in-10 minorities who voted for Obama, many of which are Christians and perhaps attend your church or churches like yours unless of course you live in some all-white GOP enclave.

BDW,

Why would I mind telling people face-to-face what abortion really is, whether a minority or not?

I don’t care about the Democratic Platform. Quite clearly, Romney didn’t care about the Republican Platform either as his positions diverged on several points.

You seem to be missing the point though.

8-in-10 minorities, 93% of African-Americans supported Obama and most are consistent supporters of Democratic candidates. When you characterize those people at being passionately supportive of abortion, how do you think that rhetoric and those characterizations help with your reconciliation/diversity goals?

Is that rhetoric a hindrance or a help? Nobody is asking anyone to change their position on any issue. But there is a clear fundamental lack of understanding. If you really and truly understood people who vote differently from you and how they approach issues differently from you, then I suspect your rhetoric and overall attitude would be different.

And yea, I hear you saying you meant to refer to the Party not the People. Great. But, you’ve also repeatedly stated here that you don’t understand how any Christian could vote Democrat.

Maybe you should go to a predominantly African American church like McKissics and seek some understanding. I don’t support killing babies. And I’m confident that McKissic’s parishioners don’t either.

But don’t kid yourself, the rhetoric, the broad-sweeping assertions and lack of understanding is a definite hindrance to achieving those important goals. And rhetoric on issues from abortion to immigration to social programs do have implications on your reconciliation/diversity pursuits.

BDW,

1. Abortion is what it is, and it is a major part of the Democrat platform. Those who support candidates who uphold the Democrat platform support candidates who uphold the murder of babies. Again, it is what it is.

2. Ditto on homosexuality.

3. Racial reconciliation does not come with a loss of conviction. If a group – any group – supports people and policies that directly go against God’s commands, they need to be called on that.

4. Racial reconciliation is a two-way street. Minorities who support Obama need to understand why many of us do not. They need to recognize it is not a race issue.

I acknowledge your clarification. But I question the significance of such clarification when you have repeatedly asked how a Christian can vote Democrat.

Yeah, if Dave ever said he cannot understand how a Christian can vote Democratic, I agree. I cannot understand how anyone who is a follower of Jesus can help put in leadership those of a party whose party is on record for and in fact has legislated for slaughtering babies, in the womb and outside the womb (BHO).

Someone help us understand that.

So, Jess, you’re promising that we’ll only murder 100,000 babies a day instead of 115,000 while pretending that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that?

You’ll understand my not being impressed by that accomplishment even if it were true, and we both know that it is not.

BDW, you must be hungover from post election celebration. What has race to do with anything about abortion? The democratic platform reads on abortion, “We strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
As believers we oppose abortion. I would tell Dwight and any person, regardless of race, the democrats do support the murder of millions of babies in the womb. ITS IN THEIR PLATFORM!!! If you support them you support abortion. That cannot be debated. Now, for you to take this opportunity to attack Dr. Barber and the SBC on racism are the actions of a coward. However, let me be clear on behalf of the entire SBC, if I may, if we must support abortion in order to diversify we will never be diverse. I was just looking at some pictures of our disaster relief teams ministering to all people on the East Coast after Sandy. I bet you those people of color think we are pretty special.

Well, first, I reject the notion that you get to determine what can or cannot be debate. I’ll respond further if you care to engage with the substance of my point, which was a reply to Dave Miller.

To restate, my point was that the SBC is going to continue to struggle with racial reconciliation and ethnic diversity as long as leaders use a rhetoric that makes broad-sweeping assertions about PEOPLE (including 8-in-10 minorities, many of which are faithful Christians) who voted for Obama, who are Democrats, who vote for Democratic candidates.

BDW, do you suggest that a person can be opposed to abortion and a supporter of the democratic platform? The platform states plainly they strongly and unequivocally support Roe V. Wade. As to engage your point, the democratic party does not equate with minorities. When a person attacks the Republican platform I do not feel that white people have been attacked. To attack the democratic platform is not racism. How should we as believers who oppose abortion speak of abortion, “We oppose optional treatments that mothers choose to have preformed while pregnant which terminate their pregnancy.” We should be careful to how we word things but abortion is murder and ALL who support the democratic platform are helping these murders continue.

dean wrote,

“if we must support abortion in order to diversify we will never be diverse.”

Amen!! Whether the SBC or any other denomination. If anyone places a higher priority for racial reconciliation over stopping or attempting to stop the slaughter of the unborn, well that is pathetic. A beating heart is immeasurably more important than repairing hurt relationships…all day long.

Democrats support abortion on demand. Democrats support abortion as part of gender selection. Democrats support abortion as part of genetic purifying (ie abort kids with DS, Autism, ect). For goodness sakes, Margerate Sanger (a liberal democrat) started Planned Parenthood and started the modern abortion movement in order to abort/sterilize the “undesirables” aka blacks, poor, ect. Further, it is liberal democrats who support the consept of “free love” and open promiscuity. The more society thinks that premarital sex is open and natrual, the more abortions are going to go UP, because more and more kids at younger and younger ages will be “fooling” around, get pregnant, and thus get abortions.

If you think this is ever going to change, you are very mistaken.

For the record, I should have begun my comment with “The Democratic Party” and not “Democrats.” Of course, there are democrats who are not passionately in favor of abortion.

However, they support a party that demonstrated at its national convention that is enthusiastic and passionate about the process – which I find heinous and wicked beyond words.

Amen, Bart.

Frank L,

“Sounds melodramatic”? Not at all. You are not overstating the case.

But that Divine opposition is already due. The whole world is killing children (created in the image of God) upon a godless philosophic basis. There is no other land to which we may go in hope of safety.

I know you, brother. You will rise and live the life to which you are called.

No argument on that, Job. Legislators on both sides of the aisle need to wake up to the realities we all face. But so does the leader of our nation. I just don’t think that the president should see his re-election as a free pass to continue on the current trends. If his policies were all that popular, he’d have a much wider majority than he did. He has a big job to do, and now he’s a lame duck. He promises to reach across the aisle, and says that he got the message that people aren’t happy with the first 4 years. I hope he does well, and I will pray to that end.

They got Saul because God appointed Saul. God set him in place.

1 Samuel 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”
6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. 22 So the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”

As I said, having a King was not what God wanted for Israel….but, He gave them a king, due to thier REJECTING what He wanted for them….God gave them a King, which He figured they would want…a tall, good looking fella, who would look good on a horse, and sitting on a throne….but, he was a terrible king….

David

David,

Yes, Israel had a sinful desire, but that does not lessen the force of what Paul tells us in Romans 13: it is God who establishes authority – as in, the position and those who hold it. Whatever their sin, it was God who raised up a king and appointed Saul in particular. You say God gave them the king “which he figured they would want” when the text itself doesn’t tell us that. It simply stresses that God chose for them to have a king, and God chose Saul to be that king (ie, 1 Samuel 10:1 and surrounding passages).

Chris,

The point is….that God did not want them to have a King. That was not His desire for them. They rejected what God wanted for them. And, Saul was not a great leader. God gave the people what they wanted….to judge them.

I still believe in the sovereignty of God.

David

Tim,

Has John argued anything along those lines elsewhere? As in so many areas of life, there is a bit of mystery around the placement of our leaders. Although we vote for our leaders, the Bible remains clear that God ordains people to positions of authority. This is true whether Pharaoh or emperor or president. That’s one reason we can find comfort on a day like today. It doesn’t lessen our responsibility, our call to live and act in responsible, godly ways, but it does remind us that God has a reason for having appointed Obama to the presidency.

So now the truth comes out! Obama’s re-election is a part of the vast Calvinist conspiracy to take over EVERYTHING.
🙂

Tim,

Forgive me when I just believe that the powers that exist are appointed by God, I don’t know where I could have come up with such an idea.

Thanks Dave and Chris,

I draw great strength in knowing that God is working out His own kingdom purpose in all of this. Nebuchadnezzar learned that the LORD God reigns in the kingdoms of men. I read that somewhere too.

So, yall think that God wants us to have evil kings and leaders? Do yall think that God wants leaders to murder people like Hitler, Hussein, Stalin, etc? Does God want us to have leaders, who believe the murder of babies is okay?

I dont think so….no, I know that God is sovereign…and God can do whatever He wants to do….He could take a President, or any leader out, any time He chooses to do so. God could intervene and do whatever He wants to do in a country. BUT also, God allows us to choose…..

David

David,

Who put Pharaoh in power, giving him the authority to kill the children of Israel and oppress the people? Who put the emperor in power when Paul wrote his words in Romans 13, even as they had already known persecution from the hands of the Romans? Who is behind the rise and fall of nations, the lifting up and bringing down of kings? It is all in God’s hands.

David: God chastises with evil rulers. God specifically told Pharaoh He had raised him up, and no one doubts that Pharaoh was evil. He used Cyrus, and Nebuchadnezzar to both chastise and protect his people. Yes, America freely chose Obama. And yes, God has even worked Obama into His plan. Did He not also use Judas?

David, just read Habakkuk. Crystal clear brother.

Just to make it plain:

“Look among the nations, and see;
wonder and be astounded.
For I am doing a work in your days
that you would not believe if told.
For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
that bitter and hasty nation,
who march through the breadth of the earth,
to seize dwellings not their own.
They are dreaded and fearsome;
their justice and dignity go forth from themselves.
Their horses are swifter than leopards,
more fierce than the evening wolves;
their horsemen press proudly on.
Their horsemen come from afar;
they fly like an eagle swift to devour.
They all come for violence,
all their faces forward.
They gather captives like sand.
At kings they scoff,
and at rulers they laugh.
They laugh at every fortress,
for they pile up earth and take it.
Then they sweep by like the wind and go on,
guilty men, whose own might is their god!”
(Habakkuk 1:5-11 ESV)

DAVID, you wrote:
“Yes, God in his wisdom and authority permitted a monster like Hitler to come to power. When his purposes with Hitler were over, he brought him down. ”

what were those purposes, DAVID ?

Then why vote? Why do anything. If you are going to push God’s sovereignty to such limits why not be consistent and go sit on a stump by Walden’s Pond?

God also allows us to reap the bitter harvest of our own “free choices” (not choosing also being a choice). As David points out, Samuel 8 makes it clear that God’s sovereignty does not relieve man of his responsibility.

I’m changing my message for this week to preach on that passage. What happens when we exercise the gift of free-will in the political arena?

I fully believe in God’s sovereignty but think it is often used as an excuse for shirking one’s responsibility.

You believe in God’s sovereignty – but deny its implications? Not even implications, but the clear teaching of Scripture as found in passages like Romans 13:1-2?

Dave,

I dont doubt, at all, that God can raise rulers up, or tear them down…whenever He so chooses to do so.

God also lets us make choices…..sometimes, to judge us….to get what we want and deserve…

David

David,

Where is human choice presented in Romans 13:1-2? Does Paul equivocate? He makes a rather absolute statement – all authority is established by God, and those holding authority have been ordained by God. Paul writes this about the Romans who had already been killing Christians.

Thus says the Bible, thus we must believe if we hold it to be true.

Dave,

In Romans 13:2 it says, “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

If someone sinned (broke the law) in your congregation and confessed it to you (not murder) and the law required you to turn them in, would you?

I say Nay, depending on the circumstances.

CB Scott,

Thank you for your “opinion”.

Chris, If we look at one spot long enough, we get to the point that we think there are no other spots anywhere else. The fact is there are spots everywhere.

I have no idea what you just said…?

Think about it Chris, The President is more than qualified. But we have stared at the spot for so long, we have lost touch with the real objective. Win souls to Christ.

The president has disqualified himself many times over, but what spot have we stared at? And the real objective is bringing glory to God, part of which is done by sharing the gospel of Christ. Another part is being faithful in all areas of life, including our citizenship. Supporting presidents whose policies actively wage war against God is not a way to be faithful in citizenship.

Chris,

I say it’s wageing war against God to say Jesus has a brother named Lucifer. When I was in the voting booth, my ink pen moved over to Romney, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him, I tried, but could not. I then moved my pen over to the President, I didn’t feel near as bad, so he got my vote.

It’s wageing war against God for people not to have health insurance and die early.

It’s wageing war against God, when 73% of all the women who have abortions claim religious affiliation.

It’s wageing war against God if we as a church don’t get our house in order.

Jess,

I know it is futile for me to respond. You are not interested in reason. But I’m a futile sort of fellow, so here goes, even though you have been corrected on most of these points many times already.

“I say it’s wageing war against God to say Jesus has a brother named Lucifer.”

Absolutely. But I wasn’t voting for Romney’s religious views. Under Obama, I will be forced to contribute to the murder of babies. Under Romney, I would not be forced to contribute to Mormon ideology.

“When I was in the voting booth, my ink pen moved over to Romney, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him…”

What silliness is this? I can recommend a few doctors if you are worried about the medical condition that restricted the movement of your hand.

“It’s wageing war against God for people not to have health insurance and die early.”

How? Why? Where do you get this from the Bible? No one has a right, God-given or otherwise, to receive health insurance. I have no health insurance. None. This despite some rather concerning heart issues that may well lead to my early demise. Nonetheless, I do not feel it is the government’s responsibility to give me health insurance. In fact, Obama’s policies are going to greatly increase the burden on my family. I have no idea how I’m going to pay for the coverage Obama now says I have to get.

“It’s wageing war against God, when 73% of all the women who have abortions claim religious affiliation.”

Absolutely. And those women will be held to account.

“It’s wageing war against God if we as a church don’t get our house in order.”

How do you recommend we “get our house in order”? By voting for a president who rips the Bible apart every chance he gets? I believe the president is an act of judgment on this nation. Perhaps your view is Christians should be helping to bring that judgment on us by voting for it?

On the other hand, as for that 73%, as you have been repeatedly told, the statistic is irrelevant when the majority of the country claims religious identity of some kind yet is clearly not Christian. The problem is not “our house” but people who completely miss what it means to be a follower of God.

“”” I didn’t feel near as bad””””

I just don’t understand how a pastor can make such a statement.

Am I missing something. “Feelings” have nothing to do with what is true, or right, or noble.

Talk about waging war: Obama has demonstrated time and time again an animosity toward religious rights in nearly any venue that these could be considered.

To say that Romney is somehow “waging a war against God” and Obama is not simply pushes the idea of credibility to a breaking point.

“I am fairly confident that far more voted for him because of color than against him because of color.”

Chris, how do you know this? What fact or factors do you base this assertion on? John Sununu(sp) said Colin Powell voted for or endorsed Obama because of color. Powell gave 4-5 solid reasons–none having to do with color–to support Obama. Why do you believe that persons who voted for Obama had 4-5 valid reasons for doing so, rather than to think they did it because of color? Do you think Whites voted for Romney because of color?

Chris,

Why do you not believe that persons who voted for Obama had 4-5 valid reasons for doing so, rather than to think they did it because of color? (I worded this question incorrectly in the earlier comment.)

Dwight,

Simple percentages, if nothing else. When 93% of an ethnic group votes for the candidate of that ethnic group, they aren’t voting that way because they have 4 or 5 good reasons, particularly when considering policies and such. For instance, many African Americans take firm stances against homosexuality, and yet the most radical gay rights president yet still gets 93% of their vote? The same candidate gets 40% of the white vote. That gives a pretty good indication as to which direction race considerations ran.

Your response is weak.

88% of African-American voters cast their vote for John Kerry in 2004. Last I checked, Kerry was rather white.

Obama gets 93% in 2012.

Keeping in mind that 53% of Hispanics voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama earned 71% in this election, does that 5% bump from Kerry’s 88% to Obama’s 93% really have to do with RACE?

Your comment is based on nothing but assumptions.

Why not make the same assumptions about white people voting for the white candidate? Inconsistent just a bit? That inconsistency says more about you and the thinking behind your assumption than it does about the voting behavior of African-Americans.

BDW,

I admit much of this is based on assumption, but not “nothing but”. Consider all the lovely racist statement flying around Twitter, including trending the phrase “f*** white people” as a celebratory message following the election. Nothing to do with race?

As for going the other direction, again, look at the percentages: 40% of the white vote went to Obama, not <7%.

Dwight,

I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at, but it is very clear that Obama’s coalition was a coalition of color.

I’m not saying that is good, bad or in between. It is just a fact. Even Hispanics that normally are very socially and economically conservative, voted in large numbers for Obama.

Color was (and is) a major factor in the changing landscape of American politics. Obviously, factors other than the economy (Obama has been obysmal) and foreign policy (Benghazi less than a month before the election) drove the electorate.

Color is a huge asset to Obama it seems from the polls and statistics.

Again, I’m not sure if you are making an argument against Obama being supported because of his color or not. It certainly is a factor though definitely not the only factor.

Al Mohler’s piece on the BP today outlines the changing landscape of American culture and politics. It does not bode well for old, white Americans.

I am white, but refuse to be old.

Dwight,

I’m fairly sure there were some who voted form] Romney because he is white. I don’t think there is polling asking people of any race if they cast a race based vote.

But anecdotally I know a few who voted for Romney because he is white. I know many blacks who voted for Obama primarily because he is black. Several FB friends of mine boldly proclaimed today that “there president is black!!”

It is naive to think that a 90% or so black vote for O is not largely based on race. Besides, what else could explain so many blacks voting against their own best interest?

Chris, Did you realize that Anglo Democrats who ran for president also got 90% + of the Black vote? Every since JFK, 90% of the Black vote has gone to the Democrat Presidential candidate who was always a White male prior to President Obama? So do you want to now give another reason for this unsubstantiated allegation? When Blacks like Colin Powell lists 4-5 reasons for supporting President Obama and you and others dismiss those reasons and say it was because of race, do you realize how offensive that potentially is? Les, When you say that Blacks are voting against their own best interests, do you realize that you are saying that you are more capable of determining what’s in their best interest than they are? Do you really believe that? Chris, you are right: the polls indicate that the majority of Blacks are strongly against homosexuality. But given Mitt Romney’s sketchy history on this subject, were Blacks going to trust him on this issue? No!!!! Given the fact that Mitt Romney was a Bishop and State President in the Mormon Church all the while the Mormon Church practiced and openly taught racism(and there is no record that he ever objected to the teaching or practice), do you think Blacks were going to vote for Romney to preside over and manage any racial matters this country might face? No!!! Mitt Romney would not disavow existing racists teaching in Mormon “sacred texts.” And Blacks seriously were expected to vote for him? No!!! Mitt Romney spoke twice in a very insensitive and careless manner and attitude toward the poor. And the poor were suppose to vote for him? No!!! I have church members who are employed by GM. Mitt Romney said, “Let Detroit go bankrupt”; and GM employees were to suppose to vote for him? No!!! It was his comments about GM that caused him to lose Ohio, thus the election. My point is just because Romney now says he’s opposed to same-sex marriage, that simply was not a good enough reason for Blacks to vote for him. The notion that Blacks voted for him because of race is offensive, demeaning, condescending, and displaying a racial attitude toward Blacks. Why can’t you accept the fact the stated reasons are the legitimate reasons for voting for President Obama, just as in every other election the stated reason Blacks voted for the Democratic Presidential… Read more »

Dwight, my brother and friend,

There were no/none/not one, as you say, “valid reasons” to vote for the president to be re-elected, mush less 4 or 5.

And that statement has nothing/ not diddlie-squat to do with race.

Dwight,

“When you say that Blacks are voting against their own best interests, do you realize that you are saying that you are more capable of determining what’s in their best interest than they are?”

For instance the rising unemployment rate under Obama. Yes, I think I can make that determination…that unemployment is not in their best interest.

To Chris you said, “I have church members who are employed by GM. Mitt Romney said, “Let Detroit go bankrupt”; and GM employees were to suppose to vote for him? No!!! It was his comments about GM that caused him to lose Ohio, thus the election.”

That’s one of the many mischaracterizations about what Romney said. He didn’t say he wanted them to go bankrupt as in out of business. he said go then a structured bankruptcy and then get government guarantees after that. Big difference.

“Chris and Les, can you acknowledge that their were valid reasons to vote for President Obama that had nothing to do with race?”

Yes, I can acknowledge it. I can’t think of any GOOD reasons, but I’m sure there are other reasons one would vote for Obama. I can think of many “dead baby” reasons NOT to vote for Obama…one who as a state senator refused to ban the horrific practice of “outside the womb” baby murder. Given that alone, I cannot think of even one reason one would vote for such a man.

CB,

By taking the position that there was not one valid reason to vote for President Obama, do you realize that you are saying millions of Christians who voted for President Obama did not have a valid reason to do so? Isn’t that an arrogant position to take?

Wouldn’t it be better to say that you couldn’t find a valid reason to vote for President Obama? But why indict and insult the millions who did? I didn’t vote for President Obama either. However, I believe that it violates the spirit of 1Peter 3:15 to say that millions of others did not have valid reasons to do so.

CB, what I do know about you is that you would love on those people if given the opportunity, and adopt their children. I just wish you could respect and appreciate their process of reaching a different conclusion, without considering their reasoning invalid. You know I love you man.

Dwight,

I would be very surprised to find that millions of born-again people voted for Obama. Millions who called themselves Christian? Sure, though their Christianity is likely no more genuine than Obama’s. The only alternate explanation is that these people simply did not consider the issues when they cast their vote. I can hardly conceive of the possibility of a Christian voting for Obama in good conscience while knowing his views and policies, and I really believe a vote for Obama is itself a sinful act: giving approval and seeking to reinstate a man who celebrates sin on every turn.

Dwight,

The operative word here is “valid.”

There is just not a valid reason to vote for a man who has revealed himself to be in diametric to most anything you and I embrace of biblical faith.

What could possibly be a valid reason to vote for such a man? I do not understand that. However, in God’s sovereignty, he is the POTUS. Therefore, I would be willing to fight to the death to protect his life or that of any member of his family.

He is Commander and Chief and I pray he comes to a biblical awakening and becomes the greatest president in the history of this nation. That is just how it is for me, Dwight. Believe it or not.

Les, You are right about Romney’s statement regarding GM and bankrupcy. Problem is, there was NO bank money available at that time! So even though it may not have been his wish that GM, Ford, Chyrsler. etc. go bankrupt, his restrictions on them would have had produced the same result. Now I’ll tell everyone why I could not vote for Romney. 1) I did not like that he was a Mormon, nor did I like that “some” evangelicals were willing to compromise their convictions about Mormonism being a cult to make voting for him more palatable. His election would have been a shot in the arm to make Mormonism more acceptable. None of these, however, would have prevented me from voting for him. 2) I do not think that his comments about “the 47%” reflect his true beliefs, nor I do I think he would have been without compassion for less than 100% of Americans. However, that comment is just one more in a long list of statements by him that illustrate that he wanted to be President so bad that he was willing to say virtually anything to any group that he thought would gain him support. He thought that group of wealthy, potential doners would eat that up. That is why when he ran for the Senate against Teddy Kennedy he supported Rowe v. Wade–because he thought it would get him support in Massachusetts, and when he ran for President, he had an epiphony–be knew that neither Evangelicals in particular nor Republicans in general would support it. His comment about “binders full of women” was on one level nothing more than him sticking his foot in his mouth, something I have perfected to an art form. But on another level, it suggests the possibility at least that the issue was not sufficiently important to him to consider it in advance and to be prepared to phrase it more sensitively–which again supports my thesis that he was willing to say anything that he thought would gain him support, as opportunities arose. 3) As to his economic plan–now economics is my weakest area, as my bank account clearly proves–but it seems to me more like a goal than a plan, a goal set without any way to achieve it. I could see no way to make the numbers add up WITHOUT eleminating either the homeowners deduction or the deduction for… Read more »

Les,

The exit polls indicated that the majority of Americans consider George W. Bush responsible for the nations current economic conditions. Consequently, they would consider President George W. Bush responsible for thr current high employment in the African-American community. Inasmuch as they, nor Bill Clinton, or the majority of Americans see President Obama responsible for the current high unemployment crisis–then Blacks who voted for Obama did not see themselves voting against their own best interests.

For you to make such a claim, is in essence saying that you are better at understanding and processing their issues better than they can; and that is arrogant and offensive.

Brother Dwight,

First, forgive me for offending you about these matters. In no way is that intended. I’m simply trying to sort thru all this same as everyone else with admittedly limited understanding. And the fact that many blacks and others believe that Bush was responsible for the current state of the economy is surely debatable. Some responsible? Sure. All responsible? Nt a chance. Obama’s policies have hindered economic growth and will be very burdensome in the future. Though I am and ordained minister and director of a non-profit doing ministry in Haiti, our non-profit was started by a local small business. I can testify concretely as to how Obama’s regulations, etc. have and are hurting small businesses. That’s no speculation. It is fact.

All the demographics aside, because none of us can be sure, my zenith issue is abortion. I cannot reconcile a God-fearing, Jesus loving, walking in the Spirit person casting a vote for a man (or a party) who so openly and brazenly trumpets baby killing in any instance, even outside the womb.

I care about the economics. But I’d rather have a lower standard of living for all of us and eradicate the scab of baby slaugter from our society.

If someone on here can make that case for ignoring Obama’s baby killing policies to vote for ANY other reason, please make the case.

Chris,

BDW is right: as long as the SBC holds views such as anyone who voted for Obama cannot be a born again Christian–it is highly unlikely that there will be any meaningful inter-racial healing and unity in the SBC. Chris, if your statement was broadcast to the masses, it would certainly cause any African American church considering joining the SBC to pause. You and CB need to consider being gentle, judicious, and temperate in how you address these issues for the Kingdom’s sake. And as I typed that I sense the Spirit telling me that that is good advice for me as well. And by the grace of God, I will do my best to heed this advice.

Chris, I do recall meeting you in New Orleans and appreciated your friendliness and our brief fellowship. I like men with strong convictions and passion, and have been accused a few times of being one of those men myself. You certainly are one.

In our prayer meeting tonight, we prayed about God healing the racial and political divide in our country. Conversing with civility and respectfully with each other I believe is important toward that goal. I would think deeply and patiently before I write off any professing believer who would vote for the President as not being born again, or not having considered the issues if they are. Does it really not matter to you to dismiss–as not being born again, or not vetting the issues–millions of minority believers? This is the same mistake Romney made when he dismissed the 47 %, and said he didn’t care about the poor. Do you really want to stand by your claim?

Dwight,

What does racial reconciliation have to do with Obama? Why does peace with fellow human require that I be open to accepting someone who is a boastful enemy of God and seeks to lead the nation to further plunge into wickedness? And looking at it from the other side, as I mentioned to BDW, if racial reconciliation really does require such things then what about from the other angle? Why aren’t you encouraging people to understand why we see Obama as such an unfit choice for president, particularly for Christians?

Chris,

Race remains a serious source of division and a huge problem in this nation. Whoever the President is, he or she needs to be pro-active and sensitive on this issue. People embrace those who embrace them. The President should embrace all people.

You don’t have to accept Obama, but you are required biblically to be respectful toward those you are trying to reach. Your disposition toward the millions of Christians who voted for him in my judgement falls far short of being gentle, respectful, or truthful.

You raise a valid point: racial reconciliation does require addressing both sides of the racial divide with honesty, humility, and truthfulness. That’s why I publically state my reasons for opposing the President’s policies where I disagree. And you are right again: those of us who understand to a great degree our Anglo SBC brethern position, and their sincerity of heart, we must communicate that understanding to minorities who don’t fully understand, or too easily, quickly, and falsely in many instances dismiss them as being racist. Often, those of us who understand our Anglo SBC brethern , and remain SBC communicate this understanding to our minority brethern. The Anglo SBC brethern usually are not around when these conversations take place. Good question; glad you asked.

Dwight,

Respectful takes many forms, but it never shirks from truth.

Les, You are forgiven. All of us are trying to sort through these issues and to relate our faith to these issues. We all bring our backgrounds to the table-while sorting out these issues–and that murky the waters, because all of us have different backgrounds. You made a statement to the effect that if anyone could make a case for ignoring Obama’s abortion policies and voting for any other reason(comment # 98), please make the case. They made their case, you simply disagree with their argument. That’s your right: but you shouldn’t demonize, or call into question the legitimacy of their faith because they don’t think like you. Briefly, a born-again beliver could say, (1) a few years ago during the Bush 2 years, when Republicans were in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, and at least four and maybe five votes on the Supreme Court–why didn’t they try and pass a constiturional amendment banning abortion then? Why should I trust them with my vote now, and they did nothing then when they had the power to do so? (2) At the exact same time they could have sponsored legislation to sponsor legislation banning same-sex marriage with a constitutional amendment. They only gave a half-hearted effort toward this goal. Most of their efforts and energy was put into trying to privatize social-security(of which I was and am highly in favor of). Why trust the republicans with a vote to protect marriage when they had the opportunity they did nothing about it. The year the same-sex marriage amendment was on the ballot in Texas, I believe George W. Bush got 20 % 0f the Black vote in Texas and Ohio. That possibly would have happened again if Blacks knew theycould trust the Republican candidate to follow through and do something about this. But based on history, trust was lost. Therefore, Blacks prioritized other issues and made their votes accordingly. Please don’t demonize them for that. Perhaps you ought to excoriate the party for nominating candidates who don’t keep their word. (3) The Immigration issue is extremely important to most Hispanics. How can you expect them to vote for a a man and a party that claims to be pro-family, but want to rip the Hispanic families apart? Republicans must offer a pathway to citizenship. Barack Obama’s Immigration policies were clearly more humane, compassionate, and pro-active than the… Read more »

Dwight,

“You made a statement to the effect that if anyone could make a case for ignoring Obama’s abortion policies and voting for any other reason(comment # 98), please make the case. They made their case, you simply disagree with their argument. That’s your right: but you shouldn’t demonize, or call into question the legitimacy of their faith because they don’t think like you.”

I haven’t seen anyone here make a good case at all. And I am not demonizing anyone. Nor am I questioning their faith validity, rather I’m saying I don’t understand how one can contribute to murder as a follower of Jesus.

As to what Bush and congress did or did not do during their time in office, I’m not here defending Bush or congress. In fact, both parties have left blood on their hands to some degree. I’ve not advocated here a vote for republicans. What I have advocated is a no vote for the clear and present danger to babies in and outside the womb…BHO.

We’ll just have to leave it at disagreeing. I can see no reason…economic, immigration policy, racial reconciliation, you name it…nothing is even close to the issue of the slaughter of babies and BHO’s expansion of that slaughter.

BTW, it is a myth that he R party has not done some good on the abortion issue by way of enacted policies to limit the number, judicial appointments, etc. BHO has undermined many of those and has led to more death.

Have a great day.

Dwight, et al,

One other thing. Joe Carter wrote over at TGC blog about how pro-life presidents can make a huge difference in saving babies’ lives (short of Roe being overturned). Here are his bullet points. You can read the full article there. He begins:

“The fact is that the president has a limited, but substantial and broad-based, role in protecting life and defending the most vulnerable in society. Here are five ways that a president can advance—or impede—the pro-life cause:

1. Preserving the Pro-Life Riders.

2. Filing of amicus briefs in cases before the judiciary

3. Issuance of executive orders

4. Selection of political appointments

5. Using the “bully pulpit””

So the person occupying he White House is not inconsequential.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/11/02/5-ways-presidents-affect-the-pro-life-cause/

CB and Chris,

Eight valid reasons a born-again Christian, or anyone else might have voted for President Obama: 1. The Lily Ledbetter Act 2. The GM bailout 3. Heartfelt expressed sympathy, sensitivity and compassion for Trayvon Martin’s family and Skip Gates. 4. Ridding the world of Bin Ladin and Khadafhy 5.Compassionate Immigration Laws and Initiatives 6.Affordable Health Care Plan(minus the controversial issues) 7. Protecting Social Security Benefits 8. Funding Legal Aid 9. Funding Land Grant Educational Institutions 10. Appointing Federal Judges who may be better at understanding issues of race and the plight of the poor 11. Supporting an increase in the minimum wage
12. Compassionate toward safety net issues

All of these are life issues too. And if you, or your spouse, or your dad worked for GM, you would have been tempted to vote for President Obama out of appreciation. If voting for a Republican Presidential candidate meant abortion or same-sex marriage would end as soon as they took office–I would probably agree with you, and many born-again Christians who voted for Obama–they should have voted for the Republican presidential candidate. But, you and I know that’s not how it works. So let’s be a little more compassionate and understanding to those who didn’t vote for the Mormon who spoke insensitive about the poor, and refused to speak against documented racism in his own church.

“Eight valid reasons” ; oops; Twelve valid reasons.

I know a Republican candidate cannot end abortion or gay marriage, but I know Obama has made increasing them a major part of his agenda. In addition, several of the items on your positive list are on my disqualify list. Other items are not unique to him or have nothing to do with him as president (ie, the Trayvon Martin issue? Come on, what does that have to do with him as president?).

And to clarify myself: most of those that you list which would be in my disqualify stack are nonetheless issues where I think Christians can legitimately disagree. For instance, Obama’s healthcare reform plan is a disaster through and through. It will mean terrible things for the nation and hardship for my family. That said, I think Christians can disagree over it. I don’t think faithful Christians can disagree over issues such as abortion and homosexuality, and I think a vote for Obama is directly supporting what he has made a *key* part of his agenda. Let me say that again – Obama has made promoting homosexuality central in his campaign. To vote for him is to support his goal, even if you do not agree with his goal. In fact, to disagree with him on abortion and homosexuality while still voting for him makes it all the more horrendous. It is a clear vote against conviction and unequivocal commands of God. We can disagree about health care, we can’t disagree about abortion. To vote for the abortion and gay marriage candidate really is a vote to go against the ways of God.

Chris,

If you don’t understand why President Obama’s response to the Trayvon Martin case was important to the majority of justice-freedom loving Americans, then you truly don’t understand why he won the election.

People like to vote for someone whom identifies with their hurt and pain, and express support. “I feel your pain,” were words expressed by Bill Clinton that are still rememebered by many and appreciated. If Repyblicans don’t understand this, they will continue to lose elections. Your question is probabaly the best way to explain why the majority of the Hispanics and African Americans voted for Obama and the other Democratic candidates. People relate to someone who understand them and acknowledge their pain and existence. The Republicans do a poor job with this. Although George W. Bush understood this and got a greater percentage of the minority vote than did most other Republican Presidential candidates. People vote for someone that they sense that can feel their reality and identify with their life issues.

“If you don’t understand why President Obama’s response to the Trayvon Martin case was important to the majority of justice-freedom loving Americans, then you truly don’t understand why he won the election.”

I understand why his response was important and could be appreciated by many, but I don’t understand why it is seen as a major reason for him to qualify as president. Just because someone has good and appropriate words to say in response to an event of this sort does not mean he qualifies as commander in chief.

Chris,

When it comes to prioritizing voting issues, you get to prioritize issues for Chris; I get to prioritize issues for Dwight. Neither one of us get to prioritize issues for other people. If you and I want to prioritize abortion or gay marriage we can. If someone else want to prioritze Trayvon Martin or any other issue they can. I’m sure agree with me thus far.

Here’s where we may disagree: Dwight, nor Chris has the right to call into question the legitimacy of their faith if their set of priorities are different from ours. You may be comfortable doing that; I’m not.

Dwight,

But you mentioned that these were legitimate reasons why one might decide to support Obama. I do not consider the Trayvon issue a legitimate reason. I realize some people might, but nonetheless I cannot grant that the Trayvon issue is a legitimate reason to support Obama as president.

Chris,

Your comment(# 111) that the Trayvon Martin response by President Obama would not be a valid reason to vote for President Obama, could only come from a person who feels a part of a special, protected, and priveleged class of people. If you have experienced injustice, or come from a group who has historically experienced injustuce, the President’s response was extremely meaningful and impactful–just as the hug he gave to the Anglo Lady who was bemoaning her loss after Sandy was meaningful. I gurantee you that he picked up votes on that hug.

Listening to and watching President’s Obama’s response to the Trayvon Martin, Skip Gates, and Hurricane Sandy events, all made me proud of him, and helped me to understand why the majority twice voted for him. I promise you Mitt Romney, nor John McCain would have said the things he said, or performed as admirably as he did in those situations.

You are free to believe, obviously, that those are not valid reasons to vote for the President. But there are many-many who feel quite the opposite; and again, I for one will not disrepect, disregard, minimize, deligitimize, or trivialize there feelings. I fully understand and relate with them.

Dwight,

“””””Heartfelt expressed sympathy, sensitivity and compassion for Trayvon Martin’s family and Skip Gates.””””””

Why are you not concerned there seemed not to be the same kind of sympathy shown for those killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi?

That would seem to discredit the “sympathy” reason for voting for Obama, not validate it. Yet, it didn’t seem to matter.

Why?

C.B.,

I had no intention to insult you. And you are right, I did mix up your quotation of a comment with a comment of your own, and I apologize. But. . . and I kow you will correct me if I am wrong. . . didn’t you agree with the comment?

Believe it or not, you and I see eye-to-eye on sexual sin. Adultery with a person of the opposite sex is a sin before God as much as is a homosexual act. And we have agreed before on a collaboration to punish child sex offenders, and I still stand by that. I have heard explanations–usually psychological or sociological–for why successful political leaders have so much trouble keeping their pants zipped. But human-based explanations (maybe just justifications) for that are overridden by the fact that it is a sin and relationship-with-Jesus-and-the-Holy-Spirit problem.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that maybe, just maybe, all Obama was doing was posturing, playing to the Democratic base, the same way (I believe) the GOP has been doing toward we conservative evangelicals (and I count myself as one, perhaps just not as vocal or quite as far to the right on some matters as perhaps you) for years on homosexual issues. And if he does as much to advance that position as the GOP has done to protect traditional marriage, he will actually do nothing besides lip service at all–just as the GOP has done. At any rate, I am praying that is the case.

John

John Fariss,

First let me say to you that I do not feel insulted by you. I just wanted to clear up what I believed to be a misunderstanding between us. We do not always agree, but I have grown to respect you through the years and, in truth, we do agree on many issues and I think this may be one of them.

I do believe Chris Roberts made an excellent comment. I stand by that.

I also have developed a firm conviction over the years that the GOP has given lip service to and used conservative Christians to advance their agendas, yet have not truly taken the necessary actions to fulfill their promises made to get elected. I think you and I are in agreement there. It seems that is their lips are moving, they are lying………very similar to many Southern Baptist preachers and denominational leaders and employees of all stripes.

Frankly, I am sick of lying Republican candidates who have no real passion for righteousness. There is a continual growth of evidence that their personal lives reflect much of the same godlessness as does their openly God-hating Democratic Party counterparts.

How else did we get a family-values spouting, Christ-less religionist, Mormon as the only viable opponent to our Neo-Pagan incumbent?

C.B.,

We are in agreement. If not 100%, at least 99 44/100%, and if that good enough for Ivory soap, it’s pretty good.

John

Let me echo Chris’ comments. And to specific as to my view, all the reasons you listed Dwight, whether one agrees they are positive or negative, pale in comparison to the fact that Obama has the blood of countless slaughtered babies on his hands.

There is no other reason to vote for him. None. The blood of the innocents cries out to self professing Christians who vote for Obama for Social Security reasons, or GM auto jobs, or Bin Ladin, or funding legal aid or racial reconciliation…their blood cries out, “No!!”

Les,

You certainly are entitled to your opinion; but surely, you are not going to consider others who don’t share your opinion as not being born again are you? And will you acknowledge that a vote for Romney was not going to end abortion any time soon? The GM bailout happened in real time.

Dwight,

“but surely, you are not going to consider others who don’t share your opinion as not being born again are you?”

I’ve not stated that. But I do believe that to cast a vote for Obama is a sin. It is aiding and abetting and participating in his baby slaughter. Now some surely do so out of ignorance. Others do so knowing full well what they are helping to take place.

I have serious reservations about the profession of faith in Jesus by those who knowingly help Obama cause the deaths of uncounted babies.

“And will you acknowledge that a vote for Romney was not going to end abortion any time soon?”

Yes, I so acknowledge. Though that does not indicate who my vote was cast for.

‘The GM bailout happened in real time.”

And was an awful idea.

Dwight,

What are your views on abortion? I’ve seen you speak against Obama for support of same sex marriage, but I’m not sure that I’ve seen you mention your evaluation of Obama’s abortion stance or where you fall on the abortion issue.

Chris Roberts,

Some statements are so well stated, there is a need to state them again. You statement below is an example of such a statement.

“For instance, Obama’s healthcare reform plan is a disaster through and through. It will mean terrible things for the nation and hardship for my family. That said, I think Christians can disagree over it. I don’t think faithful Christians can disagree over issues such as abortion and homosexuality, and I think a vote for Obama is directly supporting what he has made a *key* part of his agenda. Let me say that again – Obama has made promoting homosexuality central in his campaign. To vote for him is to support his goal, even if you do not agree with his goal. In fact, to disagree with him on abortion and homosexuality while still voting for him makes it all the more horrendous. It is a clear vote against conviction and unequivocal commands of God. We can disagree about health care, we can’t disagree about abortion. To vote for the abortion and gay marriage candidate really is a vote to go against the ways of God.”

C.B.:

And if Obama’s suport for gay marriage translates to as much action as the GOP’s support for traditional marriage has, the result will be the very same: no change at all from the status quo! The GOP could have gotten a one-man-one-woman amendment through congress in 6 of the 8 years Bush was President and they also controlled Congress, but they didn’t even try. That suggests to me that all the GOP ws doing was placating evangelical Christians with their words while really doing nothing of substance for us (and yes, I include myself in that, as I am as opposed to homosexual marriage as anyone including you).

John

John Farris,

Let me explain something to you. I think Chris Roberts made an excellent comment over all. The president does aggressively promote everything Chris Roberts has stated in his comment. That is reality and cannot be denied honestly by anyone.

You brought up another subject all together. You brought up the Republicans and sexual sin.

Let me make myself clear here.

One of the reasons the GOP cannot bring a good candidate to the race is because so many who could be good candidates disqualify themselves because they are adulterous devils or skirt chasing fornicators with no biblically based, sexual ethics or morals.

Sexual sin is sexual sin.

How can a guy who is chasing every Linda, Mary, and Sue in D.C. and Northern Virginia point a finger at another guy who is chasing every Tom, Dick, and Harry from Maryland to the Jersey Shore?

That is nothing but hypocrisy. Preachers yell and scream from the pulpit against homosexuality, knowing full well that some of the deacons who are shouting “A-Men, you tell them godless perverts, Preacher,” are nothing more than whore chasing dogs themselves.

The reason Christian preachers and politicians can’t properly address the sin of homosexuality is because Christian Preachers and Politicians have “granted immunity” to heterosexual sin from the pulpit of the Church to the floor of the Senate……and sometimes in the pulpit of the Church and on the floor of the Senate.

John Fariss, you have me mixed up with somebody else on that one.

Dwight,

I don’t necessarily disagree with your list. They are all “good” things if you look at them in a vacuum.

But, if it destroys the country trying to fund these “give aways,” then is really for the common good?

Is there ever a time when government simply cannot “entitle” people to goods or services that are not paid for?

Where do entitlements end, or do they ever end — that is, until nobody has any money left to feed anybody, including there own families?

Of course you are correct. If Obama took my money (and grandkids money) and gave it to a person in Ohio making 25 to 30 dollars an hour or more so he could keep his job, that person is going to vote for Obama.

Isn’t that a little like “buying votes?” and buying them with someone else’s money?

I just don’t think your list proves Obama is the “sympathetic, compassionate one.” By the way, look at each candidate’s charitable giving.

Your list is at best a bust.

Les,

Just because you don’t consider others to have made a good case for voting for President Obama is somewhat irrelevant. They are convinced that they have a good case.

What you do by not at least respecting the validity of their argument/case, while vehemently disagreeing, is to simply further alienate them from Republicans and the party. How? By appearing elitist, arrogant, self righteous, narrow minded, and insensitive to other life issues, that are also important. These other important life issues, often are substantially addressed by the government in real time. The abortion and gay-marriage issues have been politicized to the Republicans advantage, with very limited accomplishments.

Dwight,

You asked if we could acknowledge that there are good reasons for voting for Obama. We cannot. The reasons you have given are not good reasons to vote for him. I know others consider them good reasons, but I do not and as such cannot concede that there are good reasons to vote for him.

As for appearing elitist, postmodernism rears its head once again: the ideas of the new tolerance that you must accept my ideas if you want peace with me, but don’t expect me to be open to your ideas.

Chris,

So be it. If the Republican party and the SBC retain your posture, there is not much hope for racial reconciliation with either. Why would Anglo SBC pastors want Black Churches to join the SBC, if they consider that the 93 % of their memberships who voted for Obama, has some kind of major dysfunction with regard to their Christian Faith, or not “born again” Christians at all? If that’s how you really feel, it is very hypocritical, dishonest, and misleading to invite minorities–including Hispanics–to join the SBC. Most minorities identify with the 47 %, that Mitt Romney dismissed. It appears tome that the SBC shares a view similar to Mitt Romney’s regarding the 47 %, if they share your viewpoint: that there are no valid reasons to have voted for Obama, and any Christian who voted for Obama is not a born again Christian. Your attitude push me to want to move in their camp. It reeks with disrespect, a superiority complex, and a non-Kingdom like posture. Your disposition explains the absence of minorities voting for Republicans.

Because the SBC and the Republican party are viewed as one in the same–it also explains the absence of minorities at the executive cabinet entity level, and throughout the life of the SBC. People can tell when their basic ideas and what and who they represent, is not valued, respected, or appreciated. So they saturate such a place with their absence.

Dwight,

Essentially what you are saying is if I want you to like me, I have to become a Democrat.

Dwight brother,

“Just because you don’t consider others to have made a good case for voting for President Obama is somewhat irrelevant. They are convinced that they have a good case.”

Well not irrelevant to me. And they mat be convinced, but based on the sixth commandment, they just are wrong brother.

“What you do by not at least respecting the validity of their argument/case, while vehemently disagreeing, is to simply further alienate them from Republicans and the party.”

Dwight, I cannot see from scripture any validity for their case, white, black or otherwise. And if people are alienated because of my view over the supremacy of the life issue, well so be it. I’ll always come down against the slaughter of babies.

“By appearing elitist, arrogant, self righteous, narrow minded, and insensitive to other life issues, that are also important.”

Other life issues…important. Yes. But not anywhere as important as oing all we can to stop the slaughter of babies. I hope you don’t misunderstand what I’m about to write…but I would rather stay estranged from any group, white, black, Asian, family…if it comes to that…rather than compromise over the murder of babies.

Chris,

I am not a Democrat, neither have I voted Democrat since 1980. Therefore, I could not be saying that you have to become a Democrat in order for me to like you(comment # 128).

I am simply saying, we as fellow SBC pastors would do ourselves well to step into the shoes of all the people who voted for Obama–particularly the ones who we believe are born again Christians–and to try and understand why they voted the way they voted; and to respect their point of view(whether we agree or disagree), and not resort to name calling and questioning the authenticity of their faith if we don’t agree. In no way shape, form, or fashion was I suggesting that you become a Democrat.

Les,

In response to your comment( # 129), it appears to me, that is what it has come to: The Republican Party has estranged themselves from minorities, because they are unwilling to embrace few, if any of the issues minorities are concerned about. Therefore, you get your wish: a Republican Party with aged White Republicans holding tenaciously to the abortion issue-while disregarding–equally as important other life issues.
Enjoy your minority-less party as is, and the country will roll on, while the Republicans watch the White House from the sidelines. Jeb Bush has a great understanding of immigration. He may be able to change the narrow view of the Republicans on some of these issues.

Dwight,

Indeed it does, and thanks for sharing. I had assumed you were pro-life but couldn’t recall seeing you state it explicitly. You probably had and I just didn’t see it.

Frank L.

Don’t be so hard on yourself, I know you are opinionated, but it’s not that bad.

Might your therapist be yourself? That would explain a good bit.

Could be

Dave,

I understand that God can use things to carry out His purposes….like with Judas, Pilate, the soldiers, etc.

I understand that God can raise up the Babylonians, or the Philistines, or even Iowans, to carry out His righteous judgments.

I understand that nothing happens in this world, unless God causes it to happen, or else, He allows it to happen.

David

I do not, nor have I denied, that God raised up the Chaldeans to judge Israel. We are told that in the Bible. I believe it. Of course. We are TOLD that.

But, I do not believe that God’s sovereignty means that every thing that happens in this world was what God wanted to happen, or that He has dictated it like a puppet master holding the strings. I dont believe that God wants men to rape a woman. I dont believe that God wants a child molestor to sexually abuse 18 young boys, or girls. I do not believe that God wants a man like Hitler to rise to power. But, in His sovereignty, of course, He lets it happen. He chooses to not intervene with lightening bolts from heaven, or by giviing the rapist a fatal, heart attack before he rapes a woman.

BUT, God did not want these evil things to happen. And, in His sovereignty, He did allow these evil men and women to choose to do these evil things. He allowed them. He did not cause them. He did not want them to happen. But, He allowed them to happen. Why? maybe we’ll never know this side of Heaven. But, God is sovereign, while not being the author of sin and evil.

I do not believe the Bible teaches that God is author of evil, and that He wants sinful things to happen.

David

David,

But the bottom line is this, if Romans 13 is to be believed, than the powers that exist are appointed by God. God said He raised Pharoah up, Jesus said that the authority that Pontius Pilate had over Him was given by God.

Just out of curiosity, are you dispensational in your eschatology? If you are surely you must agree that Hitler’s actions aided in the reinstitution of the nation of Israel.

David,

“BUT, God did not want these evil things to happen. And, in His sovereignty, He did allow these evil men and women to choose to do these evil things. He allowed them. He did not cause them.”

It is not a question of God’s moral will here. With the Chaldeans, for instance, God does not have to directly “cause” them to pillage and plunder and kill and destroy. He did not “cause” that. He says He did raise them up for that purpose (His purpose), by Chaldeans doing what Chaldeans do by nature. Judas acted according to his nature.

Bu no mistaking here. It is more than God just standing by and “allowing.” Yes, that He did. But He says this was His plan…to punish the Israelites via and evil people.

John,

I believe Romans 13….that God has appointed rulers over us all. Govt. rulers over the citizens of a country; Church over all Believers; the parents over children; and masters over employees. Yes, of course, I believe that God has ordained it to be that way.

I still do not believe this means that God wants wicked, evil men to rule a nation. I do not believe that God set up Hitler, or Stalin, or Castro to rule their countries. People chose this wickedness. God allowed it to happen.

David

No, Dave, I’m really not. I just dont believe that God’s sovereignty takes away from the free will and responsibility of man. I dont believe that God’s sovereignty means that God is dictating things to the Nth degree. I believe that God either causes or allows things to happen in His sovereignty, which doesnt take away from His sovereignty in any way.

David

David,

“I just dont believe that God’s sovereignty takes away from the free will and responsibility of man.”

For the record, and it’s not difficult to look up stream a bit and see where I stand on God’s sovereignty, but for the record I agree with this statement of yours. Fully!

The free will and responsibility of man exists because God, in His Sovereignty, has established it. it’s not like free will exists independently of God’s Sovereignty.

I think you have to distinguish between God’s Sovereignty, in the sense of what He can/may do (anything) and His exercise of that Sovereignty. He can do anything, He has the right to do anything, but because of His character (His Holiness), He doesn’t do just anything. He self-limits His exercise of His Sovereignty according to His character, His Holiness.

Given God’s Sovereignty, I think that free will can only exist if God, in His Sovereign choice, limits Himself. He has chosen to let us make choices without coercion, and to let those choices have consequences. If you follow this out, I think you can made a case that there needs to be an orderly world in which to make those choices, but I haven’t yet gone through that. Free will exists, not because it has any innate strength against God’s Sovereign will, but because God has made a choice to allow it, and in His Holy character, He has not rescinded it.

In the end, i think reconciling our understanding of God’s Sovereignty and our understanding of our free will rests on our understanding of His Holiness.

Ben, do you think that God in his sovereign choice don’t limit himself?

David: I don’t think anyone disagrees with your comment above. But what we are saying is that whether He causes it or allows it, it is done for a reason. A reason that goes beyond mere free will. He’s up to something, we just don’t know what.

David, I don’t like it when I agree with you.

John

Dave,

I don’t think that is what 007 is saying. If I were going to sum it up I would not say it is a matter of believing or not believing in God’s sovereignty but about how does God’s sovereignty express itself in the context of my daily decisions.

I try to keep in mind the limits of language and my understanding when it comes to trying to explain “how,” or epecially “why,” God does or not do a thing.

Les,

Of course, God allowed the Babylonians to rise up and take over Israel….to judge them. Yes. He did not protect the Israelites from them…to accomplish His purposes of judgment. Yes. The Bible tells us that He did that. And, it was a righteous thing for God to do.

Do you think that God sovereignly chooses for a child molestor to sexually abuse 18 young boys, or girls? Do you believe that God’s sovereignty works in that way?

David

Since God doesn’t like sin, it is true that he doesn’t want people to sin. He doesn’t want people to become dictators, rapists or jaywalkers. And sometimes He does intervene to disallow something sinful that someone is trying to do. But sometimes He does not. The only conclusion we can come to (unless one is an open theist) is that when taking things as a whole, He decides in some cases that it is better to not intervene. We have to remember that He created Satan knowing he would become Satan. I still can’t get my head around that one.

David,

Atrocities, such as captivity and murders in the Babylonian time, were a part of God’s plan. He knew full well that they would happen. He planned to use the Chaldeans to accomplish His plans to punish His people. He could have stopped them at any time. He did not.

But, we also know that God’s moral will is life, not murder. We know it is sexual purity, not impurity…such as child molestation. Those kinds of evil, are not His moral will. Of course we know that comes from His moral law.

As to your question, “Do you think that God sovereignly chooses for a child molestor to sexually abuse 18 young boys, or girls? Do you believe that God’s sovereignty works in that way?”

He might. He is sovereign. I know the howls are coming for me saying that. But as horrible as child molestation is (on that we can agree), is it more horrible than murder? Say the murder of Jesus of Nazareth, planned and foreordained and flawlessly carried out by His servant Judas (indirectly and directly by other evil men)?

I’ll further stir it up. As politically stupid as it was, Mourdock’s comment’s (if I understand correctly what he said) were right. He said, I think, that pregnancy resulting from rape was “what God intended.” I know no other way to look at that baby in a womb via rape but as a baby God intended to be conceived and born.

So does God delight in rape? Child molestation? I don’t think so, anymore than He delighted in punishing His people by way of the Chaldeans. Is everything somehow mysteriously working out according to His sovereign plan? Absolutely.

“As politically stupid as it was, Mourdock’s comment’s…”

That was in the Indiana senate race.

Les,

Wow. Shaking my head.

David

David,

“Les,

Wow. Shaking my head.

David”

I figured.

Yes Chris, some of you guys claim to understand more about sovereignty than you do. But I can assure you of one thing. Time is going to change some of that.