I saw this today on a tweet from CB Scott. Yes, I am a fan of Marco Rubio, but I believe I’d get excited to hear any presidential candidate give as cogent a testimony of his or her faith as he gave here. I could micro-critique a few things, I suppose, but this sounded like it could come from the local First Baptist Church pulpit, not an Iowa political event! It’s about 11 minutes long and well worth the listen. I originally saw it on a Oneness Pentecostal site, (only the last 5 minutes), but found this longer version. It is a campaign stop in Iowa – a gathering of believers. I think it was in Des Moines, but I’m not sure.
At about 6:00, he begins to share a gospel presentation – I’ve heard worse!
I’ve heard his story. I like him. He manages his message well, is always prepared, and very rarely stumbles. I think he would make a great president.
His Christian testimony is not irrelevant to me but there are other candidates with Christian testimonies. Some would be good presidents, some would be very poor presidents. Some candidates without our kind of religious testimony (Romney, for example) would make good presidents. Some with our kind of religious testimony (“I am a devoted follower of Jesus Christ”) have not made good presidents (Obama).
I completely agree with that Wlliam. The old line, “we are electing a president, not a pastor” is actually true.
I was impressed with Rubio when I thought he was a fine, moral, Roman Catholic – and I am one whose view of Catholicism is not as charitable as many. I think it is a false religion with a false gospel which has just enough truth that a few find real faith in it.
But what impressed me here was hearing a presidential candidate talking about OT sacrifices, and Christ coming as the one-for-all sacrifice, about how Christ was the incarnation, the God-man, how he suffered for us, and how through that we have hope.
I do not think that I have ever, in 58 years, heard a presidential candidate give a testimony, while on the stump, quite like that one. Even Huck holds back his “preacherliness” on the campaign trail. I’ve never heard something quite this theologically grounded and detailed on the stump.
Again, there are a few lines in it I would use a red pen on if I were giving Rubio a grade, but that’s not the issue.
Did he say that Joseph stored grain in the pyramids?
Heck, I heard a Southern Baptist preacher once pray “Forgive me of my falling shorts” (true story).
Well, I’ve split my pants in the pulpit (glad not to be a hioster) the jacket covers much! Never said that.
I didn’t catch that.
As I recall, it was Carson’s version of Egyptian history that claimed the pyramids as grain bins. Rubio may have picked up on this, but I didn’t catch that snippet either.
But few of us can survive the Plodder’s scrutiny, you know!!
“I do not think that I have ever, in 58 years, heard a presidential candidate give a testimony, while on the stump, quite like that one.”
Amen! I was young and now am old and never heard such a clear understanding of the way, the truth, and the life uttered by a candidate for the highest office in this land (or even from a sitting President). There is a hint of the genuine in Sen. Rubio’s testimony. This has given me something to seriously think about as we approach the election.
Mr. Miller: I’m curious as to what is the Gospel being taught at First Baptist Church if what Mr. Rubio said receives from you only some micro-critiques. Mr. Rubio makes explicitly clear he is doctrinally and theologically aligned with the Roman Catholicism. So if his testimony of faith could be heard from the pulpit of First Baptist Church does that mean FBC teaches the following?
That at baptism a person is infused with righteousness and thus begins a process of justification that, hopefully, will be finished in purgatory — a process that can be aided by others than Christ. That’s what Mr. Rubio has embraced.
That “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” That’s where Mr. Rubio’s personal relationship via the RCC ends up.
That the mass is a true and real sacrifice offered to God and is nothing less than, in the bread, Christ is given to us to eat. And, that anyone who does not believe this let him be anathema. Is that what happens when First Baptist observes the Lord’s Supper?
That “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
+++
Mr. Rubio may make a good president, but having been baptized into Roman Catholicism and actively, willfully participating in it, his is a different Gospel (Galatians 1:6-10). His is a salvation by faith PLUS meritorious works. And if your First Baptist Church has no capacity or willingness to point that out why shouldn’t it be regarded as a synagogue of Satan?
Ted,
Take a deep breath, Pastor Miller is not endorsing Rubio. When dealing with Roman Catholics it is prudent to separate the institution from the person. Evangelicals disagree with RC on many points but we should also realize that not all of those in the institution are lost, there are genuine Christians in the institution.
A person’s religious affiliation should not be a litmus test for the presidency. Our founding fathers were wiser than that.
wilbur
I do not pastor “First Baptist.” I pastor Southern Hills Baptist in Sioux City, IA (southernhillsbc.com). You are welcome to bring your judgmental attitude to our website and check out a sermon. I try to make the gospel clear and do not think that anyone would conflate my teachings with Catholicism.
Please understand, this is not a debate on the Roman Catholic church.
NOTHING you said is in the video, is it? (I suspect you would not be able to answer that, because I would wager my spleen that your judgments were leveled without taking the time to watch the video).
One of my observations is that Rubio’s comments sound like they came from a GENERIC “First Baptist Church” than from a Catholic parish. I’d encourage you to actually WATCH the video. It might surprise you that he gives a much more Protestant gospel than Catholic.
If you want to debate Catholicism or bash it – take it somewhere else. I said this above: “I am one whose view of Catholicism is not as charitable as many. I think it is a false religion with a false gospel which has just enough truth that a few find real faith in it.” But it’s not germane here or something I’m interested in hosting at this point. Let’s discuss THIS video and what is said on it, not use it to debate the faults of modern Catholic doctrine.
If you want to discuss Marco Rubio’s comments, please watch them and discussion.
If you simply wish to pick a fight, no thank you.
If you want to bash Catholicism or make this a general debate on Catholicism – not interested.
If you’d like to discuss THIS VIDEO, please watch it and let me know what you think.
Mr. Miller:
Thanks for your response.
Yes, I did understand you do not pastor First Baptist Church; I too was using it generically. However, I could have been more clear in what I wrote and I apologize for that.
Regarding the wagering of your spleen as to whether or not I listened to the video….
At 3:20 Mr. Rubio states he is “fully theologically and doctrinally aligned with the Roman Catholic Church.’ That’s the testimony you say could be heard from “the local First Baptist Church pulpit.” All I did was reference the key doctrines of Roman Catholicism with which Mr. Rubio is fully aligned. At 4:00 Mr. Rubio says he is “very proud and fully understands” his Roman Catholic faith.
Again, I did actually understand you’re not the pastor of First Baptist Church. But by using it generically are you not implying most Baptist church pulpits endorse the kind of faith to which Mr. Rubio bears witness? Correct me if I’m wrong but I never once heard Mr. Rubio clearly state his faith is in the person and work of Christ alone and his good works are not meritorious. Yet he fully aligns himself with Roman Catholicism that teaches that very thing. Is that the kind of faith you say can be heard from your generic First Baptist Churches? If so, then I stand by my conclusion; whoever they are, it is another Gospel they preach.
Did you not hear his explain the sacrificial system and how Christ became his sacrifice?
No, he did not hum Just As I Am or lead anyone in the Sinner’s Prayer (which I’m sure would have offended you as well) but he did present a solid explanation of atonement. I’m not having him come preach, but I was amazed at his explanation of the atonement – which fits far better into our gospel system than the Catholic one.
No, he has not rejected Catholicism, and nothing short of that will, I assume, please you. I would prefer it as well. I would not ask him to speak at my church, but as a presidential candidate, I thought his testimony was pretty amazing.
When you require theological precision as a requisite to salvation, are not YOU adding works to salvation? No, Marco Rubio does not share your theological framework. No, he has not rejected Catholicism.
But does his testimony not show a simple faith in the sacrifice of Christ? Can you not suspend your judgmentalism, your harshness and sense of theological superiority for a second, and realize that it is simple faith in Christ that saves, not a completely formulated theological system.
No, I didn’t miss what Mr. Rubio said about the atonement. But by his own admission, Mr. Rubio stated he has much interest in theology for many years. We’re not talking about a man who has religious ignorance; we’re talking about someone who, after sitting under the teaching of the written Word in an SBC church, now fully aligns himself theologically and doctrinally with Roman Catholicism.
And YOU said, that kind of faith could come from the pulpit of the local First Baptist Church. Would not the clear teaching of the Word help and assist believers to recognize the different Gospel of the RCC and that the Spirit of Truth would have them understand salvation really is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?
Granted, a person new to the Bible and the faith may not fully understand or be able to verbalize that. But Lord help us if your generic Baptist church doesn’t preach and teach such that they grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.
I love the fact that the SBC has seen a renaissance in theology in my lifetime. But this is the downside of that – this kind of judgmentalism, petty-ism, etc. When we look at a man’s simple confession of faith in Christ and nit-pick it because it doesn’t tick every box of our particular theological framework – we are in trouble.
I believe discernment is a great gift and one of the pastor’s greatest ministries in the church, but when it becomes THIS, it is a poison in the church.
Tedd Mathis,
What we witnessed from Mr. Rubio, was in fact the biblical gospel. He followed Paul’s presentation in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 almost word-for-word. I am fairly sure that was the reason Dave Miller posted the testimony on Voices. Definitely, that is why I tweeted it.
That being stated, I now want to address the actual purpose of my present engagement with your comment.
The gospel that Dave Miller has consistently proclaimed is the biblical gospel, the Good Story of Jesus Christ and he has done so with solid conviction of its truth as did his father before him and as does his brother and nephew do presently.
The church of which he has been assigned by the Lord as shepherd would expect no less and has received no less since the day he first stood before them ans proclaimed “Thus saith the Lord.”
You have insulted Dave Miller and the followers of Christ who call him pastor. You, sir, do owe an apology to Dave Miller and the congregation of which he serves as pastor.
Now, let me add, most who have been engaged in Baptist blogging from the beginning would have to say that I have greatly toned down my comments in blog threads in the past few years and actually a comment from me about anything other than football is a rarity. However, if you would like to go to war here today, I am your huckleberry.
You were out of line to make the comment to Dave Miller that you have and you need to cowboy up and admit it. Being a jerk on the internet is a bad witness for Jesus no matter if one is a Catholic, Baptist, or Methodist. It is just wrong. Take that from one who knows.
I would add my admonition alongside CBs and also add that I’m more than willing to ride shotgun with him if he will have me.
Seriously “Tedd” you need a lesson in manners. My thoughts upon reading your comment are unprintable on this site.
Might I suggest you get a clue.
Ever since I tripped over to Southern Hills’ website and saw Dave had a youth minister named Si I have held him in high esteem, even envious. He is extremely sharp when it comes to theology and Scripture but he is dense when it comes to football.
And baseball.
And eschatology.
And fashion.
You guys have no idea (from one who has known him well for 58 years now).
He is right on the football, though–college anyway.
Mom liked me better.
When it comes to voting blocks, I suppose the Catholics would be more forgiving of Sen. Rubio’s exposure to LDS and SBC … than Baptists would be of his background in LDS and RCC. With that said, the good Senator did some fairly good preaching on the way of salvation … better than some SBC preachers I have heard!
I wonder how long it will be before one of his opponents, oh, let’s say Trump, suggests that Rubio’s Cuban heritage is something we should be a little nervous about. Trump probably remembers seeing millions of Cubans celebrating the 9/11 attacks.
That’s kinda funny.
Here’s the scary part. If Trump did in fact say he saw millions of Cubans celebrating 9/11, people would believe him and his poll numbers would go up. He makes fun of disabled people, and his followers rejoice. He suggests we kill the families of ISIS members, and his followers rejoice. The more outrageous the lie, the more heinous the idea, the more people flock to him. It is disheartening.
Trump is evidence of two major issues:
1. Our (Americans, collectively) willingness to support the most extreme edge of rhetoric. (See also: Sanders, Bernie)
2. The sheer ineptitude of the Federal Government in most issues and our reliance on it. Trump says “We’ll build a wall…we’ll kill….we’ll do this…” and half the people who will vote for him either assume it’s just over-the-top rhetoric that he doesn’t mean, or that even if he means it, it’ll never happen anyway because there’s no way the Fed can make it happen.
Either way, while he’s not the only evidence that we’ve crossed the Hezekiah line, where maybe repentance would save the nation, and are plunging rapidly toward the Jehoiachin point where repentance may save a few but the nation as a whole is basically sunk, he’s a big indicator. The vast majority of the field is pretty much a harbinger of doom. Because if this is the best we can do….
Bill said “He makes fun of disabled people, and his followers rejoice.”
Can you point to one source where anybody rejoiced about Trump making fun of a disabled person because of his disability? No, because nobody ever did. His supporters believe that he was not referencing the reporters disability, but merely the reporters mental flailing.
“His supporters believe that he was not referencing the reporters disability, but merely the reporters mental flailing.”
I find it hard to believe anyone actually believes this. If they do, God help us.
And so you dodge the question. How about some facts?
Donald: Well, do you want the link to the video of Trump mocking the reporter? There are people laughing in the background. Trump says “now the poor guy, you have to see this guy”, and he begins flailing his arms. Mental flailing? Give me a break.
No one but his blindly-supportive fans does NOT believe he was making fun of that reporter’s disabilities. There’s just almost no question he was mocking the man’s physical deformities.
Except, of course, for all the times people do this exact same thing about a person that is not handicapped. We’ve all seen it or something like it in reference to unbelievable back-peddling or an unbelievable claim that we are supposed to accept. I just heard Rick & Bubba dong something similar in regard to Obama’s claim that the Charlie Brown Christmas show was about an unloved tree. I recently saw Goldie Hawn mock her movie husband Steve Martin for something he said in The Out of Towners with the voice and motions of a imagined stupid person to be asked what she was asked. It is a rhetorical device and it happens, a lot, with no physical handicap as a target. The target is an imagined mental handicap that is required for what was said to be believable. That is why Trumps claims are believable on his intention. I’ve seen it for over 50 years in many different versions.
This is also Trump, who really doesn’t change a story to make it more acceptable. If he was mocking the guys handicap he’d double down on mocking his handicap.
Lest we forget, the charge is that Trump supporters rejoiced about Trump mocking a persons handicap. A serious charge that is not true. Even if Dave is right (which is demonstrably untrue BTW) that only his supporters see it this way, that proves the accusation is false since they do “…NOT believe he was making fun”. How could they rejoice at something they don’t believe? Obviously, they laughed at Trump making fun of the reporters back-peddling — not his disability (that probably nobody present was even aware of)
Your bias is staggering. I am a Rand Paul guy, and even I can see this for what it is…
In Miami it is very common for Catholics to attend both the Catholic church and an evangelical church like the Rubio’s do. Many Catholics in Miami continue to attend mass because of an emotional or traditional attachment, yet go to the evangelical church because they know they get the Bible there and get fed spiritually. While I would prefer that Catholics who have a personal relationship with Christ break their ties to the Roman Church (as I did), I understand the attachment because of family and culture. Those that are not Latinos cannot understand that in most cases being Latino means being Catholic. This is an identity issue. What is going on religiously in Miami is positive. Let the Catholics go to evangelical churches and get the Word! They’ll get the funky parts of their Catholicism right eventually, at least in the heart.
I heard a Baptist preacher say that every time he passed a Catholic church, he made the sign of the cross across his chest … just in case.
Isn’t it strange how more evangelicals support Trump more than any other candidate. I would vote for Trump before I would Rubio. He is for Cuban’s receiving welfare but not other immigrants.
It is simply not true that evangelicals are supporting Trump. In the latest poll I saw, 20% of evangelicals support Trump. What does that mean? You do the math! 80% oppose him – most of us pretty strongly.
Trump is not, I believe, a serious contender, because he is few people’s second candidate. I like Rubio. If Rubio fades, I’ll support X, or Y, or Z. I wouldn’t vote for Trump – I don’t see how any Christian with a conscience could (that’s an opinion). As candidates continue to drop out, Trump support is NOT going to grow, but gradually, support will coalesce around someone else – right now it is looking like either Cruz or Rubio.
But the idea that evangelicals are behind Trump is not true.
And another survey showed that among evangelical LEADERS, there was almost no support for Trump (3% or so). That was encouraging, actually.
When he ridicules the handicapped, when he offers no ideas but only personal attacks – I keep believing that it is going to wear thin. Here in Iowa, where we’ve seen the most of him, other candidates keep rising ahead of him. I seriously doubt he will win the caucuses, or New Hampshire, and I’m guessing that by the time the primary season is a month old, the question will not be whether he is going to win the nomination, but whether he will seek a 3rd party nomination.
America is sinful and corrupt, but are we corrupt enough to elect Trump? I’m not sure we’ve plumbed that depth yet.
Dave,
I guess time will tell.
Yeah, true. I’m confident he won’t win Iowa. He fell way behind Carson and now is down to Cruz. He has plateaued at about 20%, maybe a few more points. He has insulted Iowans, in addition to insulting women, the handicapped, immigrants, and just about everyone else. His act is wearing thin.
Here’s my prediction. At the caucuses, Trump will likely not finish 2nd, and maybe even 3rd. Rubio and Cruz may go 1-2, and Carson still has support.
In addition, there is a long history of late surges leading to Iowa victories. This time 4 years ago Santorum was barely a blip, then he surged and won. Burned bright then faded, but he won.
The old saw is that there are 3 tickets out of Iowa.. This year, there will likely be 4 or 5. Trump will get one, but it will (in my opinion) not be the golden ticket, or even the silver or the bronze.
I don’t know Dave. I think I may agree with Jess. They may say they do not support Trump, but their statements on certain issues are mimicking Trump’s mindset. I don’t think we will know for sure till the polls, if Trump gets that far.
I guess I am not having the moral conundrum that so many are having with the election. We can either have a Republican of Hillary. I already know how I will vote in such a choice.
I’ll say ditto, with one exception: I won’t vote for Trump, in this life or the next.
I would not vote for Trump under any circumstances.
I do not consider him an improvement over Hillary. I would not vote for either a Democrat, because of their enthusiastic support for abortion, or for Trump, because of his general craziness, his misogyny, his racism and xenophobia, and just his general awfulness as a person and candidate.
Dave,
I would have never thought that Mitt Romney would look good to me. But out of this bunch of GOP candidates, Mitt would look like an angel. Out of what we have to choose from, I’m sick to the stomach.
These pro-lifers kill me and here is why. There is no Republican here on Voices or in our nation that is a pro-lifer. Republican’s are pro-birthers but not pro-lifers simply because they vote against anything that will prevent pregnancy, and help a baby before and after birth. A pro-lifer will try to help the baby before and after birth. A pro-lifer will try to seek peace and not war. A pro-lifer will try to help the elderly and not cut what they are receiving. A pro lifer will try to make it easy on our students and try to keep them from owing a mountain of debt after college. A pro-lifer will want everyone to have health insurance to keep them healthy, and etc.
This is the very reason I will probably vote Democrat this time also. Republicans make me sick, because too many of them cannot see the big picture. Pro life is plainly a joke in the Republican party. Pro lifers just want the baby born, and to heck with the baby after birth.
These are the cold hard facts, and they are true. Just look at the comments here on Voices in the past, folks do not want the government taking from us and giving to the poor which directly contradicts Christ’s words.
Yep, Republicans are only pro-birthers.
Dave,
You said you do not consider Trump an improvement over Hillary. I have to say he definitely an improvement over the rest of the GOP candidates for sure.
Hate creates bitterness, but it does not help you see truth.
Conservatives do not encourage promiscuity and so often are not in favor of handing out birth control to teens, that is correct. You want to give teens birth control or the message of purity? Or you want to give them a double message.
I believe the Bible, Jess. It says that sexual activity before marriage is sin, and I’m not going to encourage that.
As to your other statements, they are simply wrong. They are lies. Untrue. Christians, conservative Christians, tirelessly minister to people at every point in life. Your lies about us do not change the facts.
You are filled with hate against conservatives. I know that no amount of facts will change your bitter, hate-filled mind, Jess. I wish you would open it up and see the truth. But, instead, you will side with the party that LOVES the killing of babies in their mother’s wombs, that actively promotes every form of perversion. If you are comfortable with that, fine.
But do not lie. That is one of the 10 commandments. Are there Christians who are “anti-abortion” but nothing else? I’m sure there are. But your generalization is patently false, a slur and a lie. It is simply not a fact and repeating it is something you will have to answer to God for.
Jess: I’ve asked this question before, but I don’t think you’ve answered. How much of a person’s income do you think the government should take to fund all these things you want the government to handle?
How much beyond what a person has paid into Social Security should they receive? 150%? 200%
What right do today’s college students have to demand that their tuition be paid by a generation of people who have already paid for their own education and are now out there in the work force, using the education they paid for?
You see Jess, you are very caring and generous, with other people’s money. You realize don’t you, that you can donate directly to the government? If you don’t feel like your taxes are high enough, you can pay in above and beyond. Are you doing that?
Some people need a safety net, for sure. But it is neither kind, nor caring, nor loving to simply hand people checks from the day they are born until the day they die, especially with money forcibly extorted from someone besides yourself.
Jess, The very worst the GOP has to offer is an improvement over Hillary.
John Wylie,
Prove it!
No need to rehash what every person on here knows to be true even though you are in denial. Contrary to your ridiculous assertions it wasn’t the GOP who gave us gay marriage and wholesale abortion. It’s not GOP wanting to allow men to be able to use ladies restrooms.
Dems are wrong on everything.
Dave,
I don’t hate anyone. The excuses you have given definitely proves you are a pro-birther but not a pro-lifer. I am not telling any lies here and you know it. I just do not believe the lies being told by the GOP.
Dave, you seem to be a Republican through and through. I don’t think it matters to you what they believe as long as they are on the Republican ticket. I’ll prove it right now. You voted for Romney. I rest my case.
You say that you’re not into politics, then what is this post about?
Let’s try to keep out conservations constructive and not call one another names. It is unchristian conduct. Please don’t get mad because I disagree with your post, but then again true colors have a way of coming out.
Actually, this post was about my surprise at how well Rubio articulated biblical truths.
Where did I say I’m not into politics? I’m very interested in politics. You just make stuff up?
You just figuring that out? 😉
Tarheel,
Thank you for your silly remark.
Bill Mac,
I’m waiting.
Dave,
It’s no secret that you are into politics. Republican politics is what you are interested in. That’s sad to hear. In one of your comments, I don’t remember if it was last week or the week before, you said you put God before politics. I have to disagree with you on that remark. Pro-life is taking care of the baby before and after birth. Which is what Republicans vote against. You are only pro-birth, which is wrong if you do not have the heart to help support the baby.
Jess, your lies are lies, regardless of how often you repeat them.
I think politics matter. I believe the gospel is of ultimate value. I’ve been consistent in that statement and that passion.
No matter how often you repeat those lies they will still be lies.
Jess, I know you are not intentional in your lies. You believe those lies. That doesn’t make them true. Believing lies is sad but they are still lies. I’d love to see you set aside your prejudice and hate and listen.
Dave,
I do realize there are some sorry folks out there who will have babies and not support them. I have spoken to folks who work on the welfare side of government. They shared with me that if it wasn’t for the support the children would starve. Dave, it’s not the children’s fault. God will not allow me to take one bite of food out of their mouth.
This is one of the reasons I think the church is at fault. Simply because the church could do more to disciple these folks. This is where the church is lacking terribly.
Bill Mac,
I will gladly answer your question, and I’m proud to say I will answer it gladly. First of all the gap between the rich and the poor is growing every day. The gap between the middleclass and the rich is growing every day. This has been all over the news. Wal-Mart makes Billions in “profits” and their employees make $8.00 per hour. Why not pay employees a little more to compensate for the taxes. There is not one thing wrong with $15.00 per hour. Wal-Mart will still make billions in profits. The untaxed money the rich keep in foreign bank accounts could solve any deficit problems we have.
It’s not that we the average American have to pay more in taxes, but if the rich would pay their fair share (wages as well as taxes,) everything would be just fine in America.
The Republican congress will not allow these good things to happen. This same Republican congress which you support. The New Testament supports fair wages. You just want to accept part of the bible and not the rest of it.
To put it bluntly, The heavy taxes is on the poor and middle class as of now. But in answer to your question there is no foundation for your question because you support those who want to place all the burden on you, the Republicans.
Bill Mac.
I would also point out that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about, you do not even have a clue. “Extort money from others besides myself,” I have worked like a dog since I was 14 years old, paying taxes since I was 14 years old. I have worked all my life, and worked hard. Now that I’m in my 60’s you complain that I am drawing Social Security that I have paid in all my life. You’re a joke. I will add 15 years of my life I was an underground coal miner and had the most dangerous in the mine. I’ve been bruised, cut, and been hurt by falling rocks. You have the gall to say I don’t deserve what I’ve paid in! Yep, you’re a joke. I don’t even want to talk to you.
I didn’t say you don’t deserve what you paid in. My question is: Do you deserve more than what you paid in (plus reasonable interest)?
You do realize that if you get more than what you put in, that they are taking that money from someone else, right?
By the way, I’m all for closing loopholes that allow wealthy people to shield their money from taxes that other people have to pay.
Bill Mac,
I will answer your question by asking you a question. Let’s say you purchased health insurance while in a company you just began to work at. Now, you have just has a surgery that cost 120,000 dollars, you have paid in only 20,000 in premiums, should you be responsible for the other 100,000? I think not. It the same way with Social Security Insurance. The problem is that each time we have had a large surplus in Social Security congress has borrowed from it adding to the national debt. This should answer your question clearly.
Bill,
Congress has never put the money it borrowed back into Social Security.
This little debate reminds me of why I am glad i am first a citizen of the Lord’s Kingdom [not that any of you aren’t or that any of you are first glad of that like I am].
The answer is not in Politics, I am sure you all agree. If there was enough godly people in this country we would have a party that had the best in mind for all the people. That party would FIGHT for the unborn, it would Fight against the approval of blatantly sinful laws, it would STAND up for the little guy against the corporation. It would FIND a way to balance the work rewards with the needs of the poor.
Its not happening folks. Politics is a continual dead end for social righteousness. Some of us may be called by the Lord to engage in that arena, but some of us are not.
Israel, as a geopolitical entity, was the people of God. But now the people of God are among the nations and of about every ethnic variety. We are working towards the day when every tribe and nation a nd language has a believer in their midst, to the day when there are no longer any UPG.s. The USA is not Israel. It is Persia that has within it strangers and aliens not of this world who preach a kingdom not of this world.
And when given a chance, like when casting a ballot, we should vote the way each of us think our King would want us to. But we must realize that we are voting in a flawed election, marred by flawed parties and led by flawed men, who even after elected, and with the best of intentions, can not do much to ‘right’ the ship.
The USA and its government is a product of its people, and when the majority of its people loved God’s Law, we were blessed. But the majority hates God and His Law, and we are not blessed as much and we are headed to Judgment by Him who places kings and presidents in places of power and displaces them at His own will, by His own counsel.
So what Biblical passages are we using to justify our votes? I don’t see a lot of Biblical debate here, just a bunch of opinion. I can see plus and minuses on both sides. What we need is a candidate thats like, well, thats like Jesus.
But then would we vote for Him? We might, but the USA as a whole wouldn’t.
And as we look to the NT, we don’t see political activism promoted by the writers. Most of them did their ministries in lands that were ambivalent or even hostile to the Faith. And the Church grew and grew. If focused on preaching the Word and caring for its own.It was too poor to care for much more than that. And it grew and grew. IThe Roman empire became hostile to the Way and started putting them to death, and the church grew and grew.
Then Constantine merged church and state, and the Church grew, but corruptively. For hundreds of years, it grew corruptively and in that time, God sent judgment on the land, the plague. At the time of the Reformation, the Church sought to break the corruption that was upon it but they only got so far for they sought to be government as well as Church. Those that sought a better way were persecuted. America became the place to escape the church=government corruption. But soon the people began the cycle over again.
Finally, the government overpowered the church part of its unholy alliance, and we the Church are free of the government. Let us concentrate on our part, the promotion of our kingdom, His Kingdom, and leave the government, corrupt as it has always been, in the hands of our Lord.
Not directed at anyone at all. For all I know, you all agree with my sentiments.
Mike,
I have to agree with you, God bless you.
CRUZ control . . .
(sorry for the long post)