« It Ain't That Bad Being Baptist | Main | Mitt Romney for President: Round Two »

2007.11.01

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

scott shaffer

Hi Peter,

I haven't made up my mind on which candidate I'll support, and I haven't done much research on their positions either. Not yet anyway. But, I have a couple of "gut" objections to Romney. First, I have a hard time supporting someone who belongs to what is at best a false religion and what could also be called a cult. Second, as I understand it, he has flip-flopped on some important issues, including abortion. This frightens me, especially when I start thinking about appointments to the Supreme Court. Of course, as we saw with Bush Sr.'s lousy appointments, we have no guarantees.

I'm very frustrated that in a country of 300 million people that we have been reduced to selecting from these uninspiring career politicians.

John Daly

A vote for Romney will "neither pick my pocket or break my leg," it will however bring Mormonism into the "main stream." And to that I say...the Gospel welcomes all-comers. I didn't have a problem with Kennedy's Catholicism (although I was yet to be born) and I don't have a problem with Romney's Mormonism because it will only increase our opportunities to share Christ and it will awaken many a sleepy Christian to study their Faith and go forward for the Cross. Kind of like what the Mormons do to us now.

Geoff Baggett

Scott,
A change in position does not a flip-flop make. Flip -flops involve multiple changes of position. personally, I am thankful when a politician moves from the position of pro-abortion to pro-life.

Peter,
Well said. I have been making the same arguments with others on the blogs. Personally, I cannot fathom refusing to vote for a fiscally and socially conservative candidate, just because of his status as a Mormon. Some are saying that they would vote third party or write-in. But I see such action, which would inevitably place Hillary Clinton in the White House, as something along the lines of unreasonable. Were it not for Ross Perot, Bill Clinton would have never seen the White House without taking one of the tours.

When it comes time for the general election, and the choices are Romney or Clinton, that choice is a bit of a no-brainer for me.

Debbie Kaufman

The problem is he is Mormon and I don't believe the ends should justify the means. This just may backfire on those Christians who do vote for him. I also look at scripture that say be not unequally yoked. If it came down to the two candidates you have mentioned, I have been known not to vote at all.

With this mindset I do not want to hear anything about excluding people from the SBC for non-essentials. Not one word should be spoken.

peter lumpkins

Geoff,

Thanks for your participation and the good word. Marvin Olasky said: "If I have to choose between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, I'll choose Romney in a Utah minute." :^)

Scott

As usual, my brother, your comments are spunky and challenging but appropriately written. Note, I not only agree with Geoff pertaining to the nature of what constitutes 'waffeling', I would add that the Old Gipper himself changed his mind on abortion rights just prior to his being elected to the Oval office.

John,

Thanks for the words of balance and perceiving an opportunity for Christians to arise and be the people God intends. One footnote to your comment I'd like to offer.

You suggested a win for Romney would place Mormonism in the 'mainstream'. From my view, I do not think Mormonism is displaced from 'mainstream'. Mormonism is the only 'cult' in history that has prestigious universities in the US and abroad. Brigham Young University owns a massive campus site on a hill above the Garden of Gethsemane overlooking The Old City in Jerusalem.

Ronald Reagan himself had more Mormons on his staff than any other living President.

Presently, there are dozens of Congressmen from various states who are acitve Latter Day Saints, not to mention many U.S. Senators--most of which, by the way, are Republicans.

All of us know the name of Senator Orrin Hatch who, since 1976 has served, and whose name has more than once been floated as a possible Supreme Court nominee. Hatch is a dedicated Mormon.

'Bay' Buchanan, sister of arch conservative and staunch Catholic, Pat Buchanan, is a Mormon.

Actually the list goes on. Thus, if we're concerned about Mormonism entering the 'mainstream', it appears we are entirely too late.

Grace, all. With that, I am...

Peter

peter

Debbie,

Trust you are well today. My sister, if you employ Mitt Romney's Mormonism as a criteria by which to emiminate a candidate, I think that happens to be your perfect right. Be my guest.

On the other hand, the ethical cliche I hear quite often now on the net about 'ends' and 'means' has lost any semblance whatsoever to its roots in moral theory. It now reduces to an interim objection while one is trying, with all one's energy, to think of one.

Like the horrible fate of the worn-out 'strawman argument' image, bloggers have successfully again ruined what once was a meaningful phrase concerning 'ends' and 'means'.

As far as 'backfires' go, that's called politics as usual. Nothing new there.

The more interesting comment you made, Debbie, was this mouthfull: "With this mindset I do not want to hear anything about excluding people from the SBC for non-essentials. Not one word should be spoken."

To even suggest, my sister, that somehow what we use as criteria concerning those with whom we cooperate as a Baptist body, is parallel to the criteria concerning how we accept presidential candidates is, to my recollection, the oddest analogy I think I've ever encountered. How on earth do you possess the time to think up such weird things?

Grace for you, Debbie, and a double portion for me today. With that, I am...

Peter

Paul A. Coleman

Where is Ross Perot when you need him? I miss those pie charts. :)
Seriously though, I believe Christians should vote for the candidate who most closely agrees with them on the issues (sometimes that's difficult), but in the end the Church does not stand or fall because of who is in the White House. It is important to be good stewards of our vote. It is also important to remember that God is in control. I will vote. I will pray during the election that God will give us a good president. I will pray after the election that God will grant our new president wisdom.

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: I'm sure you have heard the Greek word for that. :) It's talking from both sides of the mouth and using someone for personal gain. Where is that scriptural?

It should govern everything we do. My faith governs all that I do even in voting. I will not vote if it comes down to those two candidates. If one is going to win, they will not win with my vote. I feel strongly on this and this will be the first election I will not be a part of. Could it be since God determines who will be in even the President's chair He is telling us something? I believe so, but in all good conscience if they win it will not be by my vote. I also do not agree that a third party vote is a vote for one of the two candidates, it sends a message. If you are correct however and that is true, and I have taken 2 years college government where this is not true, I will not vote at all.

Luke

Debbie,
Your comment raises for me an interesting question.

"Could it be since God determines who will be in even the President's chair He is telling us something? I believe so, but in all good conscience if they win it will not be by my vote."

Are you saying then that you are not even willing to vote for the one that God wants to install in that position?

peter

Paul,

Thanks for participating here and the tempered words you contribute. Also, the reminder that we pray for whomever our Lord allows to sit in the Oval office chair.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Luke: It's not a good message that God is sending. God does not go against His word. I don't believe He is in anyway endorsing Romney. He allows things to happen, sometimes allowing us to go our own way with no intervention thus suffering the consequences. A good way to teach.(Romans).

You do realize that Mormons teach and believe that those with dark skin color are this way due to sin do you not? I would call that racist. Another reason not to vote for Romney who was a missionary for the Mormon church for 2 years.

Luke

Debbie,
Your comments have failed to answer my question. My question is very simple and I do realize it undermines you original statement. My question as addressing your statement is not without Biblical precedent. However, I will once more ask my question. If God is going to determine who is in the president's chair, then are you unwilling to take a stand with God by your vote? This is only in reference to your original words that I copied and pasted.

By the way, I do agree that it is possible that God may be saying something by who gets in...but, then again, he may simply be turning us over to ourselves which in itself is a powerful statement.

But I really would like an answer to my original question of your quote.

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

If you are interested in engaging, I would be more than willing. But never actually dealing with what someone offers for you to consider, asks too much for one to waste his/her time.

To simply come back with 'that's not scriptural' or 'that's speaking out of both sides of the mouth' stands insufficient to encourage dialog unless, of course, you demonstrate how such is so.

You also, Debbie, offer comments toward that which only a rabbit from a hat would qualify. You write: "I also do not agree that a third party vote is a vote for one of the two candidates, it sends a message. If you are correct however and that is true, and I have taken 2 years college government where this is not true, I will not vote at all." Debbie, to what on earth are you referring? If you don't mind, I'd like to at least have a clue about the words you write with my pencil.

Finally, Debbie, if you recall, the first thing I said to you was this: "if you employ Mitt Romney's Mormonism as a criteria by which to eliminate a candidate, I think that happens to be your perfect right. Be my guest." That also includes your freesom to not vote. You have my express permission.

With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Luke: I have answered your question, just not the way you want me to answer it. Read Romans 1. That should more than answer it.

BTW: To say that others will not be attracted to Mormonism may be speaking out of turn. I was alive when President Kennedy was President(although in grade school my memory is clear), and when Bobby Kennedy ran for office and was assassinated. The RCC church grew greatly during those years and even I wished I was Roman Catholic. I realize people may be brighter now, but you, Christianity Today, Richard Land and others who are promoting Mitt Romney may just be regretting it later on. Maybe not, but anytime we knowingly go against God's principles there is a price to pay. More in the form of natural consequences.

I'm sorry for not being gentle on this, but I see an erosion that frankly concerns me deeply. God help us, we do need revival. I also agree with John MacArthur on Christians and politics, this is why.

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: It may not have been you who said it concerning the third party vote and if not I apologize. I will look through the comments and find what I am referring to. To say that my thoughts on this are strawman is to both ignore the Biblical ramifications here and to completely ignore the issues. I cannot tell you how to vote, but I can have a say in endorsements. I guess I'm also not understanding why the above mentioned have not backed Mike Huckabee more. He is a Southern Baptist, former minister and has lived according to what I believe are Christian principles, even having promoted non-segregation in the Baptist churches during the Civil rights period. Is it because he ticked the SBC off somehow? That he never had a chance? I don't understand. I can't change your mind, and you are right I cannot tell you how to vote. But show me in scripture where this promotion of a cult is OK, because it's been the topic of even news reports, so don't tell me it's not promoting Mormonism.

Luke

Debbie,
No you have not answered my question. In fact, you did not even allude to an answer.

You wrote: "I realize people may be brighter now, but you, Christianity Today, Richard Land and others who are promoting Mitt Romney may just be regretting it later on."

I ask you one simple question and you assume that I am supporting Romney. Debbie, I can tell you this, you presume way too much and furthermore, if God is going to put Romney in, then I am 100 percent all for it and am willing to vote for him is God is. How about you Debbie?

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

You strangely record these words: "...you, Christianity Today, Richard Land and others who are promoting Mitt Romney may just be regretting it later on.."

Debbie, that is a flat-out distortion of anything stated on this post or comment thread and comes as close to the intentional skewing of stated positions I've read. Produce the evidence or back off. Period.

And, know I am not at all sorry for not being gentle on this.

With that, I am...

Peter

Luke

That should be, "if God is" not "is God is".

Geoff Baggett

Debbie,
What good does it do to "send a message" if no one cares, or if no one is listening?

A third party vote is always a vote for one of the two candidates who may actually win the election. Invariably, from my point of view, it is usually a vote for the wrong person.

I remember 1992 far too well.

Garth

As a practicing Mormon in Southern CA, I will address your questions from a Mormon perspective (I'm not attempting to coerce anybody to believe, I'm just stating what Mormons believe):

Peter writes:
"If someone can demonstrate how Mormonism is intrinsically anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, anti-evangelical, I'll be more than glad to reconsider my position."

I will show that Mormons are 1. Pro-American, 2. Pro-democratic, 3. Pro-constitutional, and 4. Pro-evangelical

1. Pro-American:
From the Book of Mormon - “Behold, this [America] is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12)

2. Pro-Democratic
From the Doctrine & Covenants, a revelation from Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith...
"I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. (D&C 98:8-10)

3. Pro-Constitutional
From the Doctrine & Covenants a revelation from Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith..."And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:80)

4. Pro-Evangelical
The 12th Article of Faith as set forth by Joseph Smith.."We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (Article of Faith 12)

Debbie Kaufman

Luke: This is as good a promotion(blogging) as he can get. So to say you are not promoting him is ridiculous. And yes, I have answered your question with scripture, Just because someone is in a high position does not mean God put him/her there for our good other than sometimes we reap what we sow. Pharoah would be a good example of this. next reason please.

Geoff: Look in history alone. Theodore Roosevelt ran with a third party(Progressive) for example, he got more votes than Taft. The rest as we say is history as he became President years later. The third party vote sent a message. There are many other instances in history. It does many times send a message.

scott shaffer

Geoff,

You wrote, "A change in position does not a flip-flop make. Flip -flops involve multiple changes of position. personally, I am thankful when a politician moves from the position of pro-abortion to pro-life."

Technically, you are correct, flip-flop requires multiple changes in position. I don't know if that applies to him or not, and like you, I am thankful that he has adopted a pro-life position. However, I am always skeptical when candidates do this because unfortunately, sometimes it is out of political expedience instead of moral conviction. And, this often manifests itself in other policies and decisions after they are elected.

It will certainly be an interesting election!

scott shaffer

Debbie,

Would you vote for an atheist? Or, what about a Roman Catholic, or even a liberal Methodist? What if the only candidates were non-Christian?

scott shaffer

Paul,

You made me laugh when you mentioned Ross Perot's pie chart. Do you remember all the Saturday Night Live skits with Dana Carvey? Hilarious. Maybe this election will produce some funny moments as well.

Big Daddy Weave

Peter,

You and Geoff are the only two Southern Baptists that I've found who make sense on this whole Mormonism debate.

After this is all said and done, I hope there are some good journal articles or seminar papers written that compare the Southern Baptist response to JFK vs. Southern Baptist response to Mitt Romney. I admit I'm tempted to begin on that project.

peter lumpkins

BDW,

Thanks for your participation. I'll probably receive a few oh-my's for this post as well as Geoff, I'm sure.

Yet, I cannot, for the life of me, understand, how we so glibly forfeit our reasonableness on particular issues. For me, this is one of them.

Take for example, Debbie's position she's stated here. Forfeit democracy because we cannot hand-pick the candidates. Scott's questions to her remain forminable. If she will stop intentionally skewing the comment thread, perhaps she can answer Scott's questions.

Anyway, sometimes, with sheer, emotional drivel, we lose all sense of coherence simply because of an a priori committment.

Grace, BDW. With that, I am...

Peter

Luke

Debbie,
Are you even reading my responses to you? Yes I am insinuating that your happy meal is short a few fries here. I have only stated that I would be on Romney's side 100 percent if God is. Debbie, are you saying you would be against him AND GOD? Time and time again, Debbie, you have proven yourself to not be interested at all in interacting with the issues, facts and questions. It would be annoying except for the fact that is so funny. You make wild assertions and cannot back them up. My asking you a question in no way insinuates or presumes that I am supportive of Romney. But I will say it once more and challenge you to either agree or disagree. If God is FOR Romney, would you be for him as well?

Mary

Interesting discussion Peter. I always cringe when I see people who say they won't vote. My father was a WWII Vet and they did not take the rights and priveleges we have in this country for granted. Talking to my husband I think he made a valid point that as a Christian we are responsible to make the best descision with the choices we have and not abdicate our responsibility. We do that enough times and then it won't be a conservative "cult"member we need to worry about, but the pro-choice, Christian hating far far far left. I point point to some truly wacky far left people in the blogasphere and if they don't like Romney then that's a pretty good endorsement for me. But alas - who knows what's going to happen? (Of course God does.)

Mary

Luke, funny in a sad way.

peter lumpkins

Grant,

Thanks for taking the time to post. Welcome.

I do not doubt your believing Mormonism is 'pro' American, etc, though I am not convinced quoting a single verse from your literary canon will demonstrate such.

Not to mention the last one which is extremely tricky--'pro-evangelical'. Much depends on what is considered 'evangelical'. Even the source you cite, Grant, seems to embrace a general 'freedom of religion'. But I suppose you could mean that embracing freedom of religion for all certainly implies a 'pro' status for all.

Anyway, thank you for logging on. Please do not make yourself a stranger when our dialog centers more on our decidedly biblical faith from a convictional Baptist perspective.

I wish for you, Grant, abounding grace and solid truth found only in our Lord Jesus Christ. With that, I am...

Peter

scott shaffer

Peter,

I had put off thinking much about this issue, but your post has prompted me to deal with it now. Please let me think aloud with you for a few minutes.

1. We know from Daniel (among other scriptures) that God establishes and overthrows governments at his pleasure, yet He uses means, i.e., men, to accomplish his purposes.
2. God has instituted government as a way to restrain evil.
3. Paul clearly instructs us to be good citizens with regards to our government.

I therefore conclude that it is my Christian duty to vote. Hopefully, we all agree with that. But, for whom do I vote? Consider a scenario where two southern Baptists are nominated, a Republican and a Democrat. How do I decide who to vote for? Do I scrutinize their doctrinal beliefs, church attendance, giving, or faithfulness to the local church? No, I select the candidate who I believe will best lead our country. Like everyone else there are issues that I use to guide me in this decision. So in this case the candidate’s faith is not really an issue.

But what about selecting between two atheists? I still have a duty to vote. Again, I vote for the candidate who will best lead the country based on their position on various issues. So, the candidate’s faith, or in this case, lack of faith, is not the issue.

Now, we get to the harder scenario. What if one is a believer and the other isn’t? Do I automatically vote for the believer? NO! Because, just because a candidate is a believer is no guarantee that they will be the best leader for our country. It is no guarantee that they will make the morally correct choices. Make no doubt about it, there are believers who stand on both sides of the most important issues we face: abortion, illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, deficit spending, public school vouchers, etc. Again, I am left to examine each candidate’s qualifications and positions on the issues.

Using the criteria that I have to vote for a believer, or even better yet, an evangelical Christian, I would have had to vote for Carter over Ford, Carter over Reagan, Clinton over Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. over Kerry (okay you got me on that one).

This doesn’t mean the candidate’s faith would never be a consideration (see my earlier comment). It just won’t be the determining factor. You have to examine the whole enchilada.

Sorry for such a long comment.

peter lumpkins

Luke,

Your image of a shortage of fries is priceless. I'll have another!

And, I agree: Debbie mentioned a comment back about my speaking of 3 candidates, etc. I haven't a clue yet to what she was referring.

As for your questions to Debbie, they, along with both Scott and Geoff's are telling.

Mary,

I think you are correct. Forfeiting democracy because we do not possess the ideal candidate is a skewed understanding of our democratic privileges.

Faith to all. With that, I am...

Peter

Grosey

hahahahaah Peter, makes me glad I am an Australian.

Umm the guy being a mormon.. doesn't that make him a few french fries short too?
:)


Steve

Grosey

though.. I suppsoe that's not much worse than a contender in Australia who eats ear wax

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gcbKZb7MfdL9VcvynhxJmduGPEOgD8SKEM8G4

Debbie Kaufman

I cannot fathom refusing to vote for a fiscally and socially conservative candidate, just because of his status as a Mormon. Some are saying that they would vote third party or write-in. But I see such action, which would inevitably place Hillary Clinton in the White House, as something along the lines of unreasonable.

I was referring to Geoff's comment here, and attributed it mistakenly to you Peter.

Mary: It's not Biblically a sin or going against either God or the scripture not to vote, especially in a race with a choice such as we have now.

Luke: Tell me with a straight face that by not voting for Romney(A Mormon who has said he believes strongly in his religion)that I may be going against God. I feel that I would be going against God to vote or endorse him.

Debbie Kaufman

I don't mind at all the accusations. I am in good company. Einstein was said to be mentally retarded. Martin Luther was called nuts as others. I stand by my convictions and am shocked that I have been accused of being liberal, moderate etc. yet I am against this and those who want to tighten the reins theologically in Southern Baptist life see nothing wrong with this.

grosey

Sorry.. please meet our next Prime Minister.. the blonde guy behind the speaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aQ8YiIV1AI

Luke

Debbie,

Please read what I am about to write with as straight a face as I could EVER possibly have in any conversation. If God is FOR Romney being president and you will not vote for him, then you are against God.

Is that so hard to understand? Isaiah 21:3-10 illustrates this quite succinctly. To stay in the city and fight against a pagan king would be to fight against God. To leave the city and surrender to the pagan king was actually surrender to the will of God. Now Debbie, you have but one of two choices. If God is FOR Romney, to not vote for Romney would be to say to God, you are wrong. To not vote would be to say, God I don't like either of your options so I choose not to follow you. Either way Debbie, your choice is restricted. Either stay in the city and croak or leave and live. Now with all serious, if the hypothetical were true and God was for Romney, are you saying you would not vote for Romney? It is really not that hard of a question Debbie.

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

You simply are not going to play the martyr, Debbie. You come here, make ridiculous charges that we're somehow a pro-Romney site which you cannot substantiate, confuse people's words, refuse to answer questions and then possess the audicity to say: "I don't mind all the accusations. I am in good company [with Einstein and Luther]."

I don't think I'll allow you to be a poor abused martyr here today, my sister. If you want to engage, do so. But do it honestly.

With that, I am...

Peter

Luke

Peter,
Thanks for the post. I join with the others in giving kudos to your thoughts.

Steve
That was really one disgusting video. I saw it when the news broke. Poor fellow, he'll never live that down.

Gotta go now. Football games awaitin. Go Hamilton Christian Warriors! I'll be back around 10:00PM.

Anon

Oh come on guys, let Debbie put you all in your place! She's SO much smarter than all of you! Just ask her, she'll tell you how smart she is, well, you don't even have to ask, she'll tell you anyway.

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: Give me a break. Not pro-Romney? Then why the post?

Luke: It's not I that is not getting it Luke. But my prayer is that you will. God allows Satan to roam the earth too, it certainly doesn't mean that I am going against God because I hate Satan and do not want him roaming the earth. If Satan was running for office and had these same policies am I going against God because I don't vote for him even though he wins?

Peter: It seems you would rather make me look foolish(which I do not think I am) as opposed to dealing with what I am saying, again.

Debbie Kaufman

Geoff: I realize I did not answer your questions and I do apologize. I have had a lot to answer(as you can see) and I apologize for not being able to deal with all as I would like.

Matt Knight

well I was going to put in my two cents, but after reading all these comments I'm not sure how much more there is to say. Scott and Geoff summed up my thoughts quite well, but I can't resist adding just a bit more.

I'm not necessarily pro-Romney, but I'll not vote for Hillary. I agree wholeheartedly that the Bible commands us to be good citizens (Rom. 13, 1 Pet 2, Matthew 22, etc.)
As Christians we have an obligation to be submissive to our government, yet as Americans we have the ability to choose our leaders. When we fail to exercise that choice, then we share responsibility for the consequences.

Some will refuse to vote in the upcoming election, that is their right (and I wish that those who disagree with me would stay home). However, it seems ridiculous to then claim that God put the other person in power, at least in our elective form of government. Now, I will agree that God rules in the affairs of men, and that He sets up and tears down governments, but the fact is that He put us here now and we have a choice.

We must exercise our good judgment and choose the person that we believe will best lead us.

Byroniac

First off, I agree with Peter and Geoff here on their mutual perspective on voting for Romney. Only for me, perhaps my reasoning is slightly different. From a spiritual perspective, I can't tell who the genuine Christians really are, and it's not mere cynicism that prevents me from blindly accepting every profession of faith offered. I do find professed Christian beliefs to be attractive in my candidate selection process, but it is not the ultimate deciding factor, often for that very reason (among others). From a practical perspective, abstaining from casting a vote is negligence of duty if you feel that voting is a moral necessity, because it simply means that your vote is subtracted or withdrawn from the pool of votes cast, essentially endorsing the winner with the most votes: it does not substantially protest the available choices in the election, or effectively alter the inevitable (and undesired) result, that I can see. Historically, there have been times when third parties have been politically effective, and perhaps we're in one now, but as always, time will tell.

Luke:

If I understand you correctly, I do not believe your questions to Debbie are entirely fair or accurate in their representation of the spiritual reality involved. This is a question of theodicy, and has been a very troubling and thorny theological dilemma. If God is both completely sovereign and perfectly good, how can evil and suffering exist? Christians have come up with different answers to the question, since Christianity begun. The answer to your question basically requires the same theological discussion in order to answer, so it is not a simple question, by far. I believe that Debbie holds as I do to the theory of two wills in the Godhead (Google "two wills of God" by Piper if you are interested). Most Christians will probably not agree with it, but understanding this theological point of view is very helpful in understanding Debbie's point of view (in terms of God permitting this particular election to take place, yet not personally endorsing any of the candidates).

Bryan Riley

What do you think of Huckabee?

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

My sister. Know I do not at all have to make your words look foolish.

Bryan,

What's telling is, the very same principle I advocate in evaluating Mitt Romney, I'd employ identically for Mike Huckabee. I know hardly any more about him, politically.

He seems to be a true conservative but the voting record stands a key factor for me. I have not examined it any more than Romney's.

But I will not a priori commit myself personally to Huckabee because of his evangelicalism anymore than I will a priori commit myself to be against Romney because he's a Mormon. From my perspective, only non-thinking people make decisions like these based on such a superficial criteria.

Les">http://lesliepuryear.blogspot.com/2007/11/glimpse-into-how-antichrist-comes-to.html">Les Puryear presently has an hilarious post--at least it's funny to me--which, in essence, suggests believers such as myself (Know he does not name me specifically) who does not rule out Mitt Romney a priori--apparently because of his Mormonism alone--may very well be doing the work of antiChrist.

Guess I may consider changing my website from SBCTomorrow to SBC666.


With that, I am...

Peter

Bryan Riley

I understand your point and don't disagree. I just wondered if you had looked at Huckabee because I think he is qualified. I also think he represents Christ better in his politics than most politicians who claim to be Christian.

Luke

Byroniac,
Long time no chat. My initial conversation began at 2:11 PM and since there are no numbers, you'll have to use that as a reference point. Notice the words in quotes in my first post. That is what Debbie herself said and I was responding to what she said. Her statement was and I quote:

"Could it be since God determines who will be in even the President's chair He is telling us something? I believe so, but in all good conscience if they win it will not be by my vote."

To Which I replied:

"Are you saying then that you are not even willing to vote for the one that God wants to install in that position?"

My challenge is to what SHE said, not what I said. Your comments would be more in line to address her than myself. She is the one who stated God installs the president and then turned around and said she couldn't vote for the one God was installing. Seems rather inconsistent to me.

Debbie,
If you will pay close attention to what I pointed out to Byroniac, you will find that you initially stated nothing about God allowing but rather God who determines. Why wouldn't you vote for the person God determined for the job?

selahV

PETER: from reading the comments in this stream, one might assume you have endorsed Romney for president. In case some decided to speed read your post they might need to be reminded that you said, "Back to Mitt Romney. Is he my candidate? He is not."
selahV

The comments to this entry are closed.