How could AntiChrist come to power? Perhaps this overview of quotes for support of Mitt Romney by evangelical Christians provides a glimpse of the rationalization to come.
"Most Americans are pragmatists. There will be a fraction of evangelical Protestants who will be vociferous in their opposition to Romney, but depending on who the other candidates are, that could be a very small fraction," said Mark Noll, an evangelical expert who teaches American religious history at Notre Dame.
"There will be some initial apprehension from many conservative Christians who have been taught that Mormonism is a cult. As people become more educated, they will think more broadly than what the differences are. If he stands for what many conservative Christians stand for in terms of pro-life, pro-marriage between one man and one woman, they will become more comfortable." Rev. Joel Hunter, pastor of the Northland Church in Longwood, Fla.
"I think his Mormonism is going to be a bigger problem with the 'unchurched' than the 'churched.' The unchurched are fairly distrustful of and sometimes hostile of the churched, and they look upon Mormons as, sort of, religion on steroids. The churched respect people who take their faith seriously." Richard Land, President, SBC ERLC
"I do not believe in the Mormon religion," Wilton said. "I do not support Mormonism, and I have a lot of concerns about Mormonism as a religious belief. But I am not voting for a theologian. I'm voting for the president of the United States of America." Don Wilton, Senior Pastor, FBC, Spartanburg, SC. Rev. Wilton later withdrew his support.
"The field has been frozen, and our pastors, our evangelicals, are now able to look at each one of the candidates, and they're able to make their determinations based on what they're now seeing. They have an enormous curiosity … and the Mormon thing seems to be diminishing. They know that this is Caesar's realm and that is heaven's realm. And so, while none of them endorse Mormonism - none of them - we're asking the man to govern the nation." Dee Benedict, evangelical activist, Greer, SC.
"[I] could in very good conscience support Romney" as a fellow "social conservative on most of the issues we care about." Chuck Colson
"I fully recognize some evangelicals take issue with me for supporting a Mormon for the office of president, and I respect their concerns. Indeed, I had to deal with the same concerns in my own heart before offering to help Gov. Romney. But I concluded that I am more concerned that a candidate share my values than he shares my theology...As a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservatives, I am convinced I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination or faith group.” Mark DeMoss, President of The DeMoss Group which is touted as "the nation’s premier public relations firm focused on faith-based organizations and enterprises."
"As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism. But I'm not voting for a preacher. I'm voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs." Bob Jones III, chancellor, Bob Jones University
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
Anti-Christ from my understanding is anyone who is against Christ,so this really bothers me that Christians are thinking this way.
Yes it is troublesome.
What makes it so troublesome is not the idea that a Mormon can be president, nor, from my perspective, should we take the position that "I would never vote for a Mormon."
Rather the problem here is:
1. The minimalization of Mormonism's doctrines. If you're going to say, "I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism" then the next words should be: "and this is why..."
2. The conflation of truth with ethics. There is overlap between Christianity and Mormonism in ethics because the latter is a heresy of the former.
3. The obvious deceitfulness in trying to hide the truth about Mormonism as if that is off limits. If a man won't talk candidly about what he really believes about g/God while wanting to identify himself with evangelical Christianity, what does this say about his integrity about lesser matters?
When it was Clinton doing that about Monica, what exactly did men like Land have to say? Colson? etc.? This is a flagrant double standard.
4. Apropos 1, and 3, the LDS is using this as an opportunity to drop their propaganda around. One popped by Tblog today. Ironically, he was more honest about Mormonism that Romney, Land, and the people listed here.
5. Apropos 4, the problem then isn't so much Mormons using Romney's candidacy (or his presidency) if elected as some sort of evangelistic tool, but the underhanded way they are doing/would do it.
6. Finally, here we have poor Huckabee, who really is one of us, the very sort of man that evangelicals should be affirming, getting the cold shoulder because he isn't as "winable." Well, "He came unto His own,and His own received Him not..."
As to pragmatism, I would also note that it was a form of pragmatism that had a hand in the rejection of Jesus by Israel. He wasn't the sort of Messiah they expected and not one who was "winable" in their minds against the power of their oppressors,so they rejected Him.
I'm just sayin...
Dear Les,
Wow. I knew I was living on the edge. But to be in league with antichrist is far beyond any boundary I imagined my blasted free will would carry me.
Oh, well. I guess I may change my blog name from SBCTomorrow to SBC666.
With that, I am...
Peter
Bro. Leslie,
Great insight! It would do well for these "religious" politicians to read MacArthur's: Why the Government Can't Save You.
I wonder how much of our CP money is going to the ERLC for Richard Land's "lobbying"?
Well, we could take a lesson from history. Take a look at Geneva from the time of Jean-Alphonse Turretin to the mid-19th century.
Vernet, according to Martin I. Klauber ( “Theological Transition in Geneva from Jean-Alphonse Turretin to Jacob Vernet,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, Paternoster, 1999, 2005, 256-270, hereafter called Klauber), defined religion as a relationship between God and man in which we are obligated to honor and obey, fear divine justice, and depend on God’s grace (Klauber, 262). In doing this, he reduced Christian religion to ethical and practical terms. His interest was the promotion of a utilitarian, natural theology that he believed both atheists and skeptics would find palatable and relevant, as a “neutral ground,” in which all citizens could find common cause.
Problems would arise through this minimalist posture. If something was deemed “unreasonable” it was to be rejected. Geneva's religion was not merely ecclesiastical, it was also civil - and that is what Les is discussing, civil, not ecclesiastical, religion.
D’Alembert later wrote an Encyclopedia article on Geneva in which he accused the Council of Pastors of Socinianism (Ibid, 266). Their response was lackluster at best. Here, it should be read for what it did not say as much as what it did say.
They affirmed the divine inspiration of Scripture. The affirmed the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. They stated they believed reason is subservient to the Word of God, and they said we can know about eternal life by it. Then they defended their use of natural theology and philosophy, arguing these two did not contradict revelation.
The old orthodox adherents to the Second Helvetic Consensus saw this for what it lacked. There was, for example, no mention of the Trinity or a repudiation of Arianism or other others errors.
Vernet’s personal response was quite telling. He defended Genevan Christology, grace, and the Incarnation. However, he steered clear of words like “Trinity,” because he wanted to use the language of the New Testament alone. In the process, however, “no creed but he Bible,” gave way to heterodoxy as a result.
This is not to say that Vernet himself was unorthodox doctrinally. However, it is to say that his lack of clarity led to a great deal of justified criticism. In the end, his critics were proven right, not about Vernet himself, but his overall approach. He had so “simplified” Christian religion that he had reduced it to ethics and overly simple doctrine that was, in that state, unclear and indefensible, for it was designed not for the edification of the saints, but wide, pragmatic appeal for society at large. In rejecting the more rigorous approach of the major Reformed confessions and the rigor of the wider Protestant Scholastic tradition in the academy, as well as a latitudinarian approach to the essentials of the first creedal formulas of the Ancient Church, Vernet and the Genevan pastors left the door open for secularism. In fact, in just one generation, Geneva was overrun by those with deistic and atheistic presuppositions.
So, you tell us, was he in league with Antichrist?
Wayne Grudem, noted evangelical author, has made some very prominent and intellectual remarks in support of Romney.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WayneGrudem/2007/10/18/why_evangelicals_should_support_mitt_romney
My questions are these:
1) Does someone have to be a Christian for you to vote for them?
2) Does this apply just to the President or to every branch of the government and why? How about local dog catcher?
3) What Mormon doctrines preclude Romney from running for President?
Justin,
Obviously I disagree with Grudem's position. His prominence and intelligence are no substitute for biblical principles.
Les
In the article Justin mentioned, Wayne Grudem said this:
What about his religion? Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney’s conservative political values.
This seems to be a prevailing view among prominent Evangelicals. I'm not just wondering why these men are saying who they support, they know many will follow this thinking, but I'm wondering why so many are thinking this way. I'm trying to understand but do not.
I have read and heard the message John MacArthur gave that Chadwick referenced, I agree with MacArthur on this although he received and receives a lot of flack for it. Why?
I hinted at this in my last comment over at SBC Impact. But no response to my point.
Would any of you have voted for Jefferson, Washington, Adams, John Quincy Adams, Fillmore, Taft, Madison, Monroe, and the list goes on? As I said before....
Based on your creed, what past great Presidents could you have voted for? Not Jefferson nor Washington who with their deistic tendencies were far from being orthodox. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Fillmore and Taft all rejected the Trinity. Honest Abe was an odd dude. Though later baptized a Presbyterian, ole Ike swore in on a WatchTower printed Bible (Jehovah’s Witnesses) for his second Presidential inauguration. Madison and Monroe were very unorthodox Episcopalians who most consider to be deists.
What's the difference between voting for a Mormon and voting for a Unitarian or a Deist?
BDW: There is not much difference. It would be interesting to see how the Puritans would have thought and voted. I would have felt the same as I do now, although I believe history as proved that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian who relied on God through prayer throughout his presidency.
"prominence and intelligence are no substitute for biblical principles"
Ten Ring at a thousand yards, Les.
cb
Would someone please share logical and biblical arguments that demonstrate 1) Christians should not vote for Mormons, and 2) Christians should only vote for Christians?
Thanks
Scott,
2 Cor. 6:14-16b - "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God."
Is the LDS church of God or the devil? If it is of the devil, then those who are members are deceived and doing the work of the devil. Do you want to unite with the devil?
Les
Scott: Please show Biblical arguments that a Christian should vote for a Mormon for President.
Debbie,
You've made the assertion so you should be able to support it - logically and biblically.
Les,
Thanks. I have two questions:
1) So I guess you would never vote for an unbeliever?
2) How else do you apply this verse?
Scott,
Before I answer any more of your questions, please answer the questions I posed.
Is the LDS church of God or the devil? If it is of the devil, do you want to unite with the devil?
Regards,
Les
Les,
Okay. It is of the devil and no I don't want to be united with the devil.
Your turn.
Based on your creed, what past great Presidents could you have voted for?
Speaking for myself I believe I answered that in post number 2 above.
What's the difference between voting for a Mormon and voting for a Unitarian or a Deist?
This is an easy question to answer, actually. None of those you mentioned were cagey about their beliefs, nor did were their respective theological and philosophical movements prone to use them as figures to which they would point in their "evangelistic" efforts. LDS representatives have stated precisely that they are and will do so with respect to Romney. If you take the Winston-Salem paper, you should know this, since it was explicitly stated in the religion section of the Saturday newspaper within the past
4 to 6 weeks.
Anybody care to establish from Scripture that we should have to choose between the lesser of two evils in the primary or that we must vote at all in the final election if we disapprove of the candidates?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/10/between-she-devil-and-deep-blue-sea.html
As to Grudem:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/10/donny-marie-for-prez.html
Scott,
Would you vote for an Aztec or Satanist?
Gene,
No I wouldn't. Can I assume from your posts that you would only vote for a Christian?
Why wouldn't you vote for an Aztec or Satanist?
Ethics? But the only reason that Mormonism's general ethics are like that of ours is because Mormonism is a Christian heresy.
But how ethical is Romney? He's changed positions several times. He glosses over his Mormonism and pretends it's just another Christian sect. He's a liberal Mormon.
When Clinton was lying about Lewinsky, where was Richard Land? The double standard here is amazing. We were told that men of low character should not be in office because Clinton lied, and now here we have Romney being supported and he refuses to talk openly about Mormonism.
As to your question, you know, Scott, you can read Triablogue and the posts here to find out the answer to that question, as I have already answered it. I don't think I should have to repeat myself. If you can't be bothered to read the answers I give, then that's not my problem.
Would someone please share logical and biblical arguments that demonstrate 1) Christians should not vote for Mormons, and 2) Christians should only vote for Christians?
1. This question is a bit prejudiced as New Testament era Christians did not choose their political leaders with a vote.
2. So, we are left to extrapolate, from the NT, with respect to leaders in the Church.
3. What does God say about the qualifications for eldership and deacons?
So, there are obvious disanalogies in arguing about voting in that regard, for there really isn't anything directly applicable to civil religion in the NT.
However, Sola Scriptura is tota Scriptura, and, while the people as a whole did not get to "vote" for their leaders under the Old Covenant proper, a system of tribal elders was used, and the monarchs did, if you read the narratives carefully, "vote" for their kings by raising them to power.
In the time of Saul, the people chose after their own hearts. They did so at the end of a period of progressive moral and theological declension in Hebrew society in Palestine. They wound up with Saul, given to them by God to ratify that hardness of heart. They reasoned from outward appearances and his "winability" against their oppressors.
We all know how that turned out.
God used this to show them that they needed a king after His own heart, and He chose David, but David was not king by divine right absolutely. After Saul died, he had to consolidate his power and the elders of Judah and eventually all the tribes approved of him and seated him as king over them all.
We see a similar pattern repeated in the way that the Northern Tribes brought their kings to power. What sort of nation did that create?
That is the closest analogy you will find in Scripture.
So, Scott, you tell us, what does God say about choosing leaders on the basis of "winability" and "ethics" and not men after God's own heart?
The argument that God can use a Cyrus to rule over us is true as far as it goes, but it suffers from a fatal flaw - the covenant community did not vote for him in any way. He was imposed upon them while they were in exile.
The problem with Romney is not exclusively his Mormonism, but the arguments being woven by evangelicals on the basis of pragmatism. Also, the LDS have stated they will and are using his candidacy to promote Mormonism, and it's not as if they are being honest about Mormonism here. They are billing it as just another version of Christianity, and not many people seem willing to talk about what it really entails. So, yes, a vote for him, would effectively be a vote for the LDS, since they have themselves made that clear. We're just framing our argument the way they have already framed it for us.
I think God would rather us either sit out this election or vote for a pagan that is honest about his paganism than one that is cagey about it - but we aren't there yet. This is still primary season. We're talking about election votes not primary votes, when we should be talking about primary votes,not election votes.
I think also that He would rather us be honest about Mormonism rather than glossing over it as if it isn't at all relevant. What makes it a particular problem, IMO, is that Huckabee, while not as "winable" as Romney against the proverbial Philistines, really is a man who is "one of us," and he is being largely overlooked, and when we examine why,it gets back to this pragmatic argument.
Scott,
Your answers have made my point. I shall now reciprocate.
You asked, "1) So I guess you would never vote for an unbeliever?
2) How else do you apply this verse?"
1. I can say that I have not knowingly voted for an unbeliever and it is my intention to never do so.
2. Marriage, business partnership, and church cooperation come to mind.
Regards,
Les
Gene,
I don't know much about Romney. I prefer to deal with the principle first then figure out how to apply it to Romney or any other non-believer.
Les,
Thanks for the candid answers. I prefer to vote for believers, but I can tell you that I voted for Ford instead of Carter, and both of Clinton's opponents - Bush Sr. and Dole. I'm not sure if the Republicans were believers or not, but the Democrats were professed born-again Christians attending SBC churches. I didn't vote for the Democrats because regardless of their profession their policies in my opinion were in opposition to Christian ethics. Of course, we can disagree on the wisdom of those votes.
I vote for the candidate who I believe will be the more effective leader, will appoint conservative justices, and will best promote a conservative and Christian moral values. Again, in my opinion, just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they will be the best leader. I think recent history bears this out.
Now that may make me a pragmatist, at least with respect to this issue. So be it. This is the fallen world we live in, so yes I am to some extent forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. We do that if we don't vote as well.
Concerning the unequally yoked passage, I have never seen it applied to who we should vote for. It seems to me that you taken a huge leap from marriage, church membership, and business partnership, to who we should vote for. I'm not sure how voting for someone yokes you to that person.
But, thanks for the discussion. It has been interesting.
By the way, I'm not planning on voting for Romney. I'm a Huckabee supporter.
Gene,
Thanks for the dialog. I’ve got a few minutes so I’ll try to answer some of your questions.
“Why wouldn't you vote for an Aztec or Satanist?”
I'm still wrestling with the entire issue. My short answer is that their religion shows such a depraved heart that I know they wouldn't be able to lead our country anywhere near the direction it needs to go.
“But how ethical is Romney? He's changed positions several times. He glosses over his Mormonism and pretends it's just another Christian sect. He's a liberal Mormon.”
This is irrelevant to me at this point. I don’t know how ethical he is. Yes, I know he changed his mind and that bothers me. I’m trying to deal with the more fundamental question of “Is it ever permissible for a Christian to vote for a non-Christian?” If so, where do I draw the line?
“When Clinton was lying about Lewinsky, where was Richard Land? The double standard here is amazing. We were told that men of low character should not be in office because Clinton lied, and now here we have Romney being supported and he refuses to talk openly about Mormonism.”
See my answer to the above question.
“As to your question, you know, Scott, you can read Triablogue and the posts here to find out the answer to that question, as I have already answered it. I don't think I should have to repeat myself. If you can't be bothered to read the answers I give, then that's not my problem.”
Don’t get so testy. I re-read your posts on this thread and the only direct response to this question that I found was “What makes it so troublesome is not the idea that a Mormon can be president, nor, from my perspective, should we take the position that "I would never vote for a Mormon." You have since added "I think God would rather us either sit out this election or vote for a pagan that is honest about his paganism than one that is cagey about it - but we aren't there yet". So may I conclude that it isn't always unacceptable to vote for a Mormon or a Pagan?
If I have some time later today I’ll read your blog.
Thanks for the dialog.
Thanks
Guys, here in Australia we do not have the luxury of not voting. It is an offense to not vote at any election, whether state or federal. That offense is recorded, and you will be fined, and could possibly face imprisonment and loss of job.
If you had no choice but to vote, (in accord with Rom 13) who would you vote for?
Steve
I'd third party vote.
A domain name I purchased in preparation for the end times.
Grosey,
There's no such thing as having no choice. You have a choice to obey your conscience and be fined, lose your job or get thrown in jail. The apostle Paul made such a choice. John Bunyan made such a choice. Deitrich Bonhoeffer made such a choice. Our problem is that in our day we fear consequences more than we fear God.
Someone said, "Is the LDS church of God or the devil? If it is of the devil, then those who are members are deceived and doing the work of the devil. Do you want to unite with the devil?"
The problem with this is that ALL who do not know Christ have the devil as their father (remember what Jesus said?). We were ALL enemies of Christ before His choosing (Rom. 5). So to say we cannot vote for Romney because his work is of the devil is to say that we can NEVER vote for ANY nonbeliever...EVER! That's a pretty tough request considering how hard it is to find a genuine follower of Christ in politics.
That being said, I WON'T be voting for Romney. :)
Dave
Post a Comment