Sojourner_Truth

Blue deacon is right. It may be difficult to link Bachmann and others directly to Reconstructionism. If you know anything of the doctrine it is essentially a branch of Latter rain theology, along with Kingdom Now Theology, Dominion Theology etc. They all share similarities, but are no exactly the same.

Palin s definitely linked with this false teaching due to her association with Lance Walnau, who I've personally seen preach. His teaching is called the 7 mountains mandate, but its closely tied to Kingdom now Theology.

The thing about it is that most of the posters here are probably right that any one individual is probably not knowingly linked to this false teaching. Rather, it's taught and discussed in their Christian circles. What they may be unaware of is the fact that it's linked to false teachings that are not at all biblical.

The pseudo-conservative trolls here probably know of it, but turned a blind eye because it supports much of their "Christian- worldview". LOL

That's what is often so funny about supposed theological and social conservatives. They think that they believe in the whole bible, yet many socially liberal people are much more bible-centric than social conservatives, who are actually quite liberal in their approach to the bible. They only attempt to flip the script when it's convenient to their political viewpoints.

The devil really is busy these days...... ;-)

Sam, I agree with you.  I never liked the way that the left merciless teased Bush about his intelligence.  Also, the shoe throwing incidence was overseas but it was disturbing to me.  I had to grow personally and come to understand that it's wrong regardless of which way the dirt is being thrown.  To be honest, now it all bothers me.  I used to listed to Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow often, but now I can hardly take it after a while.

I still tend to vote liberal, but I hate where our country has gone in general with the obsession with politics, right, left, midle, libertarian, you name it.  Even more frustrating is that we can't have a decent conversation on blogs like this without people constantly using the terms libreal or conservative (theologically or socially) to express  their views on scripture.  It irritates me to no end which is why often don't post here anymore.
 

IMO, people like Jesse on here epitomize this current mindset.  According to him every article written here is liberal, soppy theologically and reprehensible.  Someone could just simply quote scripture for an article and he would take issue with the fact that they picked the "most liberal scripture that they could find".

I honestly just look forward to Jesus coming back.  I can't hardly take all the division anymore, it's incredibly disturbing, and I'm not sure how we even got here.

You are missing the point once again.  I actaully like Driscoll's teaching, but have grown disenfranchised often with his propensity to project his experience on his audience, and his insensitivity toward those who disagree with his vews.  If he likes MMA then you should too.  If he like MMA, then there are spiritual overtones to the sport that make it worry of writing a blog about how it relates to theology.  In the meantime, other secular things like Avatar are completely demonic and video games are for men that don'thave a life and are wimps.  Huh?

Yes, that's Driscoll.  Considering that many conservative Reformed people actually reject Driscoll as heretical, I think it's fair to say that what he teaches is not always the broad norm.  His views on male-female relationship in marriage probably is as you said not abnormal.  However, the crass language that he uses like "banging your girlfriend", having sex with your wife at least once a day, and his macho man-bloody warrior Jesus model, are all far from the norm in mainline Evangelical churches.  I have no idea why you don't see Driscoll as a little different from the norm.  That's actually part of his whole appeal.  Right?

"This column just summarizes liberal Christianity's problems with conservative Christianity...the conservative response is 'big woop...we are practicing different faiths."

Really?  Did you actually get that from this article, or are you just sharing your opinion?

The article is just about what it says it is.  The fact that Driscoll is a good man that perhaps needs some guidance from people more mature then himself.  Seeking ou a multitude of counselors is biblical as well, so I'm not sure
 

Inevitably the problem most people have with this issue is that they are incapable of separating the two points of view, pro-choice vs. anti-abortion.

Believing that something is wrong vs. making it illegal although directly related (in a democracy) are two separate issues that have to be decided upon. Although, you'd be hard pressed to find many that were pro-abortion, you will find many that are pro-choice. Which simply means allowing someone to make moral decisions for themselves vs. enforcing it by law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad that many things are illegal by law! It's just one of many issues when living in a democracy where people get to vote on what they approve of or disapprove of. That's how the system works. However, the system itself is inherently secular.

Many on the far right argue for prayer in schools, while at the same time trumpeting their love for living in a free country where there is freedom of religion. One can't worship democracy while simultaneously condemning freedom. It's jst the nature of the beast (no pun intended). I've never been able to wrap my mind around why they can't put two and two together on these types of issues.

"For example, majorities would not allow legalized abortion because: 1) the woman is low income and can't afford a child; 2) she is not married and doesn't want to marry the man; and 3) if she is in high school (49% want it illegal for that reason). Note that all these reasons relate to reasons of convenience, which make up over 90% of all abortions."

1) 52%, is technically a majority, but from a statistical point of view the 2% difference is relatively insignificant. Therefore, I would not categorize this with your other statements. I think it's fair to say that Americans are roughly split on this issue.

2) "She is not married and doesn't want to marry the man". A 58% majority in that case is significant, however it doesn't correspond directly with the statistic that you mentioned above where 90% of abortions are for social or convenience reasons. Specifically, the study may be over specific by asking the question "She is not married and doesn't want to marry the man". The more revealing and contemporary question, although much broader is: "She did not want the baby due to inconvenience, or the baby is simply unwanted". Statistics prove it by showing that currently 40% of children are born out of wedlock. If the survey's question had been asked in the sixties it may have been much ore meaningful. Therefore, the conclusion that you draw from this point is inconclusive and unsupported. I'm not sure why they asked a question that is "outdated".

3)Again a two percent difference as the "majority" could be misleading.

This is a matter of mathematics and not personal opinion.

I already made it clear that's not what I was saying.   I'm not arguing against prayer in public, it's when it's done intentionally to be seen by men.  Not sure why that difference is so hard to get across to you guys.  You are trying to paint me into a corner to justify your point that what he does is ok.  i don't get it.  Perhaps you just didn't read my previous posts.......

One other note on the whole biblical prayer thing.  Please point me to another character from the bible that did similar acts of "Tebowing" in public spaces?  In other words, constant non verbal gestures of worship to God when good things happened to them......

Great points. 

And just for the record I don't disagree with public pray at all.  I just see an obvious difference between Jim Wallis parying at an event or Christians praying in public spaces vs. what Tebow does.  For instance in the last game in which he passed for a 50+ yeard play, he ran all the way down to his endzone and got down on one knee to pray.  Could he not have prayed right where he stood?  I can't judge the man's heart and neither can you, but that seems to me like someone who seeks attentin from the media.  Even if it's in the name of lifting up Christ I think we have always be on guard against our own hearts which can be desperatley wicked.  He may think he even has good intentions, but his heart has him fooled.   Just something to consider.

In terms of public prayer being unbiblical I'm referring to it being done in public spaces with the intention of being seen by men.  Yes, I do believe that the bible was talking about hypocrisy, and I think bowing down in endzones only when everyone is watching includes that.  You could just as easily say a prayer to yourself, or in your head.  Yes, we should be witnesses, but I'm leary of the whole act.  I don't care how long it's been done in the NFL or sports or how common it is.  How something is accepted in the public sphere doesn;t change my view of what the word says.  I also, don't believe that every act that we do must be sanctioned by the bible, but when the bible clearly points things out I think it's important that we follow.

We should be willing to hold one another accountable as well.  You may think I'm criticizing tebow, but it's more or less pointing out why something may need to be adjusted.  I'm not attempting to condemn him and have made it clear that I admire the other parts of his witness.





 

Question to the whole board:

If Tim Tebow exchanged his Tebowing for speaking in tongues after every touchdown would he still be widely supported by the Christian community? In other words, would they still recognize his recognition of Christ in the public arena as something admirable?

Please provide a clear answer as to yes or no, and then explain why or why not.

Sam, it's over the top and annoying which is what's causing people to mock him.  What Tebow is doing is definitely pushing the limits of Matthew 6.  Spare me the argument because I've laready heard it over and over about how it's really about hypocrisy and I don't disagree to a point.  I do think Tebow's constant Tebowing definitely crosses the line though from glorifying God and into drawing attention to one's self.

I do think that Jesus was addressing this issue as well in Matthew 6 when he goes on to clarify that people who receive praise from men forfeit their reward in heaven.  Jesus, Moses, Paul, Stephen, Peter, Timothy, all preached the gospel boldly.  There is not other biblical basis for constant non-verbal prayers and gestures to God in public.  I'm sorry it's just not biblical, and that's why I have a problem with it.  it's not that public prayer is wrong, it's when it's blatantly done to bring attention to yourself.  I think tebow is doing that whether he intends to or not.  Which, is why most of these debates center around tebow and not Jesus.  Think about it........  

Although Tebow is not responsible for peole mocking prayer to God, he is indirectly resposible for the whole phenomenon.  One other interesting thought is that if Tebow broke out loudly in tongues after scoring each touchdown rather than pointing up or Tebowing, how many Christian fans would he have?  Exactly my point, we excuse or let slide things that we think are acceptable, even if they are not biblical.  Would speaking in tongues out loud with no interpretation be permissible as well, biblically.  And if so, what do you think the average fans reaction would be toward it?  Just soething interesting for us Christian folk to ponder on.......

Looking forward to a sincere response.

Awesome!   Really religious people will hate it though.  LOL

I agree with you that the content of the article and the argument barely holds any weight.  It's pretty weak in fact.  What I do find interesting and what I do think is worthy of highlighting are some of the glaring differences between the theology and doctrine of the Catholica Church vs. his Protestant fans.  For example, the Immaculate Conception, Mary Sinless state, here authority as co-redeemer, the Real Presence, works based vs. faith alone (Sola gratia & Dola Fide) creeds on salvation, prayer to saints, Sola Scriptura vs. Oral Traditions etc.... and the list goes on and on.  I think if more people were exposed to some of the doctrinal teachings of Catholicism then they would be much more leary of supporting a Catholic candidate.  I wouldn't put it up there with Mormonism, but it's a close second in some ways.

Not trying to take the route of John hagee here, but it is noteworthy.  In some strange way I do seceretly wish for this to become an open debate aout faith and what he believes, so that more evangelicals will be educated on the differences.  Just sayin'.