Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 17, 2014, 07:36:10 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  Would you consider this person an evangelical?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Poll
Question: Do you consider the person described below evangelical?
Yes   -8 (27.6%)
No   -21 (72.4%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 28

Author Topic: Would you consider this person an evangelical?  (Read 3344 times)
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2004, 02:26:28 pm »
Ignore

Zen, on the other hand, refers to 'enlightenment through direct meditation'

Funny how all these different sects of Buddhism bash each other, calling each other 'the lesser vehicle' and 'elitist' and 'bastardized forms of true buddhism'

apparently different sects of christianity do that too.

Nothing wrong with being Zen.  Nothing wrong with being Evangelical.

the more I read your post, the more convinced I am that he is an evangelical protestant.  and there's nothing wrong with that.  So tell those assholes calling him wackos to get their minds out of the gutter.  They're intolerant.  I smell the beginnings of a Final Solution with regards to the Christian Right.  Y'all better step up to the plate and speak out if you don't want yourself marginalized by those intolerant 'secularists' and rounded up and sent off to gas chambers.  You're thinking:  No, it can't happen here.  Think again.  It can.  I'll speak out as much as I can, but being an agnostic I can't say that have a personal investment in the matter.  You'd better speak out for yourselves.

(end of rant)

Well.. lions in a coliseum would be more quaint.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14326
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2004, 02:36:21 pm »
Ignore

you're thinking quite a bit about lions lately

screw it, I say Steve, or George, fits every definition I've seen of 'evangelical' including NHpolitico's.  but I am generally in a slim minority on this thread.  not unusual. 

By the way NHpolitico, I believe Clinton was the only Southern Baptist president we have had.  As far as I know, Bush is not.

I think I read that Reagan was the first candidate to use the phrase "born again."  And he did so effectively against Walter Mondale, who would not claim to be "born again" in a debate in 1984.  I have not read that the current president uses the phrase.  Still, he fits the descriptions you outline in 2-4, and in the Webster's definition I presented earlier.  And, from a cursory glance of a modern english version of the third chapter of the Gospel according to Saint John, he fits that too, if you consider the post-40th birthday party hangover a 'revelation'
Logged
Nation
of_thisnation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5587
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.06, S: 1.14

View Profile
« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2004, 02:49:04 pm »
Ignore

And if your religion says that there is only way to God, I would definitely try to get the word out. There's a difference between being open about your faith and "forcing" it on someone.

I don't have a problem with people that talk about their religion.  Who I have a problem with is people that try to convert me every single time they see me even after I've said that I'm not interested.  It's like getting spam that you can't delete before reading.

Yes, I agree. I think a lot of Christians don't know exactly how to preach or witness their faith -- and end up getting people even MORE turned off to Christianity, which is not what we want.
Logged

i dont know, but i've been told
that a yankee politician ain't got no soul
frenger
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11698
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 8.65, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: November 15, 2004, 02:53:42 pm »
Ignore

Geez, smiley ommission is really a serious offense.

Well, I'm sorry, but the truth is that all of Calvanism is based on one word that was added to the bible simply because Luther thought that it should be there:

Man is saved by faith alone

The word "alone" appears nowhere in any of the original texts that exist today.
Have you ever read Romans 3? Even if we take out the 28, the works alone still stands.
And what about Romans 3: 1-5
 1   What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2   For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3   For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4   Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5   But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Oh, dear Lord.  King James?  Come back to me when you have a real translation of the Bible.  This is how that passage read in the original text:

1
1 What advantage is there then in being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2
Much, in every respect. (For) in the first place, they were entrusted with the utterances of God.
3
What if some were unfaithful? Will their infidelity nullify the fidelity of God?
4
Of course not! God must be true, though every human being is a liar, as it is written: "That you may be justified in your words, and conquer when you are judged."
5
But if our wickedness provides proof of God's righteousness, what can we say? Is God unjust, humanly speaking, to inflict his wrath?

Ever read James 2: 14-26?


14
6 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.


This, of course, comes from the book that both Luther and Calvin wanted removed, simply because they knew that it disagreed with their message.

If you are going to believe in Sola Scriptura, the least you can do is get a decent bible that goes back to what was acctually said in the earliest known texts.
 

Ok, I'll use Young's Literal Translation AND American Standart Version(anything but the NIV)

YLT

Romans 3: 27-28
 27   Where then [is] the boasting? it was excluded; by what law? of works? no, but by a law of faith:
28   therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

ASV
Romans 3: 27-28
 27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith.
28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

YLT
Romans 4:1-5
 1   What, then, shall we say Abraham our father, to have found, according to flesh?
2   for if Abraham by works was declared righteous, he hath to boast -- but not before god;
3   for what doth the writing say? `And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;'
4   and to him who is working, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt;
5   and to him who is not working, and is believing upon Him who is declaring righteous the impious, his faith is reckoned -- to righteousness:

ASV
Romans 4:1-5
 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God.
3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

Also,

YLT
Ephesians 2:8, 9
 8   for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift,
9   not of works, that no one may boast;
ASV
Ephesians 2:8, 9
 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not of works, that no man should glory.

Calvin's comments on James 2: 17
17. Is dead, being alone. He says that faith is dead, being by itself, that is, when destitute of good works. We hence conclude that it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name. The Sophists plead this expression and say, that some sort of faith is found by itself; but this frivolous caviling is easily refuted; for it is sufficiently evident that the Apostle reasons from what is impossible, as Paul calls an angel anathema, if he attempted to subvert the gospel. See Galatians 1: 8
On 18-19
18. Yea, a man may say. Erasmus introduces here two persons as speakers; one of whom boasts of faith without works, and the other of works without faith; and he thinks that both are at length confuted by the Apostle. But this view seems to me too forced. He thinks it strange, that this should be said by James, Thou hast faith, who acknowledges no faith without works. But in this he is much mistaken, that he does not acknowledge an irony in these words. Then ajlla< I take for "nay rather;" and ti<v for "any one;" for the design of James was to expose the foolish boasting of those who imagined that they had faith when by their life they shewed that they were unbelievers; for he intimates that it would be easy for all the godly who led a holy life to strip hypocrites of that boasting with which they were inflated.1

Shew me. Though the more received reading is, "by works," yet the old Latin is more suitable, and the reading is also found in some Greek copies. I therefore hesitated not to adopt it. Then he bids to shew faith without works, and thus reasons from what is impossible, to prove what does not exist. So he speaks ironically. But if any one prefers the other reading, it comes to the same thing, "Shew me by works thy faith;" for since it is not an idle thing, it must necessarily be proved by works. The meaning then is, "Unless thy faith brings forth fruits, I deny that thou hast any faith."2

But it may be asked, whether the outward uprightness of life is a sure evidence of faith? For James says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." To this I reply, that the unbelieving sometimes excel in specious virtues, and lead an honorable life free from every crime; and hence works apparently excellent may exist apart from faith. Nor indeed does James maintain that every one who seems good possesses faith. This only he means, that faith, without the evidence of good works, is vainly pretended, because fruit ever comes from the living root of a good tree.

19. Thou believest that there is one God. From this one sentence it appears evident that the whole dispute is not about faith, but of the common knowledge of God, which can no more connect man with God, than the sight of the sun carry him up to heaven; but it is certain that by faith we come nigh to God. Besides, it would be ridiculous were any one to say, that the devils have faith; and James prefers them in this respect to hypocrites. The devil trembles, he says, at the mention of God's name, because when he acknowledges his own judge he is filled with the fear of him. He then who despises an acknowledged God is much worse.

Thou doest well, is put down for the purpose of extenuating, as though he had said, "It is, forsooth! a great thing to sink down below the devils." 3




« Last Edit: November 15, 2004, 02:55:22 pm by Senator Bono »Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken



NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
frenger
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11698
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 8.65, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: November 15, 2004, 02:54:36 pm »
Ignore

And On 20-26
 

20. But wilt thou know. We must understand the state of the question, for the dispute here is not respecting the cause of justification, but only what avails a profession of faith without works, and what opinion we are to form of it. Absurdly then do they act who strive to prove by this passage that man is justified by works, because James meant no such thing, for the proofs which he subjoins refer to this declaration, that no faith, or only a dead faith, is without works. No one will ever understand what is said, nor judge wisely of words, except he who keeps in view the design of the writer.

21. Was not Abraham. The Sophists lay hold on the word justified, and then they cry out as being victorious, that justification is partly by works. But we ought to seek out a right interpretation according to the general drift of the whole passage. We have already said that James does not speak here of the cause of justification, or of the manner how men obtain righteousness, and this is plain to every one; but that his object was only to shew that good works are always connected with faith; and, therefore, since he declares that Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.

When, therefore, the Sophists set up James against Paul, they go astray through the ambiguous meaning of a term. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he means no other thing than that by faith we are counted righteous before God. But James has quite another thing in view, even to shew that he who professes that he has faith, must prove the reality of his faith by his works. Doubtless James did not mean to teach us here the ground on which our hope of salvation ought to rest; and it is this alone that Paul dwells upon.1

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, "Shew to me thy faith," etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known.

22. By works was faith made perfect.2 By this he again shews, that the question here is not respecting the cause of our salvation, but whether works necessarily accompany faith; for in this sense it is said to have been perfected by works, because it was not idle. It is said to have been perfected by works, not because it received thence its own perfection, but because it was thus proved to be true. For the futile distinction which the Sophists draw from these words, between formed and unformed faith, needs no labored refutation; for the faith of Abram was formed and therefore perfected before he sacrificed his son. And this work was not as it were the finishing, or last work. Formerly things afterwards followed by which Abraham proved the increase of his faith. Hence this was not the perfection of his faith, nor did it then for the first time put on its form. James then understood no other thing, than that the integrity of his faith then appeared, because it brought forth that remarkable fruit of obedience.

23. And the Scripture was fulfilled. They who seek to prove from this passage of James that the works of Abraham were imputed for righteousness, must necessarily confess that Scripture is perverted by him; for however they may turn and twist, they can never make the effect to be its own cause. The passage is quoted from Moses. (Genesis 15:6.) The imputation of righteousness which Moses mentions, preceded more than thirty years the work by which they would have Abraham to have been justified. Since faith was imputed to Abraham fifteen years before the birth of Isaac, this could not surely have been done through the work of sacrificing him. I consider that all those are bound fast by an indissoluble knot, who imagine that righteousness was imputed to Abraham before God, because he sacrificed his son Isaac, who was not yet born when the Holy Spirit declared that Abraham was justified. It hence necessarily follows that something posterior is pointed out here.

Why then does James say that it was fulfilled? Even because he intended to shew what sort of faith that was which justified Abraham; that is, that it was not idle or evanescent, but rendered him obedient to God, as also we find in Hebrews 11:8. The conclusion, which is immediately added, as it depends on this, has no other meaning. Man is not justified by faith alone, that is, by a bare and empty knowledge of God; he is justified by works, that is, his righteousness is known and proved by its fruits.

25. Likewise also was not Rahab. It seems strange that he connected together those who were so unlike. Why did he not rather choose some one from so large a number of illustrious fathers, and join him to Abraham? Why did he prefer a harlot to all others? he designedly put together two persons so different in their character, in order more clearly to shew, that no one, whatever may have been his or her condition, nation, or class in society, has ever been counted righteous without good works. He had named the patriarch, by far the most eminent of all; he now includes under the person of a harlot, all those who, being aliens, were joined to the Church. Whosoever, then, seeks to be counted righteous, though he may even be among the lowest, must yet shew that he is such by good works.

James, according to his manner of speaking, declares that Rahab was justified by works; and the Sophists hence conclude that we obtain righteousness by the merits of works. But he deny that the dispute here is concerning the mode of obtaining righteousness. We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness; we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God.3
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken



NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
frenger
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11698
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 8.65, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2004, 02:57:17 pm »
Ignore

you're thinking quite a bit about lions lately

screw it, I say Steve, or George, fits every definition I've seen of 'evangelical' including NHpolitico's.  but I am generally in a slim minority on this thread.  not unusual. 

By the way NHpolitico, I believe Clinton was the only Southern Baptist president we have had.  As far as I know, Bush is not.

I think I read that Reagan was the first candidate to use the phrase "born again."  And he did so effectively against Walter Mondale, who would not claim to be "born again" in a debate in 1984.  I have not read that the current president uses the phrase.  Still, he fits the descriptions you outline in 2-4, and in the Webster's definition I presented earlier.  And, from a cursory glance of a modern english version of the third chapter of the Gospel according to Saint John, he fits that too, if you consider the post-40th birthday party hangover a 'revelation'

Reagan was a Presbyterian. It's higly unlikely that he would use those words, altough it's allways possible.
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken



NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2004, 03:05:37 pm »
Ignore

Geez, smiley ommission is really a serious offense.

Well, I'm sorry, but the truth is that all of Calvanism is based on one word that was added to the bible simply because Luther thought that it should be there:

Man is saved by faith alone

The word "alone" appears nowhere in any of the original texts that exist today.
Have you ever read Romans 3? Even if we take out the 28, the works alone still stands.
And what about Romans 3: 1-5
 1   What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2   For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3   For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4   Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5   But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Oh, dear Lord.  King James?  Come back to me when you have a real translation of the Bible.  This is how that passage read in the original text:

1
1 What advantage is there then in being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2
Much, in every respect. (For) in the first place, they were entrusted with the utterances of God.
3
What if some were unfaithful? Will their infidelity nullify the fidelity of God?
4
Of course not! God must be true, though every human being is a liar, as it is written: "That you may be justified in your words, and conquer when you are judged."
5
But if our wickedness provides proof of God's righteousness, what can we say? Is God unjust, humanly speaking, to inflict his wrath?

Ever read James 2: 14-26?


14
6 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.


This, of course, comes from the book that both Luther and Calvin wanted removed, simply because they knew that it disagreed with their message.

If you are going to believe in Sola Scriptura, the least you can do is get a decent bible that goes back to what was acctually said in the earliest known texts.
 

Ok, I'll use Young's Literal Translation AND American Standart Version(anything but the NIV)

YLT

Romans 3: 27-28
 27   Where then [is] the boasting? it was excluded; by what law? of works? no, but by a law of faith:
28   therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

ASV
Romans 3: 27-28
 27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith.
28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

YLT
Romans 4:1-5
 1   What, then, shall we say Abraham our father, to have found, according to flesh?
2   for if Abraham by works was declared righteous, he hath to boast -- but not before god;
3   for what doth the writing say? `And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;'
4   and to him who is working, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt;
5   and to him who is not working, and is believing upon Him who is declaring righteous the impious, his faith is reckoned -- to righteousness:

ASV
Romans 4:1-5
 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God.
3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.



I have no time to discuss this right now, only to say that you originally quoted the wrong verse and that was the sourse of the confusion.  I will get back to you on this.
Logged

frenger
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11698
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 8.65, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2004, 03:47:30 pm »
Ignore

Geez, smiley ommission is really a serious offense.

Well, I'm sorry, but the truth is that all of Calvanism is based on one word that was added to the bible simply because Luther thought that it should be there:

Man is saved by faith alone

The word "alone" appears nowhere in any of the original texts that exist today.
Have you ever read Romans 3? Even if we take out the 28, the works alone still stands.
And what about Romans 3: 1-5
 1   What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2   For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3   For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4   Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5   But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Oh, dear Lord.  King James?  Come back to me when you have a real translation of the Bible.  This is how that passage read in the original text:

1
1 What advantage is there then in being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2
Much, in every respect. (For) in the first place, they were entrusted with the utterances of God.
3
What if some were unfaithful? Will their infidelity nullify the fidelity of God?
4
Of course not! God must be true, though every human being is a liar, as it is written: "That you may be justified in your words, and conquer when you are judged."
5
But if our wickedness provides proof of God's righteousness, what can we say? Is God unjust, humanly speaking, to inflict his wrath?

Ever read James 2: 14-26?


14
6 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.


This, of course, comes from the book that both Luther and Calvin wanted removed, simply because they knew that it disagreed with their message.

If you are going to believe in Sola Scriptura, the least you can do is get a decent bible that goes back to what was acctually said in the earliest known texts.
 

Ok, I'll use Young's Literal Translation AND American Standart Version(anything but the NIV)

YLT

Romans 3: 27-28
 27   Where then [is] the boasting? it was excluded; by what law? of works? no, but by a law of faith:
28   therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

ASV
Romans 3: 27-28
 27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith.
28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

YLT
Romans 4:1-5
 1   What, then, shall we say Abraham our father, to have found, according to flesh?
2   for if Abraham by works was declared righteous, he hath to boast -- but not before god;
3   for what doth the writing say? `And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;'
4   and to him who is working, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt;
5   and to him who is not working, and is believing upon Him who is declaring righteous the impious, his faith is reckoned -- to righteousness:

ASV
Romans 4:1-5
 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God.
3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.



I have no time to discuss this right now, only to say that you originally quoted the wrong verse and that was the sourse of the confusion.  I will get back to you on this.

Yes, I noticed it later. I'm sorry, my bad.
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken



NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2304


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2004, 03:47:43 pm »
Ignore

By the way NHpolitico, I believe Clinton was the only Southern Baptist president we have had.  As far as I know, Bush is not.


My point was that he is regardless of what he calls himself.
Logged

"I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible." -- Barry Seinfeld
Don't tell me we can't change.
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14326
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #59 on: November 15, 2004, 05:05:06 pm »
Ignore

By the way NHpolitico, I believe Clinton was the only Southern Baptist president we have had.  As far as I know, Bush is not.


My point was that he is regardless of what he calls himself.

at the risk of stepping in over my head again, I really don't think it works like that. 

and here's a link for the Reagan soundbite.  I stand corrected.

REPORTER: Mr. President, would you describe your religious beliefs, noting particularly whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian and explain how these beliefs affect your Presidential decisions?

REAGAN: Well, I was raised to have a faith and a belief and have been a member of a church since I was a small boy. In our particular church we didn't use that term born- again so I don't know whether I would fit that - that particular term. But I have, thanks to my mother, God rest her soul, the firmest possible belief and faith in God. And I don't believe - I believe, I should say, as Lincoln once said, that I could not - I would be the most stupid man in the world if I thought I could confront the duties of the office I hold if I could not turn to someone who was stronger and greater than all others; and I do resort to prayer. At the same time, however, I have not believed that prayer could be introduced into an election or be a part of a political campaign, or religion a part of that campaign. As a matter of fact I think religion became a part of this campaign when Mr. Mondale's running mate said I wasn't a good Christian. So, it does play a part in my life. I have no hesitancy in saying so. And as I say, I don't believe that I could carry on unless I had a belief in a higher authority and a belief that prayers are answered.

REPORTER: Given those beliefs, Mr. President, why don't you attend services regularly, either by going to church or by inviting a minister to the White House, as President Nixon used to do, or someone to Camp David, as President Carter used to do.

REAGAN: The answer to your question is very simple - about why I don't go to church. I start - I have gone to church regularly all my life. And I started to here in Washington. And now, in the position I hold and in the world in which we live, where embassies do get blown up in Beirut, we're supposed to talk about that in the - on the debate the 21st, I understand. But I pose a threat to several hundred people if I go to church. I know the threats that are made against me. We all know the possibility of terrorism. We have seen the barricades that have had to built around the White House. And therefore, I don't feel - and my minister knows this and supports me in this position. I don't feel that I have a right to go to church, knowing that my being there could cause something of the kind that we have seen in other places; in Beirut, for example. And I miss going to church but I think the Lord understands.

MODERATOR: May I ask the audience please to refrain from applause. Can we have your second question?

REPORTER: Mr. Mondale, would you describe your religious beliefs and mention whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian and explain how those beliefs would affect your decisions as President.

MONDALE: First of all, I accept President Reagan's affirmation of faith. I'm sure that we all accept and admire his commitment to his faith and we are strengthened all of us by that fact. I am a son of a Methodist minister, my wife is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister, and I don't know if I've been born again, but I know I was born into a Christian family, and I believe I've sung at more weddings and more funerals than anybody ever to seek the Presidency. Whether that helps or not I don't know. I have a deep religious faith, our family does, it is fundamental, it's probably the reason I'm in politics. I think our faith tells us, instructs us about the moral life that we should lead, and I think we're all together on that.

What bothers me is this growing tendency to try to use one's own personal interpretation of faith politically, to question others' faith, and to try to use instrumentalities of government to impose those views on others. All history tells us that that's a mistake. When the Republican platform says that from here on out we're going to have a religious test for judges before they're selected for the Federal court and then Jerry Falwell announces that that means they get at least two Justices of the Supreme Court, I think that's an abuse of faith in our country. This nation is the most religious nation on earth. More people go to church and synagogues than any other nation on earth, and it's because we kept the politicians and the state out of the personal exercise of our faith. That's why faith in the United States is pure and unpolluted by the intervention of politicians, and I think if we want to continue as I do to have a religious nation, let's keep that line and never cross it.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Mr. Barnes, a question? We have time for rebuttal now.

REPORTER: I think I have a follow-up.

MODERATOR: Yes, I asked you if you did. I'm sorry I thought you waived it.

REPORTER: Yes. Mr. Mondale, you've complained just now about Jerry Falwell, and you've complained other times about other fundamentalists in politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall your ever complaining about ministers who are involved in the civil rights movement, in the anti- Vietnam War demonstrations or about black preachers who've been so involved in American politics. Is it only conservative ministers that you object to?

MONDALE: No. What I object to - what I object to - what I object to is someone seeking to use his faith to question the faith of another or to use that faith and seek to use the power of Government to impose it on others. A minister who is in civil rights or in the conservative movement because he believes his faith instructs him to do that, I admire. The fact that the faith speaks to us and that we are moral people hopefully I accept and rejoice in. It's when you try to use that to undermine the integrity of private political - or private religious faith and the use of the state is where for the most personal decisions in American life - that's where I draw the line.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Now, Mr. President. Rebuttal.

REAGAN: Yes, it's very difficult to rebut, because I find myself in so much agreement with Mr. Mondale. I, too, want that wall that is in the Constitution, separation of church and state, to remain there. The only attacks I have made are on people who apparently would break away at that wall from the Government side using the Government, using the power of the courts and so forth, to hinder that part of the Constitution that says the Government shall not only not establish a religion, it shall not inhibit the practice of religion, and they have been using these things to have Government, through court orders, inhibit the practice of religion. A child wants to say grace in a school cafeteria, and a court rules that they can't do it. And because it's school property. These are the types of things that I think have been happening in a kind of a secular way that have been erroding that separation, and I am opposed to that. With regard to a platform in the Supreme Court, I can only say one thing about that. I don't - I have appointed one member of the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, I'll stand on my record on that, and if I have the opportunity to appoint any more. I'll do it in the same manner that I did in selecting her.

MODERATOR: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal, please.

MONDALE: The platform to which the President refers in fact calls for a religious test in the selection of judges. And Jerry Falwell says that means we get two or three judges. And it would involve a religious test for the first time in American life. Let's take the example that the President cites. I believe in prayer. My family prays. We've never had any difficulty finding time to pray. But do we want a constitutional amendment adopted of the kind proposed by the President that gets the local politicians into the business of selecting prayers that our children must either recite in school or be embarrassed and ask to excuse themselves? Who would write the prayer? What would it say? How would it be resolved when those disputes occurred? It seems to me that a moment's reflection tells you why the United States Senate turned that amendment down. Because it will undermine the practice of honest faith in our country by politicizing it. We don't want that.

MODERATOR: Thank you Mr. Mondale.
Logged
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55444
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: November 15, 2004, 05:23:18 pm »
Ignore

I have a confession to make. The guy's name isn't Steve, it's George. He was born in Connecticut, moved to Texas, and now he lives in Washington D.C.(1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to be exact).

Still think he isn't evangelical?

Bush is a Methodist in Name Only. He goes to the United Methodist Church, but he's no true fit in the national United Methodist Church at all.  The early Methodists were more fundamentalist and fanatical and that tradition is where Bush belongs. John Wesley was an evangelical Methodist. Those kind of Methodists have left the church now and are in other denominations.  Bush is an evangelical. He's not a Methodist, though. Bush is a Southern Baptist like Billy Graham.

The early Methodists were Evangelical (in the old sense) but certainly wouldn't have shared Bush's political views. More in the morning. Need sleep now.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15233
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: November 16, 2004, 07:55:39 am »
Ignore

I have a confession to make. The guy's name isn't Steve, it's George. He was born in Connecticut, moved to Texas, and now he lives in Washington D.C.(1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to be exact).

Still think he isn't evangelical?

Bush is a Methodist in Name Only. He goes to the United Methodist Church, but he's no true fit in the national United Methodist Church at all.  The early Methodists were more fundamentalist and fanatical and that tradition is where Bush belongs. John Wesley was an evangelical Methodist. Those kind of Methodists have left the church now and are in other denominations.  Bush is an evangelical. He's not a Methodist, though. Bush is a Southern Baptist like Billy Graham.

The early Methodists were Evangelical (in the old sense) but certainly wouldn't have shared Bush's political views. More in the morning. Need sleep now.

Weren't the African Americans in some slave uprising going to kill all the whites except for the Quakers and the Methodists in the area because we opposed slavery?
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
cwelsch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 678


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: November 17, 2004, 02:13:25 am »
Ignore

- Evangelical
Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.

- Evangelical
Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.

- Evangelical
-- Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland.
-- Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.
Logged

Libertarians For Life my blog

Economic Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian: -6.46
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines