What's that you say? The George Bush you know of is nothing like that?
Well, nevermind. We're all basically talking about the same George Bush, aren't we? We just have different routes of getting to him.
At last that seems to be the President's "reasoning," when he says
"I think [Moslems and Christians] do [worship the same God]. We have different routes of getting to the Almighty. ..But I want you to understand, I want your listeners to understand, I don't get to get decide who goes to heaven. The Almighty God decides who goes to heaven and I am on my personal walk."So this God is a monad and a Trinity, and did and didn't become incarnate through the virgin, Mary, and did and didn't die on the cross as a substitute for His people's sins, and does and doesn't save through faith alone and by grace alone, and is and isn't known through the Bible alone....
Dizzy yet?
Now, it's time for the necessary disclaimers. It's an ABC News story, and the interviewer is Charles Gibson. So maybe not a word of it is true. But Bush has said the same thing before.
He also tries to explain in this same interview that the terrorists are motivated by a false religion, and it isn't a religious war. Hm.
He's in a tough spot. My advice would be... well, of course first it would be to get the heck out of his liberal Methodist church, and go somewhere where he'll be taught the Word. Then it'd be to evangelize his wife and daughters, apparently.
But then it'd probably be to answer questions by saying he wasn't elected Theologian of the United States, but President.
And as to this mealy-mouthed "it isn't for me to say" garbage, I've expressed my thoughts HERE.
Bottom-line: respected public figures don't always have to answer every question. But if they do answer, they should get it right. Especially big ones, like this.
Posts
12 comments:
If true, you are correct - ugly stuff. You'd think a guy with all the security that he has would be more free to say what he really thinks. Or perhaps he is starting to believe this hype (religion of peace and all that).
Ok, I'm a papist and I agree that a lot of President Bush's theology is loopy. I do, however, agree with him about Muslim's Worshipping the true God. Now, to borrow your analogy: suppose a person who was under the delusion that GW Bush is a black, pegleged transexual had a telephone conversation with President Bush. Would that mean the person had not had a telephone conversation with the same George Bush who is President, or would it simply mean that the person in question had false beliefes about the person they had talked with.
What about taking your line of argument to its logical conclusion. If an evangelical Presbyterian says he believes in a God who has commanded His follows to baptise all their infant children, I can;t imagine anyone is going to argue that he is worshipping a different God to you Baptists.
Now, you might point out that the trinity and incarnation are rather more important than what God has commanded about Baptism, and I agree, but if we make beliefe in those doctorines pivitol to worshiping the true God, surely that means the Jews are not worshipping the true God either. Surely it is more rational to conclude of the Muslims (and Jehova's Witnesses) that they are like the Jews pof whom the Apostle Paul said that they worship the true God, but not according to true knowledge.
REPENT!
You must not leave the faith the Republican Party has sold to America. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. We must stand strong against the Democrats, because they are the apostates, not us.
David, do you have a comment that (A) is about the article, and (B) isn't obnoxious, irrelevant, and stupid? If so, please offer it.
William III—Thanks for your comment.
Your admission that you're a "papist"—which I'm very sorry to hear, and will pray for you—poses a difficulty in response. I don't want to seem to be "taking the obvious shot," but am constrained to focus on a couple of things.
You try to say in effect, "Details, shmetails; what he believes isn't all that important." Well, there in a nutshell is the divide between Biblical faith and Romanism. Jesus says true worship must be in spirit and truth (John 4:34-34), and Rome says form and dogma will do just fine. The Bible emphasizes the life-or-death need for faith based on the truth of the Word (Romans 10:17), and the damning nature of false faith (Matthew 7:15-23), but recent Popes have tried to hose away the Gospel's edges.
To your phonecall question, the Bible urges us to judge roots by fruits, which include words (Matthew 7:16-20). Fifteen people say they've had phonecall conversations with Bush, or worship God. Claims are cheap, and inherently meaningless; I want evidence. Tell me about this person. When the description comes up fundamentally lightyears off, I know they weren't talking with the right person.
You ask a good and fair question about Presbyterians. I'm growing leery of going on and on about an analogy, but let me make a response in those terms. Suppose the description I allude to is fundamentally correct in every major way, but the person concludes with, "...and his favorite football team is the NY Jets." Well now, I know that's not right. But it's also not a major point. We're clearly talking about the same person.
Whether to "baptize" babies or baptize believers is clearly not on on the same plane as denial of Acts 4:12, John 14:6, John 1:1, etc. ad inf.
You also evidently want to include JW's and Jews who reject Christ as also worshiping the same God. I responded to that at the start of this. JW's are heretics, and Jews who reject Messiah are (according to Yahweh) apostates, and under His judgment (Deuteronomy 18:19).
Making sense of Bush's nonsense on this issue isn't worth mangling Scripture and destroying my brain. There's a great deal I like about the Pres; this mushy relativistic nonsense is something I can't excuse.
I am unsuprised by Bush's statement. It is nothing less than I would expect from him or any other president we have had for 30 years. Other than Jimmy Carter that is, and he is arguably the worst president in the past 30 years.
I am suprised when a christian realizes (and is willing to post) that a republican president has no cloths, and really is not interested in speaking or acting as a christian. That is a truly rare, remarkable, and good thing.
Most christian bloggers are perfectly willing to stay on the republician reservation, and only criticisze democrats, when both parties in general see christians as a voting bloc to be manipulated for political gain.
That's just unhinged, David. Sorry your thinking is so messed up, and it isn't welcome here. I'll leave this up as your swan song. While you're in that swamp, take it elsewhere, or expect to be deleted every time.
Mr. Phillips,
No I dont think you took the obviouse shot. In some ways you did the reverse, most of the people I argue religion criticse my religion on the exact opposite grounds that you just gave.
That said, I do think you misunderstood what I was saying. I set out to argue that Muslims worship the true God. You seem to have taken that to mean that the many things muslims are wrong about dont matter. I'd certainly never say "Details, shmetails; what he believes isn't all that important." In saying that Muslims worship the true God I am not saying that they worship Him in a way that pleases Him. Nor am I saying The false beliefes of Muslims are offesnive to God and will doubtless land many of them in hell.
You wrote:"Jesus says true worship must be in spirit and truth (John 4:34-34), and Rome says form and dogma will do just fine."
Actually, Rome insists on dogma because Jesus God must be worshipped in truth. The trinity and the incarnation are dogmas, and we hold that one denies them at peril to one's soul.
"The Bible emphasizes the life-or-death need for faith based on the truth of the Word (Romans 10:17), and the damning nature of false faith (Matthew 7:15-23),"
Yep, no argument there. But I'm not sure it helps your case. The bible says that those with false faith are headed to hell. It dosn't however, say that they are worshipping a false God.
"but recent Popes have tried to hose away the Gospel's edges."
Depressingly true, but I'm not sure how it establishes your case.
"You also evidently want to include JW's and Jews who reject Christ as also worshiping the same God. I responded to that at the start of this. JW's are heretics, and Jews who reject Messiah are (according to Yahweh) apostates, and under His judgment (Deuteronomy 18:19)."
Yes I agree. They are worshipping God in a way that is not pleaseing to him and will not save them. But where does the Bible say that these apostate Jews are not worhsipping the true God?
It really isn't complicated. Is God three Persons in one essence (the Bible), or is he a monad (Islam)?
Hmmmm.. Several thoughts in response (And on topic I hope!}
1) If the Bush administration doesn't recognize that fanatical Moslems are in a religious war with the "Christian" west, they we're in bigger trouble that I thought. (Just like the Liberal elites constantly denying the REAL nature of Communism all during the Cold War.) We should recognize that this is a long term struggle, and ther's no quick fix - like, say like invading one or two Moslem countries.
2) I agree that maybe the President should maybe answer religious questions with the response that "I was elected as the Chief Executive, not Chief Theologian", or maybe give a response that he's a Methodist (or whatever), but that doesn't interfere with his constitutional duties and he represents ALL Americans, etc. I get sick of the MSM trying to play "gotcha" with
religious questions to conservative politisians.
3) The Methodist Church has moved a loooonng way from what Charles Wesley believed. The last time I attended one (a friend's wedding) there was a poster on the board about some Sophia (you know, all that "goddess" stuff) conference at a retreat center. Sad. I can tolerate orthodox Wesletan theology, but not outright heresy.
4) Don't shoot me!, but I share SOME of David's frustration. I've heard all the stories through the Christian rumor mill that seem intended to assure all us "fundies" (what we ALL are in the eyes of the Washiungton elite, whether or not we are Fundamentalists by the actual definition) that Bush is "one of us". Example. I've was told, at a Christian Conference I won't name, that Bush "gave his testimony" to the Chinese Premier on one of his visits. Maybe it happened, or maybe it's a planted "leak" designed to keep us religious fanatics voting Republican. We've found out recently what the Republican elite REALLY think of Bible-believing Christians.
Actually, I agree with everything you say, Robert. Methodists have been long-gone for a long time. I still remember a Methodist sermon I heard when a cultist of about 16 or 17, and how amazed I was, even then, at its lameness. "Putting the Meth back in Methodist," one might say.
Being frustrated with Bush and the GOP is one thing. Talking nuts is another.
Actually, this is not too surprising. During his last inauguration, GWB lauded the Bible and the Quran with the same level of praise.
Now, as far as Muslims and Christians worshipping the "same GOD", I will vehemently disagree. With all due respect to Mr. Roper, this is a lie that has been perpetuated by the RCC in their catechism, in paragraph 841--
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Yet, Muslims do not acknowledge Almighty GOD as having a Son who is equal in divinty. Also, YHWH offers salvation based on faith in His Beloved Son's death upon the cross, while Allah demands that salvation be "earned."
No, Allah is NOT Almighty GOD, he is a heretical fraud which has sent untold millions to eternal destruction.
Post a Comment