President Bush interview/God and Bible

Someone at work mentioned this interview this week...

Listen to his testimony of what he believes.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/story?id=6417361&page=1

In Christ
Jeff

edited out

Pres. Bush has definitely backslid since his first few years in office. Early on, he caught a ton of heat b/c he was so adamant in his faith and Jesus being the only way. He said it explicitly at a dinner with a bunch Jewish leaders! There were many examples like this early on, but something has obviously changed in him.

Wow, just watched it,,, Many scriptures come to mind,, Maybe he needs to watch the sermon from Paul Washer on the 10 Indictments..

maybe he never was a true believer, a false professor, unregenerated. You talk of backslidden, i think the problem is that many really never knew Jesus.

[b]White_Stone asks: What do any of you other folks have to say?[/b]

It made me weep. What I have to say about the interview is that I am very convicted over how little I prayed for him and how often my prayers were asking amiss. How about you? How many hours did you pray, in eight years, for his drawing to/growth in Christ verses wisdom in decision making. Given how little those who call themselves Christian pray period and how selfish prayer often is, I doubt many prayed, over eight years, more than five minutes once a year (National Day of Prayer). I do not recall ever praying for him to preserve a daily quite time with God, a deepening study of Scripture or to meet God in His Word. I think I may need to ask President Bush to forgive me. That’s what I have to say. May I not forget this lesson.

Maybe someone could link here the video message I saw last month by Keith Daniel regarding the rare opportunity we had (and soon loose) to pray for the only World leader who spoke out about Christ at all.

White_Stone wrote:
We watched that - pitiful. He blew the finest opportunity for testimony he will ever have. I pray he seeks forgiveness. Of course, that won't erase the damage done but His will be done. For whatever reason it happened, it happened. He denies the Bible is infallible. Fumbled Jesus being the ONLY way to the Father. It was painful to watch. I always felt he was in over his head in the office and things were out of his control. Of course, everything is in God's control, that is my only comfort.

What do any of you other folks have to say?

white stone

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Maybe someone could link here the video message I saw last month by Keith Daniel regarding the rare opportunity we had (and soon loose) to pray for the only World leader who spoke out about Christ at all.

I remember this.

...how little I prayed for him...May I not forget this lesson.

I feel the same way. Regardless of the character, beliefs, and politics of our next President, I am committed, by God's grace, to pray for him; God is higher still.

"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."

MC

by rbanks on 2008/12/13 19:54:27

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

You are right, I spoke our of line. Please forgive me. I will continue to pray for President Bush.

Pray for me, too, please.

white stone

He has key things wrong, but tows a similar line to
Billy Graham on these issues. He may have picked those up from him as they are very much like what Billy has said on Larry King.

However I do like one thing he said that made it through the cutting process; [i]"A full understanding of Christianity will take a full lifetime of study."[/i] I thank God he sees that and it's my prayer he will grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus.

RobertW wrote:
He has key things wrong, but tows a similar line to
Billy Graham on these issues. He may have picked those up from him as they are very much like what Billy has said on Larry King.

However I do like one thing he said that made it through the cutting process; [i]"A full understanding of Christianity will take a full lifetime of study."[/i] I thank God he sees that and it's my prayer he will grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus.

Thank you brother Robert,

I was thinking upon these same lines. We all know at one time Billy Graham was such a fiery preacher of the gospel with very strong convictions of the true gospel. Oh! How we still need to pray for Graham also.

I well remember the preacher I was saved under and how He influenced me until my walk with God grew deeper in the word. I later in life had to leave the teachings of some of the preachers that He recommended.

A full lifetime of study is indeed correct if we r to know and get the little understanding that we will achieve. It takes such time just as it did the many patriarchs n apostles....

I think many times we feel as though the scriptures indicate that when we pray we will get an answer all the time, when we want the answer, and how we think the answer should come.

This is clearly not right, and not at all in line with scripture as we read, now what the emergent church has told us to "name it n claim it", and to receive your blessings, but god doesnt manufacture answered prayers in that way!

To President Bush,

I hope we do not fail to pray n travail for President Obama...... While we do not have to like what they do or hang out with them, God's will is that we plead for them....

How easy it was for me to forget that the President Bush interview was done by MainStream Media and certainly subject it heavy editing to promote their adgenda. In reality, he may not have made as bad a witness as they made it to appear.

I will continue to pray for him just as I pray for all members here, too.

Kind regards,
white stone

I see President Bush as a babe in Christ. He does acknowlege Jesus Christ as His saviour and testifies of the change that the Lord has brought to his life. He does have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, from what I can see, but his doctrine and beliefs about the bible are seriously flawed. As Joan has said, may God forgive us all for not praying for him more but criticizing him instead.

At least President Bush was being honest in his interview. Joel Osteen said many of the same things in his interview, but I see Joel as compromising and bringing forth a false gospel.

Mike

I really don't think that people will know what President Bush really believes...until they know him personally. The interview is, of course, presented by a hateful liberal media that has attacked him for his "faith" for nearly eight years (and much more over the past four). And remember: This same media did its best to present Barack Obama as a representative of "mainstream" Protestant Christianity.

That brings me to another point: If we were to judge this man by some of his words, what type of precedent would this set? Barack Obama and other politicians certainly "talks the talk" -- but their actions (particularly in regard to issues of righteousness...as they attempt to redefine Christianity) demonstrate otherwise. Yet we do not know them in truth. Perhaps we will not know the heart of a man on this side of eternity. Some men have endeavored to walk with God...but like flawed men...they could be planted at different places demonstrated in the [i]parable of the sower[/i].

Over the past four years, President Bush has been attacked and maligned by many, many people. We expect this from an angry, godless media -- who certainly did their best to present him as a "religious fanatic" at some points (just as they did with Governor Sarah Palin over the past few months). Yet this trepidation was just as strong amongst some members of the Body of Christ who simply opposed the President as the result of some of his policy decisions.

I have met pacifists who placed the President in the same boat as abortionists, homosexual activists and even Islamic terrorists -- simply because of his decision (supported by a majority of Congress...and a large faction in Iraq) to participate in a regime change in Iraq. To many such individuals, any effort to participate in military conflict or war is [u]evil[/u] and feel that they can judge any decision maker accordingly. I have a friend from college who is a Quaker...and loudly opposed the President for his positions in war. However, this same person was relatively quiet over the past year's election -- even though abortion kills many, many more people than the war in Iraq has ever produced.

Do we feel so secure in our faith, intellect and knowledge as to pass judgment on a man for a few of his words? Have any one of us ever said something that we regretted? Has this ever happened AFTER we became believers? Has this ever happened recently? Hmmm....

I am certainly not advocating support for any of the President's policies. In less than two months, he will return to civilian life. His terms of service will be completed and many of his friends and colleagues will write memoirs about the past eight years. It is usually through such memoirs that history judges mistakes and success. Yet I wonder if it would be better for us to not judge the man...but to simply concentrate on actions? Yet even this can be difficult -- because we are each confined to the flaws of our own humanity. We are not perfect...in word or deed (although we attempt to reach perfection -- yet still find it only in Christ and not as a results of our own efforts).

When such things happen, I often wonder what our response should be? When we find a person (who says that he is a brother) in a fault (or suppose that we find him in a fault), do we try to restore him gently? Do we write a letter...an email...or send him a Bible verse...and try to encourage him with truth? Do we let him know that we love him and are praying for him? Or do we stand here flogging him with our words? I just can't help but wonder how close we, as believer, get to declaring "Raca?"

Disclaimer: I am not defending the words or actions of the President. I don't know if he is truly a believer or not. I know that he says that he is...and became one not too long before obtaining public office. Yet I don't pretend to know either. I have met so many who are willing to judge a tree by a single fruit...rather than by the harvest of fruit. I hope that we don't chop down trees simply because one of its fruits appeared bad (and could have been made that way by a bird...a worm...or bad development). Rather, we should be slow to judge...and when we do judge...shouldn't it be by a better standard than by a single apple?

My dad has some fruit trees...and he has never chopped down any of them on the basis of a single bad apple, pear or plum. He has, however, chopped down a tree when its entire harvest is worthless. I just wish that we would be just as slow with our axes.

:-(

AbideinHim wrote:
I see Joel as compromising and bringing forth a false gospel.
Mike

Yes but I don't think Pastor Joel has a patent on the compromising and bringing forth a false gospel. I was just sitting here wondering if there is anyone else that does this, but I sure just can't think of anyone right now, maybe later if I come up with someone I will post there name.

I think when you hear anyone like joel osteen or anyone in particular believe their our others ways to God then jesus, thats a red flag for either they feel bad for the unsaved or their a heretic. President bush does sound like he has a head knowledge and some experience of the christian faith. Remember many have been awakened, but saved we don't know. He needs prayer. Billy graham seems to be himself the one who preaches this love and peace gospel that goes good with many people today but i just don't know how you could read the bible and see it just as love and peace, the people need to hear how wretched they our, they need to hear how short they fall from the almighty God and need to be humbled.

Mr Moderator,

I want to first comment, that you are correct indeed, we do not know what goes on inside of this man or the personal struggle that he has or has to endure.

I will also say that we all know our commitment level here, and we here know the life of the giants throughout church history, we know the doctrine that is high, and it comes from such a High and lofty One. Not only this but we here should know the the things that mainstream Christianity doesn't want to embrce or know.

I also say that to our hurt, America, our World, this natiomn, our communities are unravelled and out of shape due to our lack of Knowledge, for I am of the mindset-understanding that Knowledge in the biblical sense, in the senses that the patriarchs and apostles wrote has to do with active relationship, literally knowing by association and relationship.

Saying this, I meant only to relate that although we exist among false teachers and misrepresenters of the truth and cross filled gospel message, but we must continue to be careful in that we think we have eternal life. I guess what I am saying is that today is such day in which everyhting that is purely religious is marred, and it needs to be brought to/back to God in a holy and appointed manner

With Love,

Fire

In the way I see things...

The beliefs testified by our President brings sadness of thought to the current conditions of our nation. This man, by his testimony, has not found in the Holy Scriptures, the wisdom and truth needed to rule in righteousness.

Our nation likewise is powerless because we will not hear...

Prov. 29:2 \tWhen the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
\tBut when a wicked man rules, the people groan.

The groaning is growing louder, as a woman in child birth. We have as a nation long lost our way. The last President who believed in the Holy Scriptures was James Carter...

In Christ
Jeff

Having said what I thought earlier, I did not expect to post again on this thread but I heard this today in a message looking to break down the extreme resistance to biblical thinking, speaking, and behaving in both personal and public life according to Deut. 30:15 (See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.). Another reminder of Denny Kenaston’s message concerning men.

[b]In The Arena[/b]

It is not the critic that counts. It is not the one who points out how the strong man stumbles or how the doer of deeds might have done them better.

The credit belongs to the one who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great devotions, the great enthusiasms, and spends himself in a worthy cause; and who, if he wins, wins while daring greatly; and who, if he fails at least his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. – Theodore Roosevelt

This man’s day job was not in a common arena. Consider the great vicissitudes in the born-again testimonies on this site and the arenas in which these occurred. Consider what Bible School students face, writing papers for unbelieving professors, yet wanting to graduate so they can preach the true gospel. What a state the Body is in.

Confidence in God

(Do I need to say this is not about a President Bush.)

Hi appolus...

You can blame editing all you want, you can continue to bury your head in the sand as God exposes all falsehood, but it will not change anything.

The mistake in your statement, as in the statements by many other believers who feel smug enough to point out the flaws of such leaders raised up by God, is to assume that believers have placed their faith in this man. President Bush is just a man. I voted for him (twice). Yet he has never been anything to me other than a man who claims to have had an encounter with Christ -- just like you.

Alluding to my "fruit inspection" anecdote regarding my father's trees: I don't pretend to be a botonist or hold a degree in the agricultural sciences. Thus it would be silly for me to talk about the proper state of fruit trees (knowing full well my limited understanding) -- especially if I judged a fruit by what I believe it is supposed to taste like. Those who judge the president (and those who defend him) can do so all they want. But know this: We will all give an account to our words. It is a serious thing to take this man's words and feel that we can determine his present spiritual condition -- all because we think we know God well enough (or are "spiritual" enough).

Make no mistake: No believers should place their trust in man. Yet it is a gross and disgusting error to accuse believers who choose to vote (or even vote for the President) as having placed their trust in man. In my opinion, it is an accusation of ignorance -- in which men who do not know us feel that they know us. Similarly, those who think that they know the President based upon a single interview (or even a plethora of interviews) really suppose themselves wiser than they ought.

I know Greg Gordon. I have been on SermonIndex for more than five years. I have chatted with him online...seen his face in pictures...read his words...and even listened to him speak. I have felt a kindredness with his words. I have ached for him and with him from a distance...and wept over him in prayer. Yet I don't know Greg Gordon well enough to ascertain his present spiritual condition. Why? I know myself!!! I know my flaws...weaknesses...and shortcomings. I know that I love the Lord more than life itself...but I still am plagued by the thorns of this present world. As much as I know Greg, I wouldn't feel that I know him well enough to pretend to know the condition of his heart.

Why must we even have such a conversation? This is not a matter of politics -- because the name often supercedes the discussion. This is a discussion about the spiritual condition of the President. It doesn't mention that he might have been caught up in mistaken words that some pretend to have some sort of supernatural revelation of truth regarding their true meaning. This was not a discussion about righteousness and unrighteousness in policy. This was about the condition of a man's soul -- even if it is camoflagued in words of enlightenment. Let me make this clear: If a man feels secure enough to judge the President by this interview...then may God help those same believers so that they never reveal any hidden sins of the flesh in their own hearts!

This whole sort of discussion just hurts. What was the outcome of the discussion supposed to bring? Were we supposed to simply realize what we already know -- that the President is a flawed man and that our trust shouldn't be on him? It wasn't supposed to be on him in the first place! I have received emails and PMs in the past by those who have assumed that my "defense" of the President on occassion equated to "trust" in man. I have NEVER trusted in the President. In fact, I don't even trust in myself...because I know my own flaws. All men are, after all is said and done, liars and grass.

It is my opinion that our judgment in this case should not be about whether the President is a true believer or not. If anything, we should address matters of righteousness. It has troubled me in the past when I felt that some people almost gloated in the "fall" of George Bush. It was as if they were joining the chorus of those who hate him -- but not because he is a "fanatical Christian" (as many in the liberal media try to claim)...but because they don't think that he is saved at all.

May God help us to take our eyes off the man (for any reason). May we love him enough to pray for him. And if we think that something is wrong: Instead of opening our mouths in a public forum with words that we think are wise -- let's write him a letter. Who knows? Maybe we don't know everything about him...or are at least wrong in some of it. It would do him a whole lot of good to let him know that we are praying for him and lifting him up.

Anyway, I apologize if this appeared to be venting. I just tire of such discussions...and where they almost always lead.

:-(

appolus wrote:
I am not surprised that American Christians struggle with the statements President Bush made. You can blame editing all you want, you can continue to bury your head in the sand as God exposes all falsehood, but it will not change anything. It is a massive blow to the pride of a lot of American Christians to hear these words from the President. We would accept these words from no one else. Yet, it goes deep into the heart of the discernment of many Christians in America who put their trust in a man. God is no respector of persons. The Truth never changes, the Word of God never changes. You either fall upon it or it falls upon you............Frank

Oh, that more Christians would understand this. Thank you for preaching the truth in boldness, brother. You touched the root of some things. Important things. Few dare openly to proclaim them.

Kire

my heart is heavy. it seems that there is a division among you in this thread who think of our President as a babe and others seem to side on the idea of the media being at fault. others are more outspoken about the false statements he said concerning Truth.

i do know this was a great opportunity to share the true gospel before the nation, and whether his words had been edited or not, it does not change the need for our supporting our countries leader through prayer. i can't remember who said it, but earlier in the thread, someone said they were guilty for not praying for President Bush's personal study and time with God. I would say we are all guilty of this.

while President-elect Obama claims some type of faith, I pray that we would all be encouraged by the spirit to pray for him and a correct understanding of God. not for our sake, but for his.

I just learned, via pm, of someone who failed to graduate from a Bible school because in his course work he insisted on speaking what he understood to be biblical truth.

The point, the question, is: [b]HOW ARE WE DOING IN THE ARENA WE ARE IN[/b], assuming we entered an arena, or more rightly put, assuming we recognize that we are in an arena.

As for one man named Bush, chances are God is not done with him. I heard him say, "What a preacher? You're kidding me. I'm the last guy to be a preacher! I am going to be trying to stay on the walk to the last day on the face of the earth." Did anyone else have to smile? The interviewer did not suggest that as far as I could tell.

Chris: In addition to the letter asking him to forgive me for both my lack of prayer and praying amiss, I wonder about giving him a link to this site: a great place to grow in Christ.

In fact the more I think about this, the more I like it. Strong biblical sermons to supplement any local preaching, 24 hours a day availability, great Bible reading, history. He will have at least a little more time, be reflecting and resting. He must know the internet. The anonymity, with few exceptions, could really encourage openness. And there is a bit of variety among the members here although not representative of mainstream Christianity. I doubt any brush with threads like this would stumble him given his experience.

Appolus...

There is no difference in my belief from your belief in regard to what you wrote in this post. There is no doubt about such things -- and they are not the issue. The issue, from what I see, is with those who almost seem to enjoy this interview as "proof" of where the President stands with God. Is this wise? Of course not!

The other issue, I suppose, is that there are those who feel as if anyone who supported the President with a vote has somehow placed their faith in him. While it could possibly be true of some others, this is a silly notion to assume in this discussion. We are sincere believers...hungry to know and fellowship with our Lord in truth. Is this right to assume of us? Is it right to assume (as others have in the past) that those who vote are guilty of placing faith in man? Some of us vote on matters of righteousness and unrighteousness. The candidate is less about the election -- except in that he aligns himself on a certain side of righteousness.

Indeed, if President Bush were running in this past election -- I would probably have voted for him. It isn't because I have placed my "faith" or "trust" in him (and may the Lord forgive anyone who ignorantly assumes such a silly idea), but because of what I feel regarding issues. Yet this goes deeper: I don't approve of EVERYTHING that the pastor of the Church that I attend says. In fact, I disagree in some degree to many men that I would embrace as "men of God." In this regard, I have an issue with these sort of threads -- as has been exemplified in the past -- mostly by the underlying accusation that we "place our faith or trust in man" simply by a vote.

So, these are the two issues (rather than what you brought up in the last thread). Your "points" are not in dispute. The issues in dispute are whether or not those who attempt to point out the flaws or supposed doctrinal issues with the President are any better than the Islamic Egyptian reporter who threw two shoes at the President today in a news conference. What makes those who publicize such words any better than those unbelievers who are searching for the rest of us to make mistakes (as if to invalidate our own faith)?

Is this what we are called to do? Can't we just say that we should not place our faith and trust in ANY man...and leave it at that? Or is there something else going on here? I just pray that we place our faith ONLY in Christ (of which we all agree) and pray diligently for those who we assume to have either fallen (in word or deed) or who we think has never met Christ to begin with. Regardless: Let us work out our OWN salvation with fear and trembling while remembering that we will be judged by the same manner of judgment that we use.

Let us fix our eyes upon Jesus -- for He is all that really matters anyway.

*EDIT*
Good point, Joan. I have written the President in the past. I would, however, worry about the President happening upon this website and reading some of the words that some believers have written (over the past 8 years). The Scriptures say that "life and death are in the power of the tongue." I just pray that our words can be infused with life...and not death. Yes, we can't (and should never) hide the truth. Yet we shouldn't suppose that we are so close to God that we know all things about all men. President Bush has shared his testimony in the past. Are we so wise as to dismiss it completely?

Hi everyone,

I think that it is possbile to think the best of others and not be lacking discernment, and to honor the king without putting confidence in them.

I thought of the following at 21:08 minutes

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4224&commentView=itemComments

Brother Chris wrote:

Make no mistake: No believers should place their trust in man. Yet it is a gross and disgusting error to accuse believers who choose to vote (or even vote for the President) as having placed their trust in man. In my opinion, it is an accusation of ignorance -- in which men who do not know us feel that they know us. Similarly, those who think that they know the President based upon a single interview (or even a plethora of interviews) really suppose themselves wiser than they ought.

God created man and gave him the ability to speak and understand language. The Scriptures are given to us so that we might grow in understanding who God is...

Likewise, when a man gives his testimony on what he believes...is it not this man's words which must be weighed?

The real issue as I see is as a berean we have the Holy Scriptures to compare what man says to the absolute truth.

Listen to the Scriptures and what it says of those God chooses to lead...

.............................................

Job 34:18 [Is it fitting] to say to a king, '[You are] worthless,' [And] to nobles, '[You are] wicked'?

Job 34:19 Yet He is not partial to princes, Nor does He regard the rich more than the poor; For they [are] all the work of His hands.

Job 34:20 In a moment they die, in the middle of the night; The people are shaken and pass away; The mighty are taken away without a hand.

Job 34:21 "For His eyes [are] on the ways of man, And He sees all his steps.

Job 34:22 There is no darkness nor shadow of death Where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.

Job 34:23 For He need not further consider a man, That he should go before God in judgment.

Job 34:24 He breaks in pieces mighty men without inquiry, And sets others in their place.

Job 34:25 Therefore He knows their works; He overthrows [them] in the night, And they are crushed.

Job 34:26 He strikes them as wicked [men] In the open sight of others,

Job 34:27 Because they turned back from Him, And would not consider any of His ways,

...............................................

In the interview President Bush would not acknowledge the truth found in Scriptures.
It really isn't important how one votes. What is important is to recognize the works of God and the works of Satan in this generation.

We know according to Scripture that the kings of this earth will "stir" up the masses of men to destroy one another. See the last 3 Chapters in Daniel. We know that Scripture warns believers to have no part of the Babylon lest we partake of her wine through her fornication with the kings of the earth.

What is really important is should we sacrifice our children to Molech? Should we support a effort to establish world wide "democracy?"

Fallen man has always looked to the headship of other men. Those who are unwilling to submit to Scripture will be consumed by the lie.

President Bush, according to his testimony, does not hold to the truth found in Scripture.

................................................
Pro 22:19 So that your trust may be in the LORD; I have instructed you today, even you.

Pro 22:20 Have I not written to you excellent things Of counsels and knowledge,

Pro 22:21 That I may make you know the certainty of the words of truth, That you may answer words of truth To those who send to you?

.................................................

President Bush could not "know the certainty of the words of truth, that you may answer words of truth to those who send to you?....

In Christ
Jeff

Hi Brother Rookie…

Rookie wrote:

“God created man and gave him the ability to speak and understand language. The Scriptures are given to us so that we might grow in understanding who God is...

Likewise, when a man gives his testimony on what he believes...is it not this man's words which must be weighed?

The real issue as I see is as a berean we have the Holy Scriptures to compare what man says to the absolute truth.

Listen to the Scriptures and what it says of those God chooses to lead...”

Brother, I am shocked at the audacity in which men consider their roles as “Bereans.” I certainly agree that we should TEST EVERYTHING (I Thessalonians 5:21). We should search the Scriptures to check what we are told. Yet is this what we are doing? Can we properly test the spiritual condition of the President’s heart? I don’t think so. We can certainly judge his words…and declare whether or not they meet the Scriptural definition of truth. This is entirely proper…if there aren’t any ulterior motives in doing so. God knows our heart…and our motives. Are we on a spiritual witch hunt to say “I told you so!” about a man of whom many of us voted?

George W. Bush is the elected President of the United States of America. That’s all. Nothing else. In the past, he has claimed that he gave his heart to Christ Jesus. Is that claim valid? Some here might be willing to scoff at that claim on the basis of some words that he has said. So, in this, the President’s testimony seems conflicted. Yet I am not prepared to point the finger as if I were a super prophet who knows the spiritual condition of the man based simply on a few interviews that I have heard. Feel free to do so…but know that we will give an account for what we say and the manner in which we judge. Were the President’s words [i]unscriptural[/i]? I would certainly say so! Yet is that enough to condemn the man to Hell? Of course not – because he is either condemned or saved already! It isn’t my job to judge where he stands with God. That is the job of, well, our Eternal Judge – who died to save us from that judgment!

This goes further…

I didn’t vote for the President to be my king. I didn’t vote for the President to be my savior. I didn’t vote for the President to be a person upon whom I could hang my faith, hope and trust. I didn’t even vote for him because he was “undoubtedly” a Christian. Rather, I simply voted for him because he was the better of two (or more) choices. He stood for causes of righteousness that the other candidates proudly did not. This was more about causes like “abortion” and “homosexual activism” than it was about a man. I never once thought that President Bush was the answer to all of America’s problems (or the worlds, for that matter). He is just a flawed man…who promised to make some decisions that were closer to what the Bible calls righteousness – more so than the other choices.

Yet it seems that there is an underlying theme here. People are worried that some of us are not “Berean” enough to realize that we should not have our faith and trust in a man. Let me make this clear: My faith, hope and trust does NOT rest on President Bush, the Republican Party, a Conservative ideological and political agenda, the US Government, a “free-market” economic system or democracy. My faith is reserved ONLY for the one who created this world and gave His life so that I might be His. I am certainly aware of the flaws of this government, democracy, and this man (the President). I care about the President’s decisions and his soul…but the ultimate standing of that man is like any of the rest of us – we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

For a few years, I have heard people refer to America as if we are undoubtedly the great Babylon of Revelation. We are the preeminent power of this world (at least for now). Yet America did not exist at the time of John. In fact, America has only existed as a nation for just over 200 years…and as a world power for just over 65 years. This is a drop in the bucket of human history!

America, certainly, is filled with flaws. Yet it was also a place of liberty. The pilgrims, puritans, Quakers and many other protestants fled the East to find a place to live and worship with such liberty. Is America a “Christian” nation? Of course not. Yet it was founded upon “Christian” principles more than any other nation before it (and possibly, after it). The very first Amendment found within our Bill of Rights is to establish a freedom of worship! Congress can establish NO LAWS that prohibit the free exercise of religion. This was the first guarantee of religious liberty in HUMAN HISTORY! Democracy is far from perfect…but it is a whole lot better for your physical health than a totalitarian or authoritarian rule that establishes a certain pattern for religious practice. We don’t have to participate in an “authorized” Church (with “authorized” songs, prayers, translations, etc…).

There is some uncertainty about the fulfillment of prophecy in Revelation. I’ve heard people preach about a “one-world” government (although the essence of Rev. 13 seems to point to a confederation rather than a single government). There is much debate about whether or not there will be a rapture…etc… What about the identity of Babylon the Great? I’ve heard it preached that it is America…Rome…a revived Roman Empire…the United Nations…the European Union…a literal rebuilt Babylon…New York City…San Francisco…Tel Aviv…etc… I do find it interesting about the development of the European Union…and its position of increasing economic strength. In fact, the very flag of the European Union (blue with a circle of twelve stars) is admittedly derived from the “crown” of the “Virgin Mary” (as [url=http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3332056]confessed by its designer[/url] last year) – the very symbol of the Catholic Church. It is interesting that the “great whore” is depicted as a woman riding upon a beast. Is America the Babylon? Is the European Union? Is the Catholic Church? Will it be a hybrid of any number of things? I don’t pretend to know. Yet to emphatically call America the “Babylon the Great” is, in my mind, a little premature. Sure, America is far from perfect…and is filled with many similarities of Babylon. But the end is not yet. We don’t know the complete validity of such an accusation.

What should we do?

For one, we can all agree that we should not place our faith, hope and trust in man (or the institutions of men). This includes not placing our faith in the President…the Government…a “man of God”…or even the local Church. Our faith should be directed solely at the One who saved us.

I do fear, however, that some people are calling the color green…blue. There seems to be some sort of assumption that those of us who feel the liberty (or even, need) to vote have somehow “bowed their knee to Baal” or have placed their faith, hope and trust in man (or the institutions of men). This couldn’t be further from the truth! In fact, I vote because I do [u]NOT[/u] have any faith in man. I vote by principles of righteousness…and only because I, my family, and friends, my neighbors and fellow believers live here. I care too much to not vote on issues of righteousness. I understand (and very much disagree with) the argument that those who vote are bowing their knee to this world. If someone were to approach me as a “prophet” and claim that they know the Word of the Lord about such matters (whether voting…or the spiritual condition of the President) – shouldn’t I also TEST their words as well? After all, I don’t want to place my faith in the words of a man who supposes to have received them from God – especially when my prayer time and study reveal otherwise.

In the end, I think that we are sent on a wild goose chase. Those who do their best to “reveal” the “truth” about the President are, it appears, motivated by something that must of us already know – that we should not place our faith in the man. Is the President saved? In his testimony, he said that he is. His words might lead one to think otherwise. Yet I really don’t know…and I really don’t care (except to pray that he is…and try and contact him if I think he is not). I didn’t vote for him to be “Christian-in-Chief” or to be a pseudo-Pope of the nation. I just thought that his legislative ideas are much safer than the ones loudly espoused by the other guys running. Issues like abortion and forced homosexual adherence really matter to me. Issues like sex education, home-schooling, liberty in regard to faith, etc… -- those issues matter to me because they directly affect my family, neighbors and fellow believers. I never thought that we could “vote” Christianity into this nation. I simply thought that we could offset (at least for a while) the legislation of unrighteousness by men who are doing their best to make this a decidedly ungodly nation. That was my motivation in voting for President Bush. Period. That was also my motivation for this past election too.

President Bush is, just a man. Yet he was a man hated by the left…by abortionists…homosexuals…pornographers…Islamists…socialists…communists…etc… Much of his criticism in the media, I feel, is unwarranted. It is stewed out of hatred for the ideals that he holds…rather than because of his legislative decisions. Liberals complain about the Patriot Act…yet they won’t even let you own a dog in California without having it spayed or neutered…they won’t let you throw away trash without it being inspected for aluminum cans out of their Earth worship. It is ironic that so many Christians are also enamored by the President too. In a sense, the President is receiving rhetorical shoes from the left and the right. I suppose that, in a year, this argument will be over. People will not have to point fingers at President Bush…because he will be gone…a private citizen. I just wonder if all of those people who were unmerciful or unsympathetic in their crusade against him might regret that he is gone. I know that nearly a million unborn babies will cry out…as the new President and Congress move to destroy any prohibition to abortion that currently exists.

:-(

well for those who believe you can turn from the faith or backslide it is possible that bush is in a backslidden condition. But for me i believe you can't lose your salvation. I know a friend who knows a friend who called her self a christian and started dating an atheist and turned completely against her faith in christ, is she backslidden, i think not, she never knew the Lord. She isn't saved, and we need to pray for these people. I also have a friend who says he is saved, he just recently told me that he didn't read the bible for 2 years after he was saved. He said at his bachelor party he wants to rent a cabin and get drunk and he goes to biblestudies and defends the bible but his living for the lord is more talk than actual serving. Out in indiana being a christian is a usual common thing, its like being a sports fan out their. The problem is nobody has a new relationship with sin and has not been regenerated by the holy spirit, they do not have the witness of the holy spirit, they don't know jesus, it is just a work of the flesh and that is how they serve, in their flesh not knowing the lord. Look at paul washers wife, she did everything with paul and his ministry but noticed something was missing that was in paul and that was Jesus. You know i can believe that someone could lose their salvation if they lost their faith, but i here people say if you stay in contiunued sin and do certain sins you will lose our salvation but i come to ask you this, when was it at anytime that our works justified us and made us right with God, what can we do but give God our filthy righteousness, that has spots and stains along with it, bad motives and selfishness. Salvation is only because of Jesus and by jesus that we can be clean in the presence of the holy one. It is not by works that anyone should boast, but by him alone that makes free. It is all Jesus, you can do nothing to please God but trust in him and his righteousness cleanses us, not ours. You can do everything wrong as a christian but that is not what will get us to lose anything, but if it was possible that we lost our faith in christ, that is the only thing and way we can lose our salvation. President bush saved or not, does not believe from his own words that the bible is perfect and he believes their our other ways to God and that the muslim peaceful God is our God but not the suicide bombers God. The Bible says Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no one can come to the father but by me.(Jesus) Their is no name under heaven by which we should be saved. Thou that does not believe in Gods only son is condemned already for not believing on him. His wrath abides on you because you haven't believed on Jesus. O.k he confesses that he is a believer in Christ but holds the same view of billy graham, which him being around him enough would make you think that they did talk a lot about it together. This doesn't make you unsaved, but it is not biblical truth. We need to pray for their souls just in case he isn't or anyone isn't saved, pray for them, pray with all your might.

Hi Frank...

I think that in all things, it is important that we do not wrap scripture around our opinions, agenda's or philosphy's. Neither should we build straw men and argue against them. The truth of Scripture is very simple for all to understand. May we follow the Truth and those who are willing to stand for it, and reject falsehood boldy, even when it conflicts with our natural inclinations.......brother Frank

I do, however, think that the statements about President Bush do border on accusations of the spiritual condition of his heart rather than merely upon his statements. That is quite a bit of responsibility. I believe that all of us need to be very, very careful with our words.

:-(

Hello ccchhhrrriiisss,

I do, however, think that the statements about President Bush do border on accusations of the spiritual condition of his heart rather than merely upon his statements. That is quite a bit of responsibility. I believe that all of us need to be very, very careful with our words.

Your posts struck home in my heart, so much so that I 'edited out' my original post. I am thinking longer before I post or even during casual conversation with my husband. Lord willing I will see good fruit from this change.

Thank you, very much for your strongly structured post, it made it easy to see the error of my ways.

If anyone would ask why I visit this forum it is because of the food you serve! Meat for the soul, indeed.

white stone

If anyone does have any questions of his spiritual state we should bring it to the lord in our prayers and we know that it is in the Lords hands already.

:-(

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I agree with brother Chris!!!!!!

I will not hide the truth!! I am VERY, VERY saddened by what I read here. How can we as Christians tear down God's annointed? God placed George W. Bush in the Presidency, and I come here to a CHRISTIAN site, and see Christians tearing down God's annointed :cry: God has not placed us as judge over President Bush, and just because he doesn't believe the same as some as you, does NOT mean he isn't a Christian!! I personally believe that he is a Christian...I think people have been to hard on him, he has gone through 8 years of criticisms, from both the world AND Christians!!!

So I ask you, please STOP proving to the world that we are the same as them!!!

JR

Pres. Bush has definitely backslid since his first few years in office. Early on, he caught a ton of heat b/c he was so adamant in his faith and Jesus being the only way. He said it explicitly at a dinner with a bunch Jewish leaders! There were many examples like this early on, but something has obviously changed in him.

Beyedoers, could you chronicle this progression? I sense you may be right...but what triggered it? I do remember Prs. Bush saying Islam is a peaceful religion after 9-11....

(In no case am I wanting to hold this man in judgement but am curious of the dynamics that may had played a role in this decline.)

Blessings,
ginnyrose

I see no problem with anyone displaying what he said in the video, if you consider to be a christian and you say something on live t.v especially about your faith, i think we have the right to wonder about what he said, bash him no, but the bible tells us to tests the spirits to see if they our of God, i am sure everyone on here is judging righteously and not evil. If someones words contradict the Bible then we have the right to judge righteously. The christian name has been misused so much today and is used as an everyday thing, well it isn't. The most high God has saved us from hell eternal and brought us into a relationship with him. His name is holy and we our a holy Gods children, what does the Bible say about this, has president Bush brought a different doctrine of men then the doctrine of God from the scripture, then it is up for examination. But we also need to pray for him with all our hearts, i do not like anyone to think hate towards him but to love him and pray for him. But his words make you wonder about his profession, he does seem to have a head knowledge of the faith.

Brother Chris wrote:

First of all…President Bush is NOT a king. He is not an absolute ruler. We live in a time of democracy, in which men are able to choose by vote those who would govern …and not rule over us).

According to Scripture, is there no application because men have devised a system call democracy?

How does the world view soon to be President Obama?

In Christ
Jeff

My pastor recently testified that he has repeatedly witnessed professed Christians who testify that they are not willing to read Scripture. They do not want to be convicted by what is says to the heart.

Hear these promises found in Scripture...

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Likewise.....

Hbr 5:13 For everyone who partakes [only] of milk [is] unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.

Hbr 5:14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, [that is], those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

We are called by the Spirit of God to get wisdom to gain understanding....

Pro 9:4 "Whoever [is] simple, let him turn in here!" [As for] him who lacks understanding, she says to him,

Pro 9:5 "Come, eat of my bread And drink of the wine I have mixed.

Pro 9:6 Forsake foolishness and live, And go in the way of understanding.

The promise given to us in Revelation is for every generation....

In Christ
Jeff

Hi rookie...

According to Scripture, is there no application because men have devised a system call democracy?

What is "democracy?" Taken from the Greek words [i]dēmos[/i] and [i]kratia[/i], [u]democracy[/u] literally means "[i]government of the people[/i]." In its purest form, it literally means that the people have the opportunity to choose those who "govern" (which is very different from "rule") over them. In other words, it was a form of government that directly contradicted the notion of a "divine right of kings" that was propagated by power-hungry men who desired to be kings and those puppet Church leaders who obeyed them for years. The basic tenants of democracy, as espoused by John Locke and repeated by the founders of the United States of America, taught that the king is just a man in power -- and that all men are born equal and with certain "unalienable" rights (life, liberty and estate...later, however, the pursuit of happiness).

I don't know how this can be construed to be "unscriptural" -- since the concept of democracy is not directly addressed in Scripture. Of course, I wonder what kind of government that the Antichrist will rule from?

How does the world view soon to be President Obama?

My pastor recently testified that he has repeatedly witnessed professed Christians who testify that they are not willing to read Scripture. They do not want to be convicted by what is says to the heart.

Hear these promises found in Scripture...

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Likewise.....

Hbr 5:13 For everyone who partakes [only] of milk [is] unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.

Hbr 5:14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, [that is], those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

We are called by the Spirit of God to get wisdom to gain understanding....

Pro 9:4 "Whoever [is] simple, let him turn in here!" [As for] him who lacks understanding, she says to him,

Pro 9:5 "Come, eat of my bread And drink of the wine I have mixed.

Pro 9:6 Forsake foolishness and live, And go in the way of understanding.

The promise given to us in Revelation is for every generation....

By the way...I certainly am blessed by those same verses! Yet, I know many people who use those to encourage themselves for "standing for truth" when they are actually standing for their persuasion of what "truth" is. Some things, of course, are undeniable. The things listed in Hebrews 6:1-2 don't need to be taught over and over again...since we can move on to the meat of the Word. However, it is difficult to get believers to agree on many "meaty" things! On this forum -- filled with lovers of God -- we find people who can't even agree on whether or not it is acceptable to celebrate Christmas! We have people who fiercely debate about whether or not there will be a "pre-trib rapture," amongst many other divisive topics. Are we to assume that our view is RIGHT (and wise..and spiritual) and that others are WRONG (and unwise...and unspiritual)?

Anyways, I just hoped that you could clarify your question from the previous post. Thanks!

Brother Chris you wrote:

What is "democracy?" Taken from the Greek words dēmos and kratia, democracy literally means "government of the people." In its purest form, it literally means that the people have the opportunity to choose those who "govern" (which is very different from "rule") over them. In other words, it was a form of government that directly contradicted the notion of a "divine right of kings" that was propagated by power-hungry men who desired to be kings and those puppet Church leaders who obeyed them for years. The basic tenants of democracy, as espoused by John Locke and repeated by the founders of the United States of America, taught that the king is just a man in power -- and that all men are born equal and with certain "unalienable" rights (life, liberty and estate...later, however, the pursuit of happiness).

I believe Scripture does speak about "democracy."

In the book of Daniel we find God's description of the evolution of human government...

Dan 2:37 You, O king, [are] a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory;

Dan 2:38 and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given [them] into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all--you [are] this head of gold.

Dan 2:39 But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, [that kingdom] will break in pieces and crush all the others.

Dan 2:41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay.

Dan 2:42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] partly of iron and partly of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.

Dan 2:43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

...............................................

What does Scripture say concerning the type and quality of human government?

In Christ
Jeff

Hi rookie...

I believe Scripture does speak about "democracy."

In the book of Daniel we find God's description of the evolution of human government...

Dan 2:37 You, O king, [are] a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory;

Dan 2:38 and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given [them] into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all--you [are] this head of gold.

Dan 2:39 But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, [that kingdom] will break in pieces and crush all the others.

Dan 2:41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay.

Dan 2:42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] partly of iron and partly of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.

Dan 2:43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

I know some other individuals who selectively apply these verses toward America...since she is the world's sole remaining "superpower." Yet America has only held this status for just over 20 years (since the collapse of the Soviet Union)...and has only been a major superpower since World War 2. Many studies show that America will lose it's status as the greatest economic superpower within the next 20-50 years. When you compare this with the 1600 year empire of Rome...it is but a drop in the bucket!

What does Scripture say concerning the type and quality of human government?

Brother Chris wrote:

I don't see "democracy" in this at all. At the most, I would suppose that this is your own interpretation of those prophetic verses.

Brother, in your previous post you described that the origins of democracy began during the Greek empire. This empire is refered to in the book of Daniel as the "fourth empire."

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, [that kingdom] will break in pieces and crush all the others.

Now listen to the description of this fourth kingdom....

Dan 2:41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay.

Dan 2:42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] partly of iron and partly of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.

Dan 2:43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

This last verse speaks of a relationship between where men hold certain ideals which prevent them from mixing.

I'm not sure what you are asking here (or trying to get at). Would you care to tell me the end that you are trying to achieve? Maybe you feel that you already know the answer to this question?

If you look to tne entire dream given to Nebuchadnezzar you will find that Scripture gives the quality of gold to represent Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Scripture says that he is the king of kings.

Dan 2:37 You, O king, [are] a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory;

Dan 2:38 and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given [them] into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all--you [are] this head of gold.

Now Scripture assigns the second and third kingdoms as being made of silver and bronze...

Dan 2:32 This image's head [was] of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs [fn] of bronze,

Also it is said of these kingdoms that they are "inferior" to the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar.

Dan 2:39 But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.

And then the final fourth kingdom is described with the least precious materials on earth...iron and clay.

In all of these earthly kingdoms we find that Scripture is speaking of how men would be "ruled."

Now we know as students of history, that there arose a "new idea" of how men should rule over one another. As you wrote clearly in the previous post you yourself have learned this of history. The seeds of how man should rule began with a Greek, I believe it was Plato. And we know as you have stated that this way of rule began to spread slowly but surely throughout the world.

And now we as a nation have begun to spread democracy by force and violence.

Do you see how Scripture describes the "quality" of "rule" and how people like John Locke have it all backwards?

In Christ
Jeff

Hi rookie…

Brother, in your previous post you described that the origins of democracy began during the Greek empire. This empire is refered to in the book of Daniel as the "fourth empire."

I suppose that this thread has drifted from a public discourse over the words of President Bush…to a question of whether or not the guy is even a real believer…to a question of whether or not democracy is a viable form of government?

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, [that kingdom] will break in pieces and crush all the others.

Now listen to the description of this fourth kingdom....

Dan 2:41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay.
Dan 2:42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] partly of iron and partly of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.
Dan 2:43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

This last verse speaks of a relationship between where men hold certain ideals which prevent them from mixing.

Interestingly, this was spoken by the Prophet Daniel…who actually worked as an advisor in a totalitarian empire! Even if one were to accept the interpretation that you offer, does this necessarily mean that “democracy” (in its present, American form) is inherently [u]evil[/u]? Could it be like a boat? A boat can be used for noble purposes such as fishing, carrying supplies or even providing relief and medical assistance to a third world country. A boat can also be used to attack a nation…or by pirates to attack other boats. No one would argue that a boat is evil in and of itself. Besides, doesn’t the New Testament talk about governments that are instituted by God?

Is it possible that this passage from Daniel simply speaks about which form of government through which the end will come? How many empires have come and gone since the time of Daniel? The Babylonian…Macedonian…Greek…Roman…Ottoman…Islamic…Spanish…English…Dutch…Soviet…Hunnic…Chinese….Japanese…Nazi….etc… have all been “empires” at one time or other. In fact, the most heavily populated “empire” was the British Empire in 1938 (totaling over 500 Million subjects – a huge portion of the world’s population).

Would we consider “America” to be an “Empire?” Most political historians would say no…even if it did behave imperialistically upon occasion. It was never the goal of America to gain other existing sovereign nations simply to stretch its borders. Even the argument regarding “manifest destiny” (where the US stretched from the Atlantic to Pacific oceans) did not see the US taking over existing nations (just exhuming land…which, by consent, voted to become states in this nation). But what does this have to do with the fulfillment of Daniel?

If I remember correctly, Revelation chapter 13 seems to indicate that the Antichrist will operate from a CONFEDERATION of ten separate government[u]s[/u] (and not the oft-reported “one-world government”). There is nothing to indicate that this will be a confederation of “democracies.” Rather, we just don’t know what type of governments that the confederation will consist of. They may very well be democracies (or something like democracies). But does this make democracy [i]evil[/i]? Of can the Antichrist simply take a working form of government to obtain power and deceive the nations?

In all of these earthly kingdoms we find that Scripture is speaking of how men would be "ruled."

[b]Now we know as students of history, that there arose a "new idea" of how men should rule over one another.[/b] As you wrote clearly in the previous post you yourself have learned this of history. The seeds of how man should rule began with a Greek, I believe it was Plato. And we know as you have stated that this way of rule began to spread slowly but surely throughout the world.

In addition, I didn’t say that “democracy” began in ancient Greece. The modern conception of democracy (or our Republican government of consent) didn’t exist until, well, 1776 (and shortly thereafter). It did exist in some fashion beforehand…but in a very limited, experimental manner. But again – it seems that you are connecting dots that don’t necessarily have to be connected. It reminds me of the old adage, “[i]Guns don’t kill people… people kill people[/i].” A gun can be used to hunt for food (or protect a person). Yet in the hands of bad men, a gun can be used for violence. The same can be said of governments. A democracy in the hands of a nation gives that nation just the government that they decide. Period. In the hands of a deceptive tyrant, a “democracy” can turn into a very deadly empire. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that a government of consent is [u]evil[/u] in and of itself.

And now we as a nation have begun to spread democracy by force and violence.

The United States didn’t go into Iraq to spread democracy (although I feel that this has been one of the end results). This nation went into Iraq because it thought that its safety was being threatened by a ruthless tyrant (who killed millions of his own people) while publicly threatening our own way of life (and that of Israel). Saddam Hussein professed to own and develop WMDs. Intelligence (foreign and domestic) indicated that this might be true. Saddam Hussein was the largest supporter of suicide bombing in Israel (and in the rest of the world)! This nation’s elected leaders felt collectively that it was important to remove Saddam Hussein from power in order to prevent any of those possible WMDs to be given to the hands of domestic terrorists. I have heard this argument about “spreading democracy” many, many times – but it just doesn’t hold water in the light of academic scrutiny. The end of the war resulted in a democracy in Iraq. Believe me: I doubt that any military man or elected leader wanted to shed blood in order to achieve this. In fact, the United States attempted to have Saddam Hussein step down from power many, many times before the war. He finally decided he would do it…on his own terms (that included safe haven in Jordan or Syria and for a ransom of billions of dollars).

We need to be very careful with our words. There are many “experts” of history who are just slanting that history in order to illustrate their own agenda. I wonder how many are bearing false witness against the truth?

Do you see how Scripture describes the "quality" of "rule" and how people like John Locke have it all backwards?

Brother Chris you wrote:

No, I said that the word “democracy” comes from two Greek words. Democracy, in a modern understanding of the word, did not exist until just over two hundred years ago. Sure, the Greeks had a “form” of “democracy” – but not in the sense of “elected officials” or a government of consent.

I copied this from a popular website which speaks to the beginning of a new world system of government known as democracy.

................................................

Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens, comprising the central city-state of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 500 BC. Athens was one of the very first known democracies (although anthropological research suggests that democratic forms were likely common in stateless societies long before the rise of Athens). Other Greek cities set up democracies, most but not all following an Athenian model, but none were as powerful or as stable (or as well-documented) as that of Athens. It remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open, but the in-group of participants was constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal. The public opinion of voters was remarkably influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theaters.[1]

Solon (594 BC), Cleisthenes (509 BC), and Ephialtes of Athens (462 BC) all contributed to the development of Athenian democracy. Historians differ on which of them was responsible for which institutions, and which of them most represented a truly democratic movement. It is most usual to date Athenian democracy from Cleisthenes, since Solon's constitution fell and was replaced by the tyranny of Peisistratus, whereas Ephialtes revised Cleisthenes' constitution relatively peacefully. Hipparchus, the brother of the tyrant Hippias, was killed by Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who were subsequently honored by the Athenians for their alleged restoration of Athenian freedom.

The greatest and longest-lasting democratic leader was Pericles; after his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolution towards the end of the Peloponnesian War. It was modified somewhat after it was restored under Eucleides; the most detailed accounts are of this fourth-century modification rather than the Periclean system. It was suppressed by the Macedonians in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived, but the extent to which they were a real democracy is debatable.

.............................................

I suppose that this thread has drifted from a public discourse over the words of President Bush…to a question of whether or not the guy is even a real believer…to a question of whether or not democracy is a viable form of government?

The issue I have been working to point out is the difference between what Scripture says and the common held beliefs of today. President Bush testified that he does not believe God chose him to be president. President Bush does not believe that the Scriptures are to be taken literally. President Bush does not believe that Christ is the only by which man may be saved.

So my intent is to demonstrate that Scripture is sufficient in that we can discern evil and good.

John writes......................................
1Jo 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him [who is] from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.

We must endeavor to grow from a babe in Christ to one who is "strong, and the word of God abides in you,"....so that it might be said of us...."you have overcome the wicked one."

In Christ
Jeff

Hi rookie…

I copied this from a popular website which speaks to the beginning of a new world system of government known as democracy.

................................................

Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens, comprising the central city-state of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 500 BC. Athens was one of the very first known democracies (although anthropological research suggests that democratic forms were likely common in stateless societies long before the rise of Athens). Other Greek cities set up democracies, most but not all following an Athenian model, but none were as powerful or as stable (or as well-documented) as that of Athens. It remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open, but the in-group of participants was constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal. The public opinion of voters was remarkably influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theaters.[1]

Solon (594 BC), Cleisthenes (509 BC), and Ephialtes of Athens (462 BC) all contributed to the development of Athenian democracy. Historians differ on which of them was responsible for which institutions, and which of them most represented a truly democratic movement. It is most usual to date Athenian democracy from Cleisthenes, since Solon's constitution fell and was replaced by the tyranny of Peisistratus, whereas Ephialtes revised Cleisthenes' constitution relatively peacefully. Hipparchus, the brother of the tyrant Hippias, was killed by Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who were subsequently honored by the Athenians for their alleged restoration of Athenian freedom.

The greatest and longest-lasting democratic leader was Pericles; after his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolution towards the end of the Peloponnesian War. It was modified somewhat after it was restored under Eucleides; the most detailed accounts are of this fourth-century modification rather than the Periclean system. It was suppressed by the Macedonians in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived, but the extent to which they were a real democracy is debatable.

The issue I have been working to point out is the difference between what Scripture says and the common held beliefs of today. President Bush testified that he does not believe God chose him to be president. President Bush does not believe that the Scriptures are to be taken literally. President Bush does not believe that Christ is the only by which man may be saved.

So my intent is to demonstrate that Scripture is sufficient in that we can discern evil and good.

Certainly, we can use Scripture to distinguish between good and evil, truth or lie. Yet we are warned about the accountability we will face for judging the heart of man. Isn’t it enough to judge words WITHOUT straying into the realm of heart-judging?

Why do I say this in regard to President Bush? Actually, I have thought for quite a while what would cause a man who shared his testimony a few years ago to utter such words. I started to think: Do we always mean exactly what we say? Let me explain…

Is it possible that President Bush [i]lied[/i] about what he believes in regard to eternal life? I know this sounds like a stretch…but I have heard of people who hid the truth of God’s Word beneath a “bushel” (so to speak) in an effort to not offend someone…or to separate their actual beliefs from a divisive argument. What would have been the end result if President Bush would have said the truth of the matter? What if he said, “[i]Well, I believe that there is only one way to Heaven (Jesus), and everyone else is damned to Hell[/i]?” For one thing, Western stability in the Middle East would probably have been compromised (to say the least). Is it possible that President Bush was tempted to “smooth” things over with nations that are held captive by aggressive religions (like Islam)? He is probably keenly aware that Islamists will riot over a cartoon of Muhammad. He probably thought about how the media would LOVE to catch him “disrespecting” the religion of Islam. Is it possible that the President actually lied in order to prevent bloodshed over what he might really believe to be truth?

Of course, there are other possibilities to consider. He could very well be an unbeliever…or backslidden. I just can’t help but wonder if this is what we are called to do. Shouldn’t we leave it at, “[i]Don’t place your faith in man[/i]” – and leave it at that?

We must endeavor to grow from a babe in Christ to one who is "strong, and the word of God abides in you,"....so that it might be said of us...."you have overcome the wicked one."

I love you, brother!

:-)

Cris wrote:

Is it possible that President Bush lied about what he believes in regard to eternal life? I know this sounds like a stretch…but I have heard of people who hid the truth of God’s Word beneath a “bushel” (so to speak) in an effort to not offend someone…or to separate their actual beliefs from a divisive argument. What would have been the end result if President Bush would have said the truth of the matter? What if he said, “Well, I believe that there is only one way to Heaven (Jesus), and everyone else is damned to Hell?” For one thing, Western stability in the Middle East would probably have been compromised (to say the least). Is it possible that President Bush was tempted to “smooth” things over with nations that are held captive by aggressive religions (like Islam)? He is probably keenly aware that Islamists will riot over a cartoon of Muhammad. He probably thought about how the media would LOVE to catch him “disrespecting” the religion of Islam. Is it possible that the President actually lied in order to prevent bloodshed over what he might really believe to be truth?

If this be the case, what of those souls who would not seek the truth because of this lie?

Would it then be OK to lie in this manner to protect your loved ones from harm and possibly mislead souls into hell?

What is more important, a lie to protect lives here now, or the truth to keep souls from entering into everlasting damnation?

Seems you make some good arguments for why Christians should stay out of the politics of this world, Cris?

In His Love
pastorfrin

Hi pastorfrin...

No, it wouldn't make it right at all. But it would also mean that those who made certain claims about the President were wrong too.

Seems you make some good arguments for why Christians should stay out of the politics of this world, Cris?

:-)

Hi Frank...

I think the early church would be turning in their graves if they had to listen to some of the verbal gymnastics that go on today.

Yes, I don't think that it is good to deny the one true God. In this sense, this is NOT a defense of the words of President Bush. However, I also think that it is JUST AS EVIL to publicly judge a heart or the spiritual condition of a person when you really don't know the full truth of the matter.

Please do not mistake my posts as a defense of President Bush or his words. Rather, I simply think that we need to be VERY CAREFUL when spewing rhetoric that supposes to know things (such as the condition of a heart) that God does not share with other men. Is President Bush saved? Like I said, I have no idea. His words would indicate yes and no (depending on which testimony you hear). Yet I think that this is not the time or place to make such declarations that are not entirely clear.

Make no mistake: The President's words were not right in the least. Even if he was simply trying to "walk on eggshells" around very angry Islamists who would take out their hate upon his words, he should not have said them. I hope that he doesn't really believe his own words. Yet this is not the time to take our judgment beyond his words and target him or his spiritual condition. That is the entire reason behind my problems with some of the posts in this thread.

Brother, I have tried to explain this in response to your posts and PMs...but you keep thinking that I am inventing a "straw man" argument. This is not a straw man. To be clear: I don't know about the President's spiritual condition. My faith, hope and trust does not rest with him. I did not vote for him to be Christian-in-Chief or a savior of America. I just thought that he was the better of the choices in regards to issues of righteousness in our nation. If he could have ran for election in 2008, I probably would have voted for him again -- not because he is perfect (or a supposed Christian), but because he is a better choice than those who publicly parade their hopes for unrighteousness.

I hope that this is clear enough.

appolus wrote:
Most of my hereos can be found in Hebrews 11 or in Foxes book of Martyrs. They gave their lives for the Truth, they ascended the steps of the gallows for the truth, [b]they were tied and burned to stakes for the truth,[/b] they knelt down naked in the middle of frozen lakes because they [b][u]refused[/u][/b] to acknowledge a Roman leader as [u][b]"a," god.[/u][/b]

Brother Frank, what you wrote is with utter importance. May we [b]never[/b] forget that. May we never forget the history and the cloud of witnesses. There's coming a day and it is already here when we also will need to pay the price. Burned, frozen, tortured.

Brother Frank, Pastorfrin, Jeff and others who feel the same, be encouraged brothers, don't be afraid, we [b]must[/b] all together too continue in the faith and in the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Brother Frank, here is why I made bold (above) some of the words of your post:

[b][url=http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=lk5PKxglj88]-last question - god?-which-god?[/url]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=EZRjzeXuzhY]-'holy' father - good-man-humble-servant-of'god'-defence-of-
fundamental-truths[/url][/b]

Is there anyone who will give the number of our brothers and sisters whose blood was shed, because [b]they refused to acknowledge this[/b]?

It is coming brethren, again. This is just the beginning, making the path. Be encouraged with these Scriptures:

Heb 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
Heb 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
Heb 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
Heb 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Your brother, from the other side of the world.

Hi Frank...

Actually, your statement does need explaining. It seems that it is directed at anyone who disagrees with your opinion of the matter. Would you appreciate it if I treated your posts (which I agree with on the surface, but not in the application) with the same bit of "spiritualized" fervor? You have said a great many things in these sort of threads (and in your PMs to me)...but they all seem to treat anyone who disagrees with your opinion as though we aren't "spiritual enough" to understand the truth in such matters. Brother, some of us have sought this out. Some of us have prayed about such matters (such as voting...and who to vote for).

Brother, your heroes are my heroes. Those believers who were tortured for the faith have provided a wonderful example for which I pray that I might attain. Yet I seriously doubt that the early church would "turn in their graves" over some of the things that I wrote (if it was, as it appeared, directed at what I wrote). I can't be more clear: I agree with what you have ascertained about the specific words of the President. They were wrong. Yet I wouldn't go any further.

This, too, is not "complicated." There are those of us who feel the "liberty" in Christ to vote. No one should suppose that we have bowed our knee to Baal...or to the systems of this world. Again, this does not mean that we have placed our faith, hope and trust in this world. Far from it! I agree: This topic transcends the initial issue regarding the words of the President. It almost always boils down to accusations (or quiet implications) that those of us who voted for this man (or simply voted at all) were somehow not "spiritual" enough or "mature" enough to "realize" that we should not have done so. Yet many of us not only felt the liberty...but felt a very spiritual need to do so (and one that we felt was Scripturally sound).

...these are just universal Christian Truths that have held for 2000 years against tyrants and evil-doers. And the Church of Christ will continue them until the Lord comes back, whether they are great men of power or humble men.

Shouldn't ALL of our words be salted with the grace of God...and a knowledge that we aren't perfect yet...so our perspectives might not be either? I was speaking with a person who stopped visiting this website last year. This person was deeply hurt by a few of the brethren who seemingly acted as though they held a monopoly on truth...and that the opinions of others just didn't matter (since they could evidently hear God so "clearly"). I apologized for this...because I know that I have been so "certain" about things that I just shouldn't have vocalized as such (especially since I later discovered that I was wrong...or just slightly off). In fact, I know quite a few people here (myself included) who aren't the same people we were just a few years ago. I think that it is dangerous when we convey the attitude that we have "arrived" and have somehow risen above our flawed humanity.

:-(

Hi Frank...

Well enough. I will also let my statements stand alone too.

But, dear brother, I am not trying to "read into" your comments (the Lord knows that this has happened to me many times), but I just thought that there was a reason for them that just wasn't directly touched upon. There is a double-meaning behind some of the sayings (at least, it seems that way). What were you trying to say? You might think that it was "clear" -- but it was not. Even after saying that you would be frank with what you think...you still close with a statement that seemingly is used to indict the President (due to his words in this interview). It just seemed like you meandered from what is abundantly clear (the president's words were wrong), but left for no alternative perspective (like, for instance, they were simply a poor choice of words...or a statement that doesn't truly reflect what he believes).

Anyway...I think that it is time to move on. I don't pretend to know what the rationale behind your initial posts might have been...but those posts weren't clear to some of us. If anything, I took issue with the tone in which your views of the President seemed to be expressed. I still don't understand just why we should be discussing this at great length in the first place. We can certain judge that the President's words were, at best, flat wrong. But I feel that we should have just left it there...and not appeared to have gloated in what some have voice in the past to be "evidence" of his eternal, spiritual condition.

We can all agree to pray for this man. If he knows the Lord...that he would know Him in a much more real and intimate way. If he doesn't know Him, that he would meet Him. I just don't think that it is fruitful to use words or tones that border on slander...simply because we heard a couple of interviews by which we feel secure enough to determine his spiritual condition. I'm not saying that this is characteristic of you or your thoughts, just a tone that seemed to be expressed by this thread.

Hi NotMe...

The Scriptures are unambiguous in this matter: he who denies that Jesus is the Christ is Antichrist. Saying that "Jesus Christ is a messiah but there also are other paths to salvation (the Muslim, the Buddhist, etc.)" means you are talking about another Jesus, not the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the spirit of the Antichrist at work in President Bush, for no man moved by the HOLY SPIRIT can say such a blasphemous thing. "And he who doesn't have the Spirit of Christ is none of His." A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. But from a bad tree you can certainly expect bad fruit.

The President may truly consider himself to be Christian (although I can doubt even that on some accounts), but his "Christianity", no matter whether its profession is genuine or pretended, is of another type. A partial truth is a lie.

I know individuals -- believers -- who seem to wholeheartedly love the Lord, yet fail in one area or another. I know a guy who struggles with lust. He admits to this when he calls me on the phone. Should I react and publicize his failure and his status as a wretched sinner? Or should I do my best to restore him gently? My question here regards the manner in which we are treating the President. I seriously doubt any of us know him personally. Yet we act as though we know him well -- well enough to suppose that what he said is what he really means or believes. And it seems as though we feel "perfect" enough with our own tongues as to feel the liberty to not just attack the words (which were obviously wrong), but to publicly suppose the spiritual condition of the man's heart.

What if the President regrets his words? What if he thought that they were a poor choice? What if he repented for them (just like each of us have repented in the past for the things that we have said)? What if he said these things after being tempted to make "peace" amongst the Muslims, Hindus, etc...? It doesn't make his words right (not in the least), but it does change how we treat the man. Yet we don't know what motivated his words...or what he really believes...or if he regretted or repented of his words. Yet we act as though we know the eternal condition of his soul.

This is what bothers me. It also bothers me that those who supposedly don't concern themselves with the affairs of this world seem to be the ones who are the most engrossed by this. Perhaps some of us who are so concerned could write a letter to the President and ask him to clarify his words (or to just share the Good News to him). Just a thought.

May the Lord lead us to react as He would react.

thanks old joe, great site.Just imagine if everyone found out this stuff about one of us and we professed to be a christian, you would say i really wasn't a christian by my works, according to jesus's own words, by their fruits you shall know them.