Baptist Pastor endorses Govenor Romney despite calling Mormonism a cult

Without meandering into another needless debate about politics, I want to point out that I believe that very few Christians believe that they are voting for a "Christian." After all, they are simply voting for a "president" and not a "pastor."

And, contrary to what is often stated, many Christians (and voters in general) don't feel that they are "choosing the lesser of two evils." Rather, they feel that they are simply choosing the better choice of two candidates. When I chose to purchase a vehicle, I didn't think that I was choosing between the various "evil" choices. I simply tried to determine what was best for our family with the finite resources by which God has provided us.

Whether they vote for Reagan, Bush, Obama, Romney, a mayor or some other person, many believers don't feel that they are "compromising" simply by choosing who they think to be the better of two major candidates (or one of the many minor candidates). And, of course, many vote because of platform ISSUES and campaign "promises" rather than "for" a man (or the man's religious views).

That said: I will pray long and hard before I decide when and if to vote. I do the same thing when choosing many between many seemingly "unspiritual" decisions in this life (job, purchases, etc...) and this is just one more decision that will never come between the Lord and me.

In a democratically elected republic, when you vote, you are casting your vote for the person you believe will best represent you. Voting for them doesn't mean you endorse everything that person is about. It just means of the candidates you have to choose from, you are electing the one whose vote would more likely represent what you'd vote for if given the option. That may be Romney, or that may be Obama. There is no compromise in this. It's just you saying "Well, if these are my only options... I pick that guy over there."

If you don't vote for either one does that mean you don't care who gets in and then the one who does get in actually got a vote from you because you didn't vote against him.

Just wondering...blessings from brother rbanks

Some people fool themselves into thinking because they didn't vote they somehow are not participating. Unfortunately people don't realize in our system of government is that you are born a participant, whether or not you vote. Our government is of, for, and by the people. In America, you are the government.

I am voting. I am voting for my father in law for president. My convictions do not allow me to vote for either of the candidates presented (assuming Romney gets the nod).

Hi Jimmy,

I agree that no one should use the "c" word in regard to your clear conscience in voting. I believe that it is no more "compromise" to choose between two men while voting than it is for choosing between two men to hire. You are simply selecting from a very small pool the person that you think is best for the job at this particular time.

Americans are not selecting a king, an emperor, a savior or even a pastor. They are simply selecting a temporary executive to administer 1/3 of the government (of the people by the people and for the people) for four years.

As for Romney's Mormon religion: From a Christian perspective, Romney's religion is just as corrupt, erroneous and pagan-inspired as the "Church" of Rome. It is just that it will fall under greater scrutiny from many Americans because it represents such a small segment of society. It will likely come under greater scrutiny than Roman pagan tradition...or even the Liberation Theology heresy.

However, as BrotherTom noted, Americans are not choosing a pastor, a Sunday School teacher, a Church elder or any other "spiritual" position. Americans are simply selecting a person to fill a role for four years. Yes, that role is extremely important in terms of the direction of the nation given the power of the position at this particular time in history.

America is not an empire and a president is not a king. Some believers feel the liberty to say (via a vote) which candidate that they think will do a better job. No one is "bowing" their knee to Baal (or a man). No one is eating the food of Babylon. No one is assuming that a flawed man will herald a revival -- even if such a man claimed to be a believer. A president is just an American who is chosen by a plurality of votes to fill the four-year role as a Chief Executive.

At the same time, some Americans can feel very strongly when they make such a decision. A friend called me the other day because a vocal homosexual activist was running for the school board in his district. My friend is usually non-political but felt strongly enough about this to exercise his voice via a vote.

I understand that there is some great concern about the dangers of becoming a part of this world's system by voting. However, I think that it is incorrect to assume that true believers who walk with God are in danger of idol worship because they vote.

As said earlier, we often make "secular" choices in life -- including the jobs that we take or the people that we hire. A person reminded me recently that some people take great care and consideration when deciding between babysitter candidates but lament when someone uses similar consideration when it comes to presidential candidates (whose decisions may impact their children more than any babysitter).

Each presidential election season seems to bring out many different types of debate. However, this is SermonIndex. Most of us are quite secure in our love for God and cherish our Savior more than anything. Most of us are hungry for more of Jesus and long to see others become as hungry for an intimate relationship with the Lord as the one that we long for. So, we shouldn't assume the worst in the brethren if they don't "see things" the same as we think we do. I don't have a problem when someone shares their views regarding any such matter. I just like to urge caution before we make "lump" assumptions.

In this case, I don't know any SermonIndex believers who would make excuses for the Mormon cult simply because they may feel that Romney is better for the job. Likewise, I don't think that people would make excuses for the Liberation Theology or Roman Catholic cultish religious systems either. Some of us are very much aware of the pagan teachings found in these sort of organizations. However, like you (Jimmy) said, some of us still feel that we can make a secular choice about a temporary governing executive without being given to such things.

The Lord bless you!

Greetings Frank

I was thinking over this topic as well. I wonder if now that Mr. Romney is about to become the opposing candidate how many of those on the right will promote him even though he is a Mormon. I wonder also if Mormonism itself will spill over even more then already has into being classified as a christian church even though it is not. Could this be a first step in the Mormon religion being accepted by evangelicals as a christian church??

You wrote:The people that have argued strongly for over 30 years, moral majority and so on, have to be in a genuine crisis as the strong postion was always that we must have a strong Christian in the Whitehouse and that this would be the salvation of America
__________

I was thinking this same thing, for those who have always believed that America is and was a country based on the christian faith how will they now be able to stand behind a man who clearly believes in an another gospel? It is interesting also that so many who come out against Obama and speak about his lack of christian belief and his ties to the Muslim religion now find themselves having to support a man who openly embraces another JESUS??

I wonder if the debate will move to a more secular area now?? Neither is a christian so unless some do in fact compromise and call Mormonism christian then voting based on faith of the candidate is not an issue...right?

God Bless
mj

Here is a question I asked recently on my facebook that is related to this topic. As an American citizen I am a Christian who is a citizen of a greater Kingdom with Christ as its Lord. I'm wondering how surrendered I am to Jesus Christ. Is my freedom to vote according to my choice even surrendered to His will? In other words is my choice subject to the will of Jesus Christ?

What if I prayed and He told me it was His will for me to vote for Barack Obama?

All hijacking attepmts of threads aside with all and various subjects not raised...

I don't think that anyone is "hijacking" this thread, Frank. You raised an issue when you said:

"It will be interesting to see how the Evangelical community responds to Govenor Romney. The vast majority of the Evangelical communinty consider Mormonism to be a cult and heretical. This Pastor, who seems to have a good handle on what Mormonism is, still calls for compromise and the lesser of two evils when voting this upcoming election. Should a Christian compromise, should a Christian settle for the lesser of two evils?

The perspective that I (and others) may have raised is in regard to these points.

First of all, I pointed out that Romney's Mormonism or Obama's Liberation Theology are less consequential for many (including believers) simply because they aren't voting for their doctrines or religious beliefs. They are simply deciding between two major (and many minor) candidates for a single four year executive position.

Consequently, the notion that it is "compromise" doesn't hold to individuals who choose to vote for one of the candidates. It isn't "allegiance" to a flawed man or his religious views any more than my secular employer "compromised" his agnostic views when he hired me.

Our faith is not compromised simply because we make a seemingly "secular" decision since no real believers will "make excuses" for Mormonism, Catholicism or Liberation Theology. They may point to the hypocrisy of dissecting one cult but not the others, but it isn't a "defense" of the heresies taught by any religion. This is why I said that Americans are electing a president and not a pastor.

Moreover, there is a difference between "moral righteousness" and pure religious faith. Believe it or not, there are some agnostic people who believe that abortion is the equivalent of murder. Some view "free speech" pornography, drunkenness, vulgarity, disrespect of parents and authorities, homosexuality, government-enforced religious suppression and other things as immoral or simply wrong. They don't attribute their beliefs to the mind of Christ. They simply feel it to be wrong and vote accordingly. Likewise, there are believers who see the "effect" of doctrinal truths and vote accordingly.

In this sense, there is no "genuine crisis" when believers are firmly aware that they are not endorsing a religious faith. They are simply endorsing matters of righteousness that are taught (or even directed) by their faith in God.

As hulsey indicated, one should ask if they feel the liberty to vote according to their choice "surrendered to His will." In regard to the election, BrotherTom pointed out that he doesn't think that America has even had a Christian in the White House for over a century. I can't pretend to know if this is true. However, I can analyze the impacting decisions and promises of the various flawed men who are running for this four year position and then PRAYERFULLY (with all sincerity) decide which one to choose or whether or not I should even make the choice in the first place.

You questioned about the "price" paid by those who refused to "compromise" over the centuries. However, no believer should be so audacious as to try and question the sincerity or credibility of the faith of those who do choose to vote or not -- or risk being labeled a "compromiser" for doing so -- if they are doing so with a clear conscience and after much prayer.

Voting for Romney isn't necessarily an endorsement of his Mormonism as being a valid "sect" within Christianity. Although, I fear that his being elected could bring it more into the mainstream, and I'm worried that many Christians have showed increasing tolerance toward Mormon beliefs. However, I think this is probably more out of their own ignorance of basic Christian dogma and how it violently contrasts with Mormon theology more than any sort of ecumenical spirit. It's altogether out of ignorance.

I am politically conservative. I'm much more libertarian in my political leanings, and would prefer somebody like Ron Paul being on the ballot. Indeed, last election cycle I voted for the libertarian candidate. I did not vote John McCain.

I think ultimately the question as to whether or not one should endorse Romney or not depends on how much you think his Mormon beliefs influence his political life. There are some Mormon politicians who are Republican. There are some who are democrat. There are also some Catholics who are republican. There are also some who are democrat. And it is clear from even the casual observer that for some of these men and women, their religious associations have had little influence on the politics of their public policy. If you think Romney is heavily influenced by his Mormonism, then you might reconsider voting for him. If not, then you may consider voting for him. Same goes with president Obama and his affiliations.

It is my observation that to get that far in the political sphere, you probably aren't the most religious person in the world. I am personally suspect of the moral character of just about any man that would seriously run for the office of president. To get there, you have to play a very big game. And to get there, you owe a lot of powerful and wicked men a lot of political favors. I have serious doubt that you could honestly get that position these days, without having sold your soul first.

Romney is probably just as Mormon as JFK was Catholic. Which is to say... not very much. But, I'm still not decided on this point. As it is, I don't plan on voting for Romney. He's not really a conservative.

And of course he was pro abortion for much of his political career in the north east.

I mean in regard to public policy, Romney's Mormonism is probably just as influential as JFK's Catholicism. That is to say, of little influence, as evidenced by his position on abortion.

We are in the world by needs must, but not off the world.

Yes, but again, the way our political system is designed in America, to not vote is to still participate in the system. And you can no more divorce yourself from living in this reality than you can divorce yourself from the fact that the person who lives next door to you is your neighbor. Even if you try to distance yourself from them by buying 100 acres of the land, that will still not change the fact that the person who shares borders with your property is by definition your neighbor.

If you don't vote for either one does that mean you don't care who gets in and then the one who does get in actually got a vote from you because you didn't vote against him.

It could mean you simply don't know their heart and don't trust their words. Or it could mean you are listening to the Lord and He has not led you to do anything with regards to voting.

Promotion comes neither from the East or the West but from the hand of God. He raises up Kings.

Pilgrim

If the number of true Believers (follow the Lamb whithersoever He goes), don't vote or don't join the Military, it will be akin to a fingernail scratch on a Mack Truck.

In my opinion, True Believers voting will not affect any outcome. We should be about the Lord's business and no other business.

2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Pilgrim

Well Brethren I don’t have the liberty of conscience to vote for either one (Romney or Obama).

As Christians we know that the kingdom of God is not of this world and that we are to live as strangers and pilgrims just passing through. Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world and that His servants were not to fight for it.

I couldn’t even vote as they say for the lesser of two evils because I can’t seem to know who that would be.

I thought of something else, when Jesus told someone to follow Him and let the dead bury the dead that I believe I’m going to do just that and let the dead vote for the dead or another way of saying it-let those who are of this world vote for those who are of this world. I will just pray for His kingdom to come and his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven and that His kingdom principles will rule in the hearts of his people and that many that are not His people will believe and become his people.

Blessings…from brother rbanks

All hijacking attepmts of threads aside with all and various subjects not raised, I wonder what Evangelicalcs will make of Mormonism in the next six months, will it cease to be a cult perhaps in an attempt to pivot from a previously held postion? Only time will tell. The people that have argued strongly for over 30 years, moral majority and so on, have to be in a genuine crisis as the strong postion was always that we must have a strong Christian in the Whitehouse and that this would be the salvation of America........... bro Frank

(deliberately ignoring the straw man " should we vote or not vote and stubbornly sticking to the subject at hand :)

You make a very good point, Frank.

You would think Evangelicals that have always posited that we need a strong Christian in the White House would be having an identity crisis right now when even thinking about backing Romney. But, many seem to be doing it quite easily.

Reminds me of the saying, "The enemy of my enemy has become my friend".

I think that is a good explanation of what happens in politics.

Pilgrim

Excellent points BearMaster & Pilgram777. I was concerned about voting as I have an out of State drivers license etc. But if it comes between the two. Romney & Obama I too will not vote with a clear conscience. We are not of this world. In it but not of it.

Great information. Thank you for sharing this.

Let us be more concerned with lifting up Jesus that He may draw all men to Himself.

And pray for our leaders and the Nations etc.

I pray I am on God's Word for this.

God has a plan. He is King. He is Creator. He is in control. He is our Heavenly Father. We can go to His Throne Room with our prayers & supplications. That is what He wants us, His children, to do. In Jesus, His Son's Name.

So, Holy Spirit, please remind us to do so. We pray you put in the White House the person You want for Your plan to be accomplished upon the earth and keep us strong and close to You Lord that we may be a light as the world grows darker. We trust You Lord, Your plan for this Nation and all the world, for Your people, for all.

We love You Lord, we surrender to You Lord, we embrace Your ways Lord. Help us to walk in them with eyes upon You Jesus and the things of this world will grow strangely dim. You will be brighter and brighter in our hearts that the Living Waters will flow from us onto those who You bring into our paths.

We worship and bow down to our King of Kings & Lord of Lord.
Christ Jesus.

I stand with RBanks and Pilgrim on this. Christians are to be a force to be reckoned with in the earth -- not because they've got their man in the government, but because they've got "power with God... and with men." Notice the order there. Power with God first. From that flows power with men. We've had it backwards, and end up with neither.

God says He will give the overcomer "power over the nations." He gave that kind of power to Jeremiah (Jer. 1.10). But Jeremiah never was in office. He gave it to Elijah. Who ran the country back then? Ahab, or Elijah?

As to Frank's original question about compromise, I wonder if it isn't God Himself who is behind Romney getting as far as he's come. That must certainly choke those who are obsessed with getting a "Christian" man at the country's helm... or all is lost. God has to teach his people a lesson.

Allan

Hi Jimmy,

Yes, but again, the way our political system is designed in America, to not vote is to still participate in the system. And you can no more divorce yourself from living in this reality than you can divorce yourself from the fact that the person who lives next door to you is your neighbor. Even if you try to distance yourself from them by buying 100 acres of the land, that will still not change the fact that the person who shares borders with your property is by definition your neighbor.

Good point.

I am often reminded of the old story of the fisherman during the hurricane. He only wanted to rely on God for help. As the flood waters continued to rise, he continued to pray.

When the waters were six inches high, a man in a big truck came to rescue him. The man replied, "No, I am waiting for God."

When the waters were six feet high, a rescue boat came by and called out to the man (who was in his second floor window at this time). He replied to the man in the boat, "No, I am waiting for God."

Finally, the waters had flooded the house. The man was standing on the last portion of the roof that wasn't flooded. A National Guard helicopter came by and tried to rescue him. The man shouted, "No thank you. I am waiting for God."

A little while later, the waters rose and the man drowned.

Standing in Eternity, he said, "I don't understand. I prayed for God to rescue me."

An angel responded, "What do you mean? God sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter."

I have heard that little story (in some form or another) several times...including at least a couple of times here on SermonIndex. The point is that the Lord does not always answer us via the methods that we expect or want. In fact, there are individuals praying for an end to abortion, yet they are unwilling to vote even for a candidate who says that he opposes it.

Of course, a president doesn't even have the power to stop ALL abortions (although one could issue presidential orders and funding directives that restrict abortions from using government funds). However, a president will choose the judges (just or unjust) who will sit and decide such matters.

Like you said, an American citizen is participating in the process of determining the next president even if they stay home. In fact, I already explained that one of Clinton's advisers visited our university and stated that one of their election strategies during the 1990s was to lower the voting rate of Christians. They didn't expect Christians to vote for Clinton. However, they did hope that they would be less inclined to vote for the other candidate (or choose a third party).

So, they issued statements about Clinton's "faith" and simultaneously released statements meant to question or scrutinize the "faith" of his opponents. The former Clinton adviser noted that they felt certain that Christians would spread the information "like wildfire." He noted that it worked because of the lower voter turnout from Christians in both the 1992 and 1996 elections.

In this sense, he said that the desired "non-participation" of Christians is crucial in close elections, especially the 1992 election. And, of course, he admitted that it was one of their most important efforts during the election.

Many Christians are unaware that their lack of participation is often just playing into the goals of others.

Now, is it "compromise" to vote for a man who isn't a Christian? Is it "compromise" to shop at a grocery store that isn't owned by Christians? Is it "compromise" to buy a home from a real estate company that is NOT owned by Christians? Is it "compromise" to be employed by a non-Christian company?

I do understand the conflict when it seemingly interferes with "non-involvement" types of views. Years ago, a brother on here said that he would not stand up if his wife was being physically attacked by a burglar. Why? He didn't believe in "resistance." So, he believed that it was better to refrain from participation even if it was his wife or child being physically assaulted.

In my view, his "non-participation" would result in an outcome that could have been prevented by simply impeding the intruder. No one is saying that you would have to harm or kill an intruder; however, it could SAVE A LIFE if you impeded the intruder from carrying out what he wanted to.

If there was a teenager riding his bicycle in the street and he was about to be harmed by a speeding truck, I don't think that it is compromise to loudly call out to him. I also don't think that it would be compromise to contact an "unjust judge" and urge something to be done (perhaps a stop sign, lower speed limits, speed bumps, etc...) to prevent future injuries on that road. It may not seem "spiritual," but it may preserve a life. In fact, by doing nothing (and maybe even hoping that someone "worldly" will do it and we reap the benefits from it), one could argue that our lack of collective participation led to injury.

In presidential elections, I have never met a person who voted for the man based solely upon his claim of a religious faith. Typically, it is a collective analysis of the claims and promises of that candidate that elicit a vote. And, like I said, the person elected will only serve a four year term. However, each candidate will try to achieve a plurality of votes (enough to win) by urging voters to support him because of what it is that he is trying to accomplish.

Oddly enough, these sort of discussions are often louder during presidential elections. And, of course, they are often urging restraint when it comes to "compromising" by voting for a candidate who may share many of the same moralistic views that believers have. You rarely hear the same decibel level when it comes to candidates who might be more obvious with their views (pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, etc...).

This is exactly what the former Clinton adviser said is hoped for. Christians are numerous enough to affect the outcome of an election. While an elected president might not have immediate impact upon issues like abortion or homosexual activism, they do have other subtle powers that will affect our families, children and neighbors.

Moreover, one of the greatest powers of the Chief Executive is in the appointment of judges. They determine the legality of laws. Abortion became the law of the land based upon the views of six people in 1973. Since then, MILLIONS of children have been slaughtered by parents who were empowered by a few politicians and the judges that they appointed.

Still, there are many believers here who feel the liberty of God to vote. No one should be so audacious as to think that they are "lesser" believers, immature or "unspiritual" for sharing their voice via a vote. Paul used his Roman citizenship to invoke a legal appeal "unto Caesar." This was long before representatives were "elected" too. Yes, his ultimate outcome was on behalf of his heavenly citizenship...but the same is true of us all. It is quite Biblical to do what you can to take care of your family and neighbors. If a law is passed that would essentially harm your neighbor (born or unborn), then a lack of participation is just standing out of the way and letting it happen.

Ultimately, I am unconcerned with pleasing man in regard to the liberty that I believe that God has given me to vote or not vote. We should ALL act only through much prayer and Biblical consideration. I have heard quite a few believers say what they think in regard to such matters. However, my concern is only with pleasing the Lord and in doing what is right in regard to the place that the Lord has placed me. If the Lord leads me to share my voice about such issues via a vote, then I will do it.

I don't think that it is "compromise" if, after much prayer, I vote for some non-Christian that some other believer thinks should be ignored. Christians are not voting for a pastor. They are simply voting for an executive who will be in office for a four-year term but upon whose decisions may have impacts to your family, children and neighbors. Choosing between two candidates is no less spiritual than when choosing between two candidates to hire for a job. It is simply saying who you think is the best for the job at this particular time.

May the Lord lead each of us.

*By the way, I do think that we should be very careful about making subtle insinuations too. We shouldn't imply something about candidates of which we claim to be refrain from participation in the effort to invoke non-support for that candidate.

Earlier, it was said, "And of course he was pro abortion for much of his political career in the north east." To be clear: Romney was only in office for a short time (four years in Massachusetts). Further, he was anti-abortion BEFORE and WHILE he was the Governor of Massachusetts. The extent of his views can be analyzed and critiqued. However, we can't rely upon the Wikipedia for hearsay if we make such claims. IF we are going to make such claims, we need to get it right -- or risk being guilty of lies, gossip or hearsay. Nor did we read a comparison of the various views on abortion of both major candidates. Moreover, we shouldn't even go about voicing such insinuations to begin with if our goal is to simply foster a message about possible "compromise" based upon the religious views of the man.

Still, I don't want to digress from the topic at hand. I believe that EVERY believer who can vote should pray long and hard before they vote. If they don't feel that they should, then they should not. If -- after much prayer, study and contemplation (including what points others have made) -- they don't feel a Scriptural prohibition regarding it, then they shouldn't be concerned if someone else voices it.

This is one of the reasons that I lament the political topics here on SermonIndex. They have the ability to divide us by differences in views regarding such matters rather than uniting us upon what is ultimately important. Even though we all long to please the Lord and see His face (and see His will accomplished in the Church), our differences in opinions, maturity or views can supplant what it is that God is trying to accomplish by SermonIndex. If we aren't careful, individuals will being to make mental judgments about others that seriously divide the Body of Christ that needs true unity of Spirit now more than ever.

Greetings Chris

you wrote:Many Christians are unaware that their lack of participation is often just playing into the goals of others.

__________

actually I have thought about that before and it does not change how I feel the LORD leading me in this area of life. I can not get caught up in the scheming of others, it's not my place to try to hinder others from reaching their goals, but it is my place to follow JESUS. I agree that if you feel the LORD leading you to vote then you should do so. I do not feel the LORD leading me to and so I won't :)

But I will join you in prayer and ask HIS will be done on earth as it is Heaven.

God Bless
maryjane

Hi Brother Hez_Willing,

suffice to say, it is babylon, and those who sup of its provisions, and drink of the cup, are the children of darkness, deluded, listening and believing the lies of their father, the devil who is the father of all lies:

Would you care to explain what this means? I don't understand the relevance of the Secret Service scandal in regard to the topic.

Perhaps I am reading too deeply into this, but I think that it would be incorrect to insinuate that everyone who votes or decides that one candidate is better than another is guilty of "supping of [Babylon's] provisions" or are "the children of darkness."

After so many fiery debates over the years on SermonIndex, wouldn't it be sufficiently wise to simply encourage believers to commit to a great deal of prayer, study and contemplation before they decide to vote (or who to vote for)?

Hi Frank,

I would have to agree with you brother. I do believe that Chris believes his own reasoning with all of his heart. And so therefore I can genuinly agree to disagree with him. To be Spirit led is to be Spirit led. In these matters mens opinions will not be changed by other men, only by revelation. Its interesting that in Jimmy's thread about identity, lots of the subjects that are being touched on in this thread would apply to that thread.

Thanks. I agree that we have all sincerely arrived to our opinion and reasoning. In my case, it has come only after immense prayer and study of God's Word. I am certain that we can all sincerely say the same thing...even if we arrive to a different set of conclusions about such matters.

The differences of opinion in this matter are just that -- differences of opinion derived by flawed men (all of us) who are sincerely seeking and longing for God who is perfect in every way. Your opinion does not make you any less spiritually-minded than mine. The opposite is also true. We are seeking God's heart on this matter and have just not arrived to the same conclusion.

This is true of many different discussions here on SermonIndex. For every much-debated doctrine, there are individuals on all sides who are sincerely seeking the Lord for truth on the matter. Consequently, I think that most of the people who frequent the resources found on SermonIndex are all members of the Body of Christ who are seeking the Lord above all else.

And as interesting as all that is, I still wonder if those who do choose to vote( and I agree that it is not sinful unless one is violating ones concience) can vote, in good concience, for a man who utterly denies the trinity and the very core of everything we are as Christians. I am the more interested in the logic of those who have in the past stated that we need a Christian or more Christians in the Whitehouse.

In this case, I don't know anyone who concluded beyond doubt that any particular candidate was a Christian. During the 2004 election and onward, I stated in some of the various political debate threads on SermonIndex that I had no idea whether or not President Bush was a believer. I did caution individuals from making a claim either way (either "yes he is" or "no he isn't"). This came across as if I were "defending" the President. That just wasn't the case.

In regard to Governor Romney: I don't know if I will vote for him or not. However, it is clear that Americans are not selecting a pastor but a president. Thus, no one is embracing ANY aspect of the cult to which Romney belongs any more than those who supported Obama may have been embracing the Liberation Theology cult to which he belonged. To many people -- including Christians -- the election is nothing more than deciding which person running would be the better chief executive for the next four year term.

I don't know ANY believer here or elsewhere who would argue that Mormonism is just a "sect of Christianity." Most believers would say the same about Roman Catholicism, Liberation Theology or any other number of cults. When a workplace has to select a project manager, the employees don't consider the person's religious faith. The hiring of such an individual doesn't mean an endorsement of religion either. It is just a decision about which person is best for the job.

The office of the President of the United States is a SECULAR job. I do think that it is possible for a believer to operate in such a capacity (although it is highly unlikely). Similarly, I think that it is possible for a believer to serve in other "secular" capacities...at work, school, and elsewhere. And, ultimately, we can have faith that God is overseeing all of human history from His absolute omniscience and omnipotence.

Whether we vote or not, God knows the end from the beginning. OF course, He knows this of each one of us. That doesn't mean that I will play with matches, walk carelessly in the street or lay down on train tracks just because God is aware of my own end. Chances are if I walk in front of a train or truck going 80 mph, the end of my life is being written by my own actions. Thus, if I feel the liberty to vote -- even for another non-Christian candidate -- I will do so only with a clear conscience.

A few years ago, my dad made a comment that I thought was telling. He said that even if a real Christian were running for President, there will always be someone to rise up and point the finger at him and claim that he isn't really a Christian. They will scrutinize and point out every flaw and some will go on and on about how he isn't really a Christian.

I don't know the eternal condition of any person. God hasn't shared such knowledge with me...even if the fruit of some may seem clear. In this case, we have two primary candidates who were members of some cults where the cult tries to invoke the Name of Christ on their religion and heresies. Is it possible to select one on the basis of simple persuasion about who we think would be better for this country of our temporary residence?

Like BrotherTom says, we may NEVER have had a real Christian in the White House since the Civil War. Although I can't pretend to know if this is true, I think that the point is clear. Americans aren't voting for a religious leader. They aren't voting for a pastor. They aren't selecting an apostle. They aren't selecting a savior. They are simply deciding between a couple of primary candidates in regard to who would be a better fit for the direction of this country over the next four year term of office.

Ultimately, the focus isn't on any man. They are ALL flawed. In this case, they both belong to cults and are likely just another of the majority of this world that doesn't truly know our Lord. Does that mean that it is a "compromise" to decide that one one of them would be better than the other? I don't think so.

The focus of real believers will ALWAYS be on Christ Jesus. We shouldn't assume that they would be led astray over something so superficial as an election of a flawed man. Many will maintain their faith and integrity in Christ even if they vote because of issues that they feel are important for their families, neighbors and, of course, their brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Lord bless you, dear brother. May the Lord guide each of us in this and welcome our brethren -- including those with which we disagree on these matter -- with the love of Christ.

KingJimmy - just a curiosity question: are you former military by chance?

No. I'm not. My younger brother served for a while though. I'm against war.

Hi HezWelling,

I apologize if I was reading too much into your post. I just couldn't understand what you were saying.

All of what you said about the election season will probably end up being true. However, those things will not have a place in my heart. My heart belongs to Christ and will not be distracted by such matters. It may take effort sometimes, but the same is said about all of the "affairs of this life" -- like my family, my job, finances, etc...

Still, I may end up voting on November 6th. I don't know right now. I am still in prayer over this and everything else in this life. I do have some strong opinions over what direction I think that a president should go or how we may not be going in that direction now. However, this is of little importance in comparison to knowing our Savior.

At the end of the day, I am much more focused upon spending time alone with the Lord. I want to be alone in my own closet away from the thoughts and concerns of this life and present myself to the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart.

I suspect that this is true of everyone who has met our Lord. It is a desire to be alone with God so intimately that the world around us and the thoughts of this life just fades away.

It reminds of an old song that meant a lot to me when I first met Him (and continues to mean a lot to me now):

JESUS DRAW ME CLOSE
by Rick Founds
http://tinyurl.com/jesusdrawmeclose

Jesus, draw me close
Closer, Lord, to You.
Let the world around me fade away.

Jesus, draw me close;
Closer, Lord, to You.
For I desire to worship and obey.

Jesus, draw me close
Closer, Lord, to You.
Let the world around me fade away.

Jesus, draw me close;
Closer, Lord, to You.
For I desire to worship and obey.

http://tinyurl.com/jesusdrawmeclose

I love you in all truth, dear brother Neil.

To be brief: The sacred vs. secular divide that a non-participation point of view espouses ultimately overlooks the fact that there is no such thing. Jesus Christ is the head of all of creation. All authority has been given to him on heaven and earth. Jesus Christ is Lord of all.

William Wilberforce changed the world. The grace of God upon his life resulted in the death of the institution of the slave trade. In what he did, he changed more lives than Leonard Ravenhill ever did or will. And let's not even talk about you guys who are nothing more than glorified bloggers. In a short period of time Wilberforce changed the British empire and shook the world. And what was he? A Christian politician.

Let's not be psuedo spiritual.

Jeff, I don't endorse Romney, and have no plans of voting for him. I am not sure who I will vote for this time yet. Politically, I have no party. I'm an independent who holds to views akin to conservative and libertarian ideals. As a Christian, my political stance is too radical to simply be right or left, Republican or Democrat. I think it almost a sin to be affiliated with any particular political party. The idea that you are just going to vote for whoever has an R or D next to their name I find entirely inconscionable. We should weigh every canddiate on their own merits, and how like us they are in their representation of us.

The last time I voted for Bob Barr, who was the libertarian candidate. I didn't feel the leading of the Holy Spirit to vote one way or the other. I simply voted according to the liberty I have within Christ, and chose the candidate that I thought best reflected what I stood for. I found myself in more agreement with Barr than I did with Obama or McCain. In good conscience, I couldn't vote for either of those men.

My point in invoking William Wilberforces name was simply to demonstrate the idea that much heavenly good can come from Christians being active in the political process. Indeed, apart from this process, our nation will never stand the chance of overturning Roe v. Wade, without which, we will never see the end of legalized abortion, and the countless millions who have died since that unjust law was established.

I am not comparing Romney to Wilberforce. Romney isn't a Christian. Wilberforce was a very devoute one. I'm simply showing that the idea of being a non-participant in the politcal process of whatever land you live in is just silly. Christians should be actively engaged in the social and political issues of the day. Why? Because their Lord is.

Jesus Christ is the ladder that stretches between heaven and earth. He bridges the so-called "secular vs sacred" gap. And through us we are able to minister the blessings of Christ to the nations, and to teach them what is in accordance with rigtheousness and the will of Christ. The law has gone forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and we are to teach the nations to war no more. To do that is to of necessity be involved in the political processes of whatever kingdom we may find ourselves in during the days of our sojourning.

My stance is the same. I've not changed it. I never said, "Not voting is a vote for the other canddiate." I've said the notion that one can be non-paticipatory in our form of government in the United States is simply an illogical stance that shows one doens't truly understand the nature of our sytem of government. In America, the people are the government. If one chooses not to vote, they are still participating in government in one fashion or another.

Which is why I believe it is incumbant upon us as Christians to deliberately participate in our governments system, and make a positive contribution to the best of our ability.

Who am I voting for? I don't know yet. I was going to vote for Ron Paul, and believe him to be the best candidate, although, I don't agree or by any means endorse all of his positions. But it doesn't look like he'll be on any ballot this Fall, so, it doens't really matter anyway. I would never vote for Obama. And to me, Romney is too much like Obama for me to ever consider voting for him.

Jeff, I don't think you are really reading what I've been saying, and you are making many unfortunat assumptions. You are boxing with a shadow my friend.

And I didn't defend Glenn Beck. I just said that God was using him in the same manner that he used the pagan king Darius, king of Persia, to order the Jews back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. Just because God has used him in such a way should in no way serve as God (or me) somehow endorsing Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck needs to come to truly know Christ, or he will die and go to hell.

When one is born-again there many things the Lord has them stop participating in regarding the kingdoms of this world.

There are new things for the new man to participate in, as a citizen in the kingdom of God.

Pilgrim

Neil,

I didn't reply to your post because 1) I haven't had time to completely read it and 2) it really didn't make much sense to me when I did. I'm not sure how to reply actually.

Hi Nathan,

No, it was not directed towards you. I'm sorry, I should have been clear. I am referring to when Jimmy says, "Not participating in this world is participating".

That's kind of like saying, "Coming out of Babylon, is really going into Babylon".

Jimmy says, "the people are the government". Well, that is the mantra that they want us to believe and so most people still believe that and yet the frustration that voters have had for years is they are apparently duped over and over again by people that they supposedly send to Congress to represent them, only to watch as they turn their back on the voters because of mammon or power or both.

It is an ungodly system full of false security and I will continue to vote for Jesus every year.

Does God sovereignly raise people up to be extremely influential in places of secular authority. Yes, we have examples in the Bible.

Pilgrim

Hi pilgrim777,

I know that you are responding about what Jimmy said, but I hope that I might be able to clarify his position (since I believe that I understand it).

You wrote:

I am referring to when Jimmy says, "Not participating in this world is participating".

That's kind of like saying, "Coming out of Babylon, is really going into Babylon".

Jimmy says, "the people are the government". Well, that is the mantra that they want us to believe and so most people still believe that and yet the frustration that voters have had for years is they are apparently duped over and over again by people that they supposedly send to Congress to represent them, only to watch as they turn their back on the voters because of mammon or power or both.

It is an ungodly system full of false security and I will continue to vote for Jesus every year.

I think that Jimmy is saying "participation" in the form of the consequences. Earlier, I mentioned the consequences of failing to warn a teenager who is playing in a street of a truck headed his way. By not participating, it could be construed as being a factor in an accident. Some states even have "good Samaritan" laws that require a form of participation because the consequences of NOT participating are immense.

My dad is from Pennsylvania and I spent many childhood summers staying with my grandmother in a small village. When I was a child, I was told that it was required by law to report a fire. The law existed because if someone just ignored it or stood as an "outsider," the devastation could be immense and "I just don't participate" would not stand in court.

I don't think that it is like saying "coming out of Babylon is really like going into Babylon." Why? Because you, your family and your neighbors physically live in the place that you call "Babylon." You drive on "Babylon's" roads. You follow "Babylon's" laws. You pay "Babylon's" taxes. You probably accept a monetary return when you file and report your taxes to "Babylon" too. You drive vehicles and live and work in buildings that are regulated by "Babylon" too. You are writing on a computer via the internet that is regulated by "Babylon." You may work for or own a company that is regulated and listed with "Babylon." Some actually accept certain social-welfare or health benefits from "Babylon." Many Christian children attend schools that are located and regulated by the state and local "Babylon."

What am I saying? If you are saying that America and all systems of government are "Babylon," then you are participating in "Babylon" unless you completely cut yourself off from it. However, not even the Amish do that. They cut themselves off from many of those things as they attempt to "be ye separate," but most still use roads, products and other interactions with "the world."

Often, we are critical of the government that we live and consider it "Babylon" (although we have no emperor in a "government of the people"), but we are still willing to accept the benefits of living here. In fact, some are willing to move to "Babylon" because of those benefits.

Now, of course, Babylon may simply be a reference to a non-physical system. Perhaps it is a mentality. However, it is incorrect to assume that we are "participating in Babylon." The New Testament is filled with references of godly individuals who "participated" in the Roman system. From a persistent widow who begged an "unjust judge" to grant a request to the Apostle Paul's use of the Roman legal system (and his claim of being a natural born Roman citizen) to "appeal unto Caesar" to the Roman centurion who was a "godly man" -- these individuals were using that "ungodly system" for a spiritual means.

If we care about the unborn, then what if your one voice/vote could make a difference in the life of a single unborn child? By standing aside and claiming that we are not participating, the burden is placed upon others. If we claim to refrain from participation, then shouldn't we refrain from ALL aspect of participation -- including the "benefits." Couldn't "come out from among them and be ye separate" be considered a complete separation?

Anyway, these are just a few things to think about. Many of us continue to "vote" for Jesus each and every year -- but still feel that we can share our voice (through a vote) after prayerful study and consideration. No one is pretending that the government, the political system or anything like it provide any sort of spiritual "security." I also think that it would be unfair and incorrect for anyone to imply that those of us who feel such liberty to vote are a part of "Babylon" in the connotation that we are willfully choosing a government system in comparison with our relationship with the Lord. For my part, I only decide whether or not to vote (or who/what to vote for) after much sincere prayer and study.

Although I don't want to speak for Jimmy, I hope that this makes more sense.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your post. To clarify, I was referring to Babylon from a spiritual standpoint and what are people trusting in.

When we eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (which can often seem like "life") we come up with many justifications to use the arm of the flesh and then we call it spiritual and God's will.

Pilgrim

Hi Jeff,

I don’t have a lot of time, but I just wanted to comment on a couple of things in regard to what you posted here. I’ll try to type fast.

First of all, we need to be careful about the allegations that we raise about those who are being considered for such an office. You said that Obama is “pro-murder.” You stated that Romney was pro-murder, then was not and then may be again. You said that Ron Paul “thinks we ought to have total freedom to do anything without govt intervention (including murdering babies and shoot heroin).”

How do you know these things? Upon what are you basing these claims? Now, I am not saying that you are wrong in all of them, but I suspect that you are deriving an opinion based upon the things that you hear and read in the popular media. As always, many of those things are written by flawed writers who may or may not have a certain “slant” to their writing. While one can point to Obama’s votes and speeches that favor abortion, we have little legislative abortion record from Governor Romney. We do have some seemingly conflicting statements, but he has maintained that he is morally opposed to the procedure and believed that Roe v. Wade was poorly decided. Ron Paul, on the other hand, stated that he has ALWAYS been against abortion and has always believed that life begins at conception. Yet, you have stated that he is so libertarian that he wants people to have “total freedom to do anything” (including “murdering babies”). This is simply untrue.

I fear that this is all lost in such discussions. If we want to “rightly divide” such matters, we must be extremely careful to avoid falling into the trap described by sister Mary Jane in a thread she started this morning about the dangers of gossip, slander or idle words spoken about such men. We will have to give an account for every word that we speak – even something false that is uttered for what we think is a noble end.

This system is bankrupt people. Open your eyes. Prepare for eternity now & building an eternal kingdom which will not be shaken. If a REAL man of God arose, and the Spirit of the Lord spoke to my heart, I would vote for them, but they aren't there and aren't coming!! Next great political leader to unite the whole world will be the man of sin, the son of perdition, the Anti-Christ. There is Babylon the Great and Mystery Babylon. There is a physical and spiritual Babylon that intersect on the same plane. Daniel lived in one. He ate their vegetables & was an "ideal citizen", and he walked on their roads. But, he never forsook prayer, nor vowed his knee to an idol. He lived in it, but was not of it. I live here, but Lord forbid I be of it.

Since you mentioned Daniel, don’t you think that it is possible for a believer to maintain his faith without bowing his knee to an idol? Do you think that it would be possible for a sincere believer to make a simple decision about which of two primary candidates would be the better choice for a four year term in office without believing that this world, its systems, politicians or governments are any sort of savior? After all, our faith is in the Living God.

For one, I can attest that I have maintained an intimate relationship with the Lord even though I feel the liberty to vote or make other decisions like it. I don’t believe that it is “unspiritual” any more than other decisions that we make in this life. As you said, there are “intersections” in this world. Paul said of marriage that a married man has to concern himself with the affairs or things of this world (I Corinthians 7:32-35). We must work to provide for our families or risk being worse than an infidel (I Timothy 5:8). The important thing is to not “abuse” (or become “engrossed” in) the things of this world that is passing away (I Corinthians 7:31).

3 baby killers who deny the deity of Christ? Why should I participate/vote? Who is he that denies Christ as Lord-the Anti-Christ!! Which one will you vote for? Should there even be a discussion here? C'mon brothers - is that really that hard to see for you if you are daily in the Lord's presence in the Word, prayer, NT fellowship, etc.? Pray about what I'm saying. That's all I ask. Then reply

Again, I think that the accusation that you make about “three baby killers” is flawed. Moreover, we all must make decisions in this life that “intersect” with this world. If you work, you probably work for (or hire) someone who is of this world. If you drive on government roads, pay taxes that fund government workers/weapons/etc…, or obey the laws of the land, there is an intersection going on while we live here. Even the Amish in their attempt to be “separate” from this world often interact and “sell” items to the people outside of their “separated” community.

Like I mentioned earlier, the faithful persistent widow constantly attempted to get an “unjust judge” (literally, an unjust ruler) to act on her behalf. She was not cited by the Lord as a poor example either. Paul invoked his Roman citizenship in order to avoid a beating (Acts 22:22-29) and then use the pagan Roman legal system to appeal unto Caesar (Acts 25:11). And, of course, this was before the time in which government workers were chosen by the very citizens of the nation in which they dwell.

But, like many others have said, it would be better to simply encourage believers to pray.

We can implore believers to pray over such matters…and that should suffice. We may not agree on this or other matters. I have come to terms with the fact that many believers will not share the same opinions on this or other non-essential matters. There are numerous topics here on SermonIndex that have been exhaustively debated. Of course, no matter what we believe in terms of doctrine or how sincere we are in seeking Jesus, there will always be someone to point at us and say that we are “worldly” (or worse).

I am concerned that some have turned this issue into an “essential” doctrine that will reflect a person’s eternal status. I think that this is a dangerous position to take on something that is simply a difference of opinion about whether or not believers can decide between two primary candidates for a four year position in a secular government of which their decisions can have long-reaching repercussions for our families, children and neighbors.

Again, I think that the encouragement to pray before we do anything (including vote) is sufficient to believers. We can share the reasons for our concern. However, we must be careful about being given to slander, idle words or even suspicion about the maturity or spiritual status of fellow believers who may not see an issue the same way that we do. And, of course, it is important that we pray that the Lord lead ALL of us.

Hi Brother Jim,

"Yeah, God bless america, bless our christian soldiers in literally wasting their lives for american jesus/molech to protect our so called rights and perceived freedom and civic duties like voting."

PS - I do not write this to condemn anyone who was involved with the military. I used to be the biggest fan of all things war and bush, anti aclu, a true stand up evangelical in every sense of the word. Jesus saved me and healed me from that and I do not want to sound condemning to others as I freely recieved deliverance from it.

I suppose that this is where many of us differ. I don't know anyone -- including secular politicos -- who are "fans" of war. I don't know any Christians who are literally "fans" of Bush (although they may strongly support some or many of the views that Bush supposedly held). I don't know anyone who is "anti-ACLU" -- even though I personally oppose some of the things that the ACLU tries to accomplish. I don't know any real believers who "hate" gays (although they may hate the sin [of homosexuality] itself).

While I did urge caution about those who pointed out what they saw as evils with Bush or raised allegations against him, he has never been anything more than a flawed man who happened to serve two four-year terms in office. I did agree with what he said about some things. I also disagreed with other things that he said.

Still, I would remind you that you are saying that you were once quite politically involved. Were you a Christian at the time? If so, and if you believe that you "received deliverance from it," then perhaps it would be best to allow other believers the same grace that you received.

I would like to say that I have prayed long and hard about such things. I hear many voices (often the same voices repetitively) here and elsewhere and I have brought those things before the Lord through prayer and study. Still, I have not felt any prohibition from the Lord about voting.

Now, it would be easy to say that I haven't "matured" enough yet or been "delivered" from such things yet. However, I believe that God is omnipotent enough to gain my attention -- the attention that is always looking and longing for Him (no matter where I am). He has many, many times in the past. Most of those things are kept between the Lord and me and usually go unshared. However, the Lord has done many great and mighty things for me. Some would almost seem unbelievable. My heart is steadfast and I strive constantly against the flesh to be sensitive to His Spirit. The Lord has grabbed my attention by supernatural means and by those subtle wooings in the heart. In this case, I haven't received the same prohibition that others have suggested. If I did, I would respond accordingly.

Again, I think that we should allow the Holy Spirit to do His own work rather than trying to accomplish it. All that we can do is share what we feel but urge all to sincerely pray for guidance from the Lord in such matters.

Ultimately, we may never come to the same conclusion on this side of Eternity. I have come to terms with that. There are so many heated arguments and debates on SermonIndex (and among Western believers everywhere) that may never come to a unified resolution.

Believers here on SermonIndex (including myself) have exhaustively debated politics, music, standards of propriety, head coverings, Bible translations, acceptable food/drink, the concept of mandatory tithing, whether or not a Christian can fall back into the world and go to Hell, the gifts of the Spirit, eschatology, what words should be uttered if and when someone is baptized and many, many other issues. There have even been debates over what types of jobs are acceptable for believers or whether or not secular colleges are compatible with the Christian faith. I have concluded that many of those things may never be resolved before the Lord returns.

The danger, as I said before, is when we treat believers with whom we disagree as something other than sincere believers seeking the Lord for answers. In this matter (like all others), we can always "agree to disagree" and simply encourage one another to pray for the Lord to lead each one of us.

Even if we disagree on this matter, I still respect each of the brethren here. I think that we wouldn't be here if we didn't sincerely long to know the Lord in truth or desire to encourage one another. Anyway, I hope that our fellowship will stay pure. My wife and I would welcome each of the brethren here into our home. After all, we are the family of God.

Ok. Allow me to try and catch up here. A lot of posts have happened since earlier, and there is no way I can really effectively address them individually. So, I will try to speak to the general emphasis of what has been said.

I believe there are a lot of unfortunate assumptions being made here. I believe many of you are boxing with shadows, and are making arguments against things that are not actually being argued. That is not to say they aren't argued by other people elsewhere, but, they are definitely not being argued by me or anybody else on this thread. Some of you are ignoring what is actually being said.

Before I continue making my point in what I'm actually saying, let me briefly address some of the things that nobody is actually advocating:

First, nobody has even remotely suggested that we align ourselves with any particular political party. The politics of Jesus is too radical to be right or left, Republican or Democrat. Nor has anybody remotely suggested we take up the stance of the so-called "Moral Majority" of the 1970's & 80's. Nobody here is in anyway advocating or supporting Mormonism.

Secondly, nobody has even remotely suggested that we look at the government as being the source of our security, or that any political leader be viewed in any savior type capacity. Nobody has even remotely suggested that all of our ills could be solved if we simply got a Christian, or even a quasi Christian, elected into the White House.

Third, nobody has even remotely suggested we look at our nation as the kingdom of God. The American government is imperfect at best, and in other places just outright corrupt. Even at its best, it is a system ultimately doomed to fail, because there is only one everlasting kingdom that this world has ever or will ever know, and that is the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

But now with all that said, let me elaborate further on what I am trying to convey.

First and foremost, let it be said that Jesus Christ is Lord of both heaven and earth. He is the King of kings, and Lord of lords. All authority has been given to Him in heaven and earth. And no authority in this world exists apart from Him. He is the head of all creation, and ultimately, the head of every government in this world, whether those governments recognize Him or not.

Second, the existence of all the kingdoms of all the nations of all the world are divinely appointed by God. God has determined the boundaries and habitations of all the nations so that they might seek after Him, and accomplish His ultimate plans. Nations do not exist simply because people held violent revolutions against other competing powers. They exist because God has founded them, and subsequently, numbered their days.

Third, all nations, like ancient Babylon, have been “weighed and found wanting.” Their days are all short. Tomorrow all of their kings shall die. But from within these nations, God has called out to Him a people for Himself, who although they live in this world and make use of the world, they are no longer a people of the world. They are a people who confess that Jesus Christ is King, and in such confession, they are granted citizenship into a heavenly kingdom.

Fourth, though now given a heavenly citizenship, and recognizing that there is a King who is now over all kings and all nations everywhere, they begin to live their lives on earth out of their submission to Christ. And they don’t do this by forming their own private colonies whereby they withdraw from society in private clusters. They recognize such is impossible. Rather, they return to the world and live their lives actively engaged in this world in light of their new allegiance.

Fifth, this results in them continuing on in their occupations and associations. If they were married, they remain married. If they worked as a factory worker, they continue on in their labor. If they occupied an important leadership position at a company, they continue leading. And if they were appointed a statesman who served in some governmental capacity, they continue governing. Those whom God has called out to Himself are soon found to infiltrate every part of society. They are found among the rich and the poor, the great and the small, the bond and the free.

Sixth, being found in every part of society across the globe, those who now recognize that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords begin instructing those who do not recognize Him as such. His disciples announce to the nations that there is another whom God has now made as King, and all men everywhere are now called to live their lives in light of way He has taught men to live. From the positions God has placed men in within the nations which He has appointed, these men call all men everywhere to recognize that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that they ought to submit themselves to His rule and reign in every aspect of their lives, and in every aspect of society.

Seventh, those who take this stance make it clear that though they live in this world, they are not of this world. They recognize that they are the possession of Someone else, and belong to Him. Thus, from mere outward appearance, they look to be like all other men. But they are animated by a different spirit and have a different agenda. They look to infuse the agenda of Christ’s kingdom wherever they are at, no matter where they are at, at all times, everywhere, and to everybody they come across.

Eight, these people see through the lie propagated by the world that religion is something to be kept in the private sphere. They know that there is nothing truly secular, and that the reign of Jesus Christ is not limited to one’s private devotional life. He reigns over all of creation. And His people laugh at the philosophy that somehow tries to separate church and state. In part, because they know that such a philosophy is an ideal that can only exist in books, and not in the reality of everyday life. For men by nature are religious beings, even if they are self-professed atheists, and their religious views, no matter how much they may water them down in the public arena, will ultimately season that society. But the primary reason God’s people laugh at the idea of separation of church from state is because they recognize that Jesus Christ reigns over all nations and kings everywhere. As King of kings and Lord of lords, He is already actively involved in every aspect of every nation on the face of the earth, including the governments of this world. And because Jesus Christ is not apolitical, neither can we be.

In light of all these basic gospel truths, I don't see how any Christian could possibly imagine that God has called them to live in a way detached from the political sphere of life. While I respect these sincerely held beliefs, I can't help but find such a theology shallow at the end of the day. At the end of the day it is a theology that places limitations on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and limits the scope of the ministry of His people in this world.

Hi Brother Jeff,

Thanks for the clarification.

While I don't think that anyone here has explicitly said that believers can't vote, there is an underlying implication that seems evident in many posts in which participation in something like voting would be wrong.

Likewise, the initial question was in regard to "compromise" when voting for a non-believer. Since no one here has supposed or concluded that ANY candidate over our lifetimes has been a believer, then the implication that voting for ANY presidential candidate is "compromise."

Now, this is not directly at anyone in particular; rather, this is what I feel that I am gleaning from this debate as a whole.

As for Obama's position: I think that it is clear that Obama is pro-abortion. His voting record all the way from his days in the Illinois legislature reflects this. However, I was simply trying to say that he wouldn't call himself "pro-murder." When many Liberals present their defense of abortion, they almost try to defend it as a "necessary evil." Of course, we know that it is simply EVIL birthed straight out of Satan's own mind. Still, this issue is one of the major reasons that I could not personally support his candidacy.

As for Romney's position: There really isn't a voting record to go by from the four years that he spent as the Governor of Massachusetts. The only actual "vote" that I could find from Romney while he was governor was when he vetoed a 2005 bill that would have required hospitals to provide the "morning after" abortion pill to rape victims. Now, I have found statements about him being a "flip flop" on the matter of abortion.

First of all, we have not maintained that he is a Mormon and not a Christian. Secondly, his claim seems to have always been that he was personally opposed to abortion and believed that life began at conception. As a governor (or even a president), his power is limited in regard to it anyway. If the state determines that abortion must be legal (as Roe v. Wade did in 1973), the governor is limited in how to counteract the declaration by the courts.

As for Ron Paul: He has NEVER stated that he supported legal abortion. In fact, he is a libertarian. That does not mean that he is an anarchist. Dr. Paul has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution is the law of the land. He has asserted that the Constitution has NEVER given anyone the "right" to an abortion. He has never made a statement that indicated that he supports abortion or that it was a "personal liberty." In fact, he has also asserted that abortion is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution and should therefore be illegal in every case.

This is why I am urging caution. One could read what you said about Obama and conclude that it is probably true. After all, he has supported abortion in virtually every instance. With Romney, you get into some "gray" areas because of conflicting information that might require a conclusion to be drawn. But with Ron Paul, what you said was grossly inaccurate. It may have been inadvertent. However, this is when we should be slow to repeat such things unless we are entirely sure. Otherwise, we are bearing false witness against the man.

Yes, the government is responsible to "punish evildoers." However, a president or congressman is not the government. He is a member of the government constrained by the laws of the land that define his roles and responsibility.

President Reagan was strongly anti-abortion. He issued an "Emancipation Proclamation for the Pre-born Child." He even presented a copy of it to Melody Green, Keith Green's wife (some of their messages are included here on SermonIndex). Melody Green met with President Reagan on numerous occasions because of this. Yet, even a president is limited in what he can or cannot do. He restricted government funding of abortions. He appointed justices to the Supreme Court who were largely pro-life. Yet, in a small sense, there are individuals who are alive today because of restrictions to taxpayer-funded abortions.

Like I said in an earlier post, a president is very limited (or "checked") by the Constitution. He is not a king or emperor. He cannot just make up or end laws. However, one of his greatest "powers" during his four year term is to appoint judges. The Supreme Court justices have the power to "interpret" the law and solidify it to the federal and state governments and in all lower court levels.

This isn't just about abortion. The Supreme Court can determine what is "Constitutional" in regard to any case before them. Over the next few years, they will decide issues about abortion, the definition of "marriage" (and whether government institutions, churches or private citizens must embrace a redefinition that is thrust upon them by moral revisionists), whether "free speech" extends to pornographic images in public, personal liberties (including religious liberties) and many other cases that could affect life for us, our children, our families, our neighbors for many years to come.

Now, the end will still come. However, this doesn't mean that we must sit back, remain quiet, keep our beliefs to ourselves and just watch. Sometimes, it might seem to be a "rebel" is to refrain from participation. At other times, the "rebel" may be the one who hears it from BOTH sides who think that Christians should keep their views to themselves when it comes to the ability to vote. Sometimes, a believer might confront an unjust judge and persistently ask for a legal remedy. Others might point out the "legality" of a ruler marrying his brother's wife...and lose their head for it (ala John the Baptist).

Still, I understand what you are saying. I think that, for the most part, we can all agree that we should not place our faith in a man, a politician, a political party, a government, a system or a set of "laws." As believers, our faith is in Christ alone. In God we trust, even if (for most) it is nothing more than an empty saying on our coinage. I think that, whether we vote for a particular candidate or choose to refrain from voting altogether, we can all agree that we must maintain our trust in Jesus and not become distracted by such matters.

Jeff

Jesus and Paul lived under a dictator named Caesar. There was no room to participate in government except to pray and pay your taxes. But with that said, preaching the Gospel is political activity. In it they announced that Somebody was of a higher rank than Caesar. "Jesus is Lord" is the ultimate political claim. And unless you see it as such, you'll never understand why Christians were butchered for 300 years under Rome. Dictators cannot tolerate such claims from their citizens. The claims of the Gospel are the ultimate act of political subversion. And unless you see the claims as such, you've not come to the place of seeing yet. That is, you've failed to see Jesus for who He in fact is: Lord of all. It doesn't get anymore political than that. If you don't believe me, just ask Caesar what he thinks of such a claim in relation to politics.

Blessings.

Nobody has ever said such Bearmaster.

Jeff,

I'm not sure that you know what circular logic is. The circular logical fallacy says:

"A is true because B is true. And B is true because A is true"

I've not used any such reasoning in my arguments. My arguments have been based off deduction.

"Jesus is Lord, therefore, we should participate in politics." (Deduction)

If my argument were circular, I would be saying:

"Jesus is Lord, therefore, we should participate in politics. And because we participate in politics, Jesus is Lord." (Circular)

If you are going to "call a spade a spade" as you say, I would encourage you learn to identify what a spade actually is. You reject what I say on the basis of it being circular logic. It would be my contention that since there is no circular logic in my argument, that you should reconsider my proposition, because the basis of your rejection is based on a misunderstanding of what circular logic is.

But with that said, preaching the Gospel is political activity.

to me at least, there is no further basis for continued dialogue/reasoning, and this thread will only devolve.

The gospel message centers itself around Jesus as the King of a kingdom. It is by definition political. So much so that the prophet Daniel predicted that God would usher in a kingdom created without hands that would bring about the destruction of all the other kingdoms of this world. And we look forward to a day in which Revelation says that the kingdom of God and of His Christ becomes the kingdome of this world.

Jesus kingdom is not of this world. It's not one that is established by the traditional means of setting up kingdoms. That is, through political anarchy and rebellion, whereby maens of force people rise up and cast off whatever former government they were under. Rather, the establishment of the kingdom of heaven in this world has come and is coming by means of death and resurrection. It will triumph over the spiritual and spatial powers of this world by means of grace, not coercion.

But make no mistake, this kingdom though it is spiritual is also one that is political. And that is why the gospel when, when rightly preached and rightly received is understood as a political threat that must be crushed by means of persecution. Caesar didn't kill Jesus, nor did he persecute the early church because they preached metaphors and spiritual plattitudes. They crucified Christ and persecuted the early church because they understood the political dynamics of the gospel message, which ultimately undermined the unity of Rome and the authority of Caesar. Empires cannot tolerate their citizens claiming loyalty to another king.

The authority that Christ has is of the Davidic King promised to the Jews. God has established Jesus Christ as King of heaven and earth. He possesses all authority, both in heaven and earth. In the present age, Psalm 2 can be prophetically applied. God has established His Anointed upon His throne, of which the kings of the earth take their stand and say "we will not have this man to reign over us." At this time, they live in rebellion to His rule and His reign. They refuse to submit themselves to the King eternal. But there is a day coming in which every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

That is something beyond just a "spiritual" message. It is a political one.

Do you really think people persecuted the Jesus Christ and the early church simply because they preached a hard message of repentance, and that you can be born again? If so, you've not understood the gospel.

I'm just being straight forward brother, and challenging you to rethink the gospel.

If it makes you feel better I reject what you say on it being unbiblical.

That's a better reason to reject something :-)

The religious who wanted a political saviour used political means to kill Christ because he didnt fit their mold of who messiah should be, others wanted him dead for other reasons sure. Jesus went about changing hearts - not nation state laws

No doubt, he wasn't the king they were looking for. And he didn't establish the kingdom in the way they wanted. He did go about changing hearts and minds, healing the sick, and binding up the brokenhearted. But in this process of changing hearts and minds, it's inevitable that should you change enough hearts and minds in a nation, you will also change some laws, because ultimately, it is people who make laws.

Look at Moses and his influence on Egypt. Look at Daniel's influence on the kings of Babylon. Or look at the Jews influence on Darius. Or look at the eventual influence of the church on Rome, and subsequent influence on other nations throughout history. Luther changed Germany. Calvin changed Geneva. Wesley changed England. Whitefield changed America. Wilberforce brought down an international slave trade. Wherever the kigndom of God has broken out and come, and a powerful spiritual awakening has happened, which is a topic dear to the heart of this website, it has often influenced major political change in communities and nations in which such a revival has happened.

If your gospel of the kingdom doesn't have practical political ramifications in the lives and communities it changes, then it is not the gospel of the kingdom, and there is nothing spiritual or heavenly about it.

Hey Jimmy,

Here is how I interpret the entrance of a the Gospel into a community. I wonder if we're thinking in the same direction.

The Gospel is not politically neutral. Whenever the true gospel is declared in a community there is always an effect and an after effect. From a human's point of view this isn't always positive in that: the Gospel carries with it either a blessing or a curse. There is never a take it or leave it option when the gospel is declared to an individual or to a community.

Skip the lame "Paul appealed to Ceaser" stuff too,

I can think of no greater example the the fact that through the establishment of the New Covenant, Christ brought an end to the Law of Moses. Such was a theocratic law designed for a political nation state. The ramifications of this change of code was the center of much controversy amongst Jewish and Gentile Christians. It is an issue that not only took center stage for a significant portion of the book of Acts, but was a often repeated issue throughout all of Paul's letters.

The Gospel is not politically neutral. Whenever the true gospel is declared in a community there is always an effect and an after effect. From a human's point of view this isn't always positive in that: the Gospel carries with it either a blessing or a curse. There is never a take it or leave it option when the gospel is declared to an individual or to a community.

Exactly. As Art Katz was fond of saying, when the word is preached in power, it is a "word of requirement."

There are certain subjects that no amount of reasoning will move the other person . I believe Jimmy is in that camp.

So far, nobody has actually addressed much of anything I have said, except to scoff, cry foul, and boast of private revelations that they get. "Nuh uh" isn't much of a counter argument. Some of what you guys are saying are as convincing as the arguments the Jews made against Stephen after his exposition of the Scripture. Which is to say, some of you are just wagging your heads, plugging your ears, screaming really loud, and uttering uintelligible speech.

I've done nothing but set forth my argument based off serious reflection of the Scriptures, and showing the practical ramifications of the teaching that Jesus Christ is Lord. Of course, for some of you, the Scriptures I quote are off limits, because they are either Old Testament, or because they are too "children's Sunday school."

Don't worry Neil, I won't tell you anything.

Do you all believe that the Gospel changes how families are governed? If so, why not in larger contexts?

"Like the disciples of Jesus, many of God's people are trying to pressure Jesus to get involved in the politics of the Kingdom, while He is concerned only about 'righteousness.' They would pressure Him to show them the way to the throne, the way to the presidency, how to get the right men in the supreme court-- whereas He would seek to show them the way to the Cross. They want to know the steps of glory that would lead to Solomon's throne of ivory; but He wants us to follow in His steps to Golgotha. He would have us continue praying, "Lord, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." George H. Warnock, Crowned With Oil

Hi brother Frank,

I will answer your question as directly as I can.

For 35 years I have been sharing with my fellow believers various things concerning the systems of this world and especially the systems (political, education, sociological, medical, religious etc, etc) in the U.S.

I will say yes, the Evangelical community will water down what Mormonism is to pacify their conscience. The reason I say this is "history". My personal history with brethren, first and secondly, the history of the false church.

Way back when Ronald Reagan was running for President I noticed my friends who loved the Lord, begin to delve into politics as a way to save their life[style] and ensure the "Christian Nation" survived. They thought Ronald Reagan was like a Daniel and the level of excitement in the Evangelical world was palpable. Then you had the Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition of Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed and many others.

Ralph Reed decided to run for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia but failed to win the Republican Primary because of his links with Jack Abramoff (unholy alliance). No one heard much from Ralph Reed for the last 5 years but now he has resurfaced and started a new organization, the Faith and Freedom Coalition (nice ring to it, huh?), which is likely to bring Reed back to national politics.

In June of 2011, the coalition held its second Faith and Freedom Conference, which featured a parade of the who's who of conservative politics, not the least of which were almost all of the candidates for President in the Republican field: Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain. Even libertarian-leaning Ron Paul and no-longer-contender Donald Trump made appearances. (Newt Gingrich sent a video message.)

What am I trying to ilustrate here? The marriage of the Church and Politics. And you can go back much further than this to see examples of it. The Tower of Babel is a good place to start.

The Book of Revelation shows a picture of the False Church and the Political System married to one another in the Woman riding the Beast.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

The fact that she (the false church) rides the Beast, shows that she is supported by the Beast. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Just think about that revelation. The False Church is SUPPORTED by the Political System.

If the beast represents political power then she must represent ecclesiastical power.

Chapter 16 describes the punishment of those who worship the Beast. Worshipping the Beast is spiritual whoredom.

I don't think the Holy Spirit through John is referring to Rome alone, when he talks about the Woman.

The woman is the personification of that earthly city which is to be seen in contrast to the heavenly city the new Jerusalem. She is an earthly counterfeit of that heavenly city, she is covered in precious jewels, pearls and gold as is also the new Jerusalem. She is to be contrasted to the woman in chapter 12, who represents God's elect and who is clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She is the earthly copy of God's heavenly society which is His church, she is the world that is human society organised independently and in defiance of God.

One of the systems of this world that Watchman Nee talks about in his wonderful little book, "Love Not The World", is the religious system, Jerusalem below. (Read it!)

The Lord is calling us and everyone else that has ears to hear out of Bablyon, out of Jerusalem below (religious system) and calling us unto Him and Jerusalem above.

We see in the U.S. maybe a clearer picture than any other place in the world, the marriage of the Church and Politics and the terrifying thing is that people are calling it "spiritual" and "of God".

The Woman indeed is riding the Beast and will continue to. She is not done yet.

Mormonism will become another denomination in the worldly church system.

This Woman that rides the Beast, is described as a Temptress that tempts men away from God. She seduces men (men think it is real love), by idolatry and greed. (Col 3:5)

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to SEDUCING SPIRITS, and doctrines of devils;

She tempts men with power, excessive luxury and great wealth and she is nothing but a prostitute that stands in stark contrast to the true Bride. She says, "I can save your lifestyle for you, your way of life, just come away with me, give me your heart and loyalties".

With this "Woman" the the kings of the earth commit adultery and the inhabitants are intoxicated with the wine (false doctrine) of her adulteries. I think it is very significant that the Kings of the Earth are her lovers. Politicians love the so-called Christians during election season. Look how they pander to and flatter the religious church.

I don't think it will be a hard thing for the false church to welcome Mormons into their fold with open arms. Especially if Romney wins.

Does not Revelation say that she will persecute the true Saints?

The beast's kingdom exercises political and religious power as depicted in chapter 13, the beast from the sea (sea in the OT, can be a metaphor for "many peoples", "sea of people) and the beast from the sea is political and the beast out of the land represents religious power.

However one wants to look at it, it is clear that religion (the church) has gone a-whoring with the political systems of the world. Islam has done it, Roman Catholicism has been doing it for centuries and Protestant Christianity is doing it. All three are the same. All three work hard to get their man in the position of leadership.

What becomes of the Woman who is a WHORE?

Rev 17:6 ...drunk with the blood of saints...

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: AND THEY THAT ARE WITH HIM are called, and chosen, and faithful.

So, here is a poignant question for us all.

Are we with HIM or are we with the Woman of Revelation 17?

If you are with the Woman of Revelation 17, you will welcome Mormonism into your circle and not just Mormonism, but everyone that does not belong to the Lamb.

Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Jesus said that He always did what He saw His Father doing. Are you doing what you see Jesus doing? What was Jesus' relationship with the political and religious systems of His day?

Thanks for your patience, Apollus.

Pilgrim

Perceptive word, Pilgrim.

It wasn't too many years ago that the Mormons (there are high concentrations of them where I live) made it very clear that they distanced themselves from what they called "the harlot Babylon." They were "the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints" to the exclusion of all others.

Now they are working very hard to be considered part of mainline Christianity.

I wonder why. Could there be some political motivation behind it?

And maybe for their own reasons, evangelicals who are politically minded will be happy enough to receive them?

Allan

Hello pilgrim777,

I think that you might be making some mighty strong assumptions here in regard to the Church. While there may be some Church people who might be guilty of the things that are often asserted in these silly debates, the REAL church is not like this.

It would an incorrect assumption to lump believers together with a worldly church system or that their vote is the equivalent of certain compromising things (such as "welcome Mormons with open arms").

First of all, the harlot church system has plenty of problems of which welcoming the Mormon, Catholic or Liberation Theology heresies are one of the least of their problems. They are a false church because they simply do not know Jesus Christ.

This brings my second point: We are NOT like that. Regardless of the caution that is urged toward brethren who may feel the liberty to decide upon one particular candidate over another -- including a flawed, unsaved candidate like Governor Romney -- we should remain cautious about making insinuations that any of us would do such a thing.

Most of the believers that I know who feel the liberty to vote (and don't consider it "compromise" to do so) have their faith firmly resting in Christ alone. We aren't going to consider this world or its systems as any type of "savior." We aren't endorsing EVERY idea or belief of the person we might think is better for the job. We aren't guilty of what others are accused of.

In regard to the original post about possible "compromise:" We are all aware that Mormonism is a heresy. It is just as much of a heresy as Catholicism, Liberation Theology or even some authoritarian cults that try to incorporate the Name of "Jesus" in their heresies. However, I don't know ANYONE who votes for the cult...religion...or doctrinal views of the candidate. They are simply selecting between two primary candidates for a four year term.

As hulsey pointed out, the Gospel is not "politically neutral." When I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, I discovered several individuals who rejected me on political grounds simply because of my faith in Christ. Why? When they learned that I was a Christian, they assumed that I hold the consequential moral compass that comes from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They knew that I am anti-abortion. They knew that I would believe that homosexuality is a sin. They realized that I do not believe that "pornography" is an "innocent form of free speech." They knew that I didn't believe in drunkenness. So, I offended them simply by being a REAL believer.

Given the different platforms of the two major parties, some issues are the defining issues of these sort of campaigns. Now, like the Democratic campaign adviser who lectured during one of my college classes, they would be happy if I chose to NOT vote. This would be one less vote that they needed to gain for their own candidate.

However, even believers sometimes have a propensity to paint the people of this world as something that is almost sensationalized. Men in office are often painted without faces, convictions or personalities. We see them suspiciously or are sometimes given to conspiracies of the mind. Yet, most those men who are attempting to win a job like this are simply unsaved men. They are like the other BILLIONS of unbelievers in this world who we work for or with.

Sometimes, we pay greater scrutiny when choosing a restaurant to eat at than which candidate might be better for this four year position as president. I just want to reiterate that no one here is trying to vote for a pastor. They aren't "compromising" if they are simply saying that one candidate might be a better choice than the other -- especially when we know that certain decisions may affect our children, families, neighbors, etc...

I understand that it is easy to scrutinize apparent Conservative candidates during election seasons. After all, few Christians (or self-proclaimed Christians) will vote for a candidate or party that pushes the goals of abortionists, homosexual activists, etc... So, most of the public scrutiny here is directed at the candidates that most Christians might decide is the better choice.

However, this should NEVER been confused with "compromise" or an endorsement of EVERYTHING that the candidate might believe. Christians like us aren't choosing this world over Christ. We aren't embracing cultish religious views or denominations. We are embracing "Babylon." It is simply that many Christians are prayerfully deciding whether or not one candidate is a better choice for a four year term over the other.

This is why I continue to urge caution by the manner in which we voice our own words of warning. We shouldn't assume the worst in believers. We shouldn't publicly conclude that believers -- real believers like the ones here at SermonIndex -- are guilty of the things that have been implied in terms of "whoring" with the harlot "church" if they decide that a particular candidate might be a better choice than another. There is a subtle underlying implication -- which is usually unsaid but astutely heard -- that those who do feel the liberty to participate by voting (or any number of jobs, service or interactions with the people of this world) are guilty of such spiritual prostitution.

I think that we can all agree that we should pray before we decide to vote (or who to vote for). We can all agree that our eyes should be steadfast upon Jesus and that we shouldn't be distracted by some idea that any flawed man can save a nation. Our faith should be in Christ alone. At the same time, we can allow for the grace and maturity of those with whom we may not agree on such issues too. If some believers choose to vote for a particular candidate, then we shouldn't be suspicious of their faith or maturity.

May the Lord lead us and guide us as we keep our eyes upon Him.

Hi Chris,

I am going to deal with a big part of your post by saying I am not talking about voting. What I am talking about goes much deeper than 1 solitary external action.

Another big part of your post is about the audience I am speaking to. SI is not a closed living room. It is a public forum on the World Wide Web. So, yes I am making an assumption that there are those in the Church that are stuck in Babylon and many could be looking into our little thread, here.

Jesus says, "come out of her, MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

It would be an incorrect assumption to lump believers together with a worldly church system

Really?

Jesus, Himself is saying the His people are part of her and He is commanding them to come out. Do you know why He is saying that, Chris?

Ok, I think that addresses your points.

Pilgrim

Hi Pilgrim777,

I understand that you and others have said that you aren't talking about voting. However, it appears that many of the warnings uttered are inextricably tied together with voting. This is especially true since voting is often considered a symptom or sign of what you say goes much deeper or what others may view as "compromise" or participation in a "Babylonian" system.

While I also understand that you aren't referring to the audience at SermonIndex, there are many of us here who might feel inclined to vote (of course, after much prayer and study) or even participate in things that others might view as compromise. In fact, some of us might even feel inclined to cast a vote in the upcoming presidential election. So, by default, the assumption of compromise or even partaking of Babylon is levied against us as well.

And, of course, I think that I pointed out that the "come out of her my people" separation from "Babylon" obviously isn't stopping many of those who assert this position from certain direct and indirect forms of participation. They drive on roads, file tax returns, and use many forms of government-regulated goods and services.

As for the "lumping together:" I was speaking of those of us who frequent this website and not the "average Christian." However, the concept of "Babylon" is debatable in regard to its usage as a reference to a government like that of the United States.

If "Babylon" is a "system," then nearly every person living in this country (and elsewhere) are "participants" in those systems. I pointed the reasons I say this out in an earlier thread when I highlighted our many forms of "participation." Is it possible that it isn't necessarily speaking of a governmental system but a harlot religious system (or hybrid system ala the "Holy Roman Empire")? If it is a mentality, then how would we make a measurement of whether someone is "in" the Babylonian system? How is it tied together with this topic if those of us who seek and serve the Lord wholeheartedly are praying and seeking the Lord about such things?

Like I said, I don't think that anyone here would argue that believers need to pray and study before they do ANYTHING -- including vote or participate with a secular government in any manner. At the same time, I think that we should be careful as to not be ambiguous with mere concepts that could serve to lump sincere believers together with what we think
"Babylon" might consist of.

I am happy that individuals can encourage us in such matters. However, I also wonder what would happen if a believer sincerely prays and studies this matter but ends up voting in November for Governor Romney. How would people treat that brother who voted? Would we treat him/her as a less spiritual believer...or worse? Would we accuse that brother of "compromise?" Would we accuse that brother of wandering in Babylon? Or would we simply feel that the brother had a difference in opinion about this matter?

Now, I feel confident that most would not allow a difference of opinion about such things impact the way we see or treat the brethren. There are so many different issues in which the brethren differ in their conclusions. I have come to terms that we might never come to the same conclusion on every matter -- even as believers who frequent this website. Yet, I think that we are all still residing on this side of that "glass darkly" and should always remember that when dealing with one another.

Our love for one another should be so evident and real that it prevents us from meandering into the realm of suspicion, pride or contempt. As much as I so desperately love Jesus and desire to be like Him, I am also aware of my own flawed humanity. As a result, I hope that this allows me to treat others with the same grace that I hope the Lord (and others) will afford to me.

The Lord bless, keep and shine upon you, brother!

Hi Chris,

Yes, I am not talking about voting.

Maybe we should seek to understand what Babylonian systems are first. You cannot come out of something if you don't know you are in it, right? We should be concerned about the Lord's command to come out of her (Babylon) so much that we find out what He is talking about.

We should go to the Lord in prayer and search the scriptures to find out what Babylon encompasses and how it is at extreme variance against God in every way, shape and form.

Then we will know why we are to come out of her, what we are to come out of, and how to do it. This encompasses much more than just politics. It has to do with the King and His Kingdom.

God bless you too, brother.

Pilgrim

Why are you all attacking Romney and not Obama? Mitt Romney attends church regularly, even on the campaign trail. Obama's beliefs might be Christian--who knows?-- and on occasion he attends church. Do you ever hear him say that he has prayed about something before making a decision? Do you not notice that the American flag is not on display when he holds a press conference?

Barack Obama is either a Muslim or an "occasional" (false, only when it suits) Christian. He is working to establish a worldwide government, eliminating the freedoms of this great nation, which he denies was originally established as a CHRISTIAN nation.

So, you are left with a choice of not voting at all, or voting for someone whose beliefs you do not share. If you are going to vote as a Christian, vote for the person who loves this country (and declares this love) and loves the Lord and declares this love openly, even if you do not understand his beliefs.

QUOTE:
______________________________________________________________

When it comes to leading a country the better person is the man who is wise in worldly affairs.

______________________________________________________________

We cannot expect the gov to function using NT principles, can we? Is this not the heart of the displeasure expressed here? We want it to and when it fails to do so, we are in a wad? Since this is the case, is one not forced to think otherwise, like this poster suggested, "When it comes to leading a country the better person is the man who is wise in worldly affairs"?

As I recall, a former CIA director said that his agency violates all commandments known to man and then some. There you have it... So, how can this man claim Christ and allow his agency to function in this manner? This director claimed to be a Christian...

Complex? or not?

"When it comes to leading a country the better person is the man who is wise in worldly affairs"?"

Since God raises up kings is this the logic that He uses?

If it is, I think He has made some very big mistakes.

Let's see who He raises up in November and pray for Obama's and Romney's conversion to Christ.

Pilgrim

I have always voted. At times it has been between the better of two evils as they say. But this time I am feeling strongly in my spirit I am not to vote but to pray as I am not of this world but passing through. We have sanctified (set apart). We sit in Heavenly places with the Lord even now.

A catholic I know is voting for anyone who is pro life. So, that would be Romney. But I understand a few years past he was pro choice.

When it comes down to it. God is in control and He does have a plan and my (our) part is to stay really, really close in Word, prayer & hearing & obeying. Being a follower of Jesus, not just a luke warm Christian. Then to share His plan of Salvation with everyone He brings my (our) way and that is what I am doing.

Giving all glory to God who sits on the Throne, who is the Creator of the universe and to Jesus, the Savior of the world and the Holy Spirit who daily keeps, comforts, teaches us etc.

May we be passionately seeking Him while He may be found and with His heart share Salvation.

Hi bearmaster,

Mitt Romney isn't running for "Religious leader in Chief." He is running for a SECULAR four year position in a certain part of a SECULAR government. Yes, the position requires a degree of morality to effectively govern (or govern best).

For believers, true spiritual morality or justice comes from our relationship and knowledge of God. We see a "shadow" of certain elements of justice and morality among the people and leaders of this world. When it comes to voting, we can rest assured that we aren't selecting a Christian. However, we can decide between two primary candidates in regard to which one might be the better executive for a four year term while also considering the various moral views that might turn into policy decisions.

Now, you mentioned Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. I really haven't listened to them. I don't know much of their teachings. However, I have worked alongside individuals who did. While I wouldn't pretend to make any judgement regarding the eternal condition of those individuals, I will say that they were good workers. In fact, I seriously doubt that our employer even considered their religious views or claims when they were hired.

This is where I think that there might be a bit of an overreaction in regard to presidential politics. Most Christians that I know are fully aware of Romney's Mormon faith. Most Christians are fully aware that Mormonism is incompatible with Christianity. The same is true of Liberation Theology, Catholicism or other sects.

However, is it necessarily "compromise" to choose a person for a position who comes from one of those sects? Is it "compromise" to work for a company where your employers are NOT believers? Is it "compromise" to go to buy things from individuals, companies or corporations that are not controlled or employed by believers? I don't think so. I believe that it is simply one of those "affairs of this life" that Paul spoke about that we should be careful to not come between our relationship with the Lord.

What probably concerns me the most about this issue is not the views for which we differ. It is the attitudes that are displayed in regard to how we approach this topic with different views. You said that a person who watches the aforementioned YouTube video about Mormonism and still decides that Governor Romney is the better of two choices in November would result in an attitude that "the church is beyond hope."

I understand that we can have strongly opinionated views about voting, voting for an unsaved candidate, or what we think the "Babylonian systems" are about and how to "separate" from it. However, it is another thing altogether to see this as anything other than a difference of opinions and just pray for one another (and even our neighbors in all of this).

Sadly, we often reject (even if only in our minds) those with whom we disagree.

I have always held a very strong opinion about music. As a teenager, I strongly rejected secular music and even "Christian rock and roll." Needless to say, this didn't make me popular with some teenagers in the church. However, I never meandered into questioning the eternal condition or maturity of those who listened to music that I rejected. The same is true of the believers who come from many different opinions and views that are often voiced here on SermonIndex. I wouldn't reject someone because of a non-essential view on such an issue.

I made a list earlier in this thread of divisive topics that are exhaustively debated here on SermonIndex. While I might stand on one side or the other on such issues (or stand completely apart with an "I don't know" response), I wouldn't be so prideful or vain as to dismiss believers here based upon their views on Calvinism, music, Bible translations, head coverings, eschatology, education, or numerous other non-essential matters. Yes, our opinions are based upon our own prayerful study of God's Word. However, none of us have "arrived" or see things with perfect understanding from the other side of the "glass darkly" of Eternity. As we live upon this corrupt world, we see things within the constraints of a renewed mind and a flawed humanity.

Unfortunately, we have little Scriptural anecdotes that can draw a comparison with modern government systems.

Until a few hundred years ago, the nations of this world were literally KINGDOMS. In other words, they were a "king's domain." Kings and emperors held power and some of that power was apportioned to appointees. Rulers typically held life-long positions. Citizens did not "choose" who would be their rulers or decide upon the national or local laws. So, it is impossible to say what the early church would have considered regarding such matters. We are left with the Scriptures that speak of government and the anecdotes by Paul invoking his Roman citizenship to avoid a beating and the Roman legal system to appeal unto Caesar. We are left with the story Jesus told of a persistent widow who constantly prompted an "unjust judge" to act on her behalf.

So, we are forced to draw prayerful conclusions about the extent of our involvement as believers with the nations of this world. I do think that those who urge a "come out of Babylon" attitude are meandering into the same flaws of the Amish but with much less physical separation. It is easy to assert that we are "separate" (or a need to be "separate") from "Babylon" while driving down a government-built road, placing a stamp on a letter to be delivered by government workers or accepting any tax return or social welfare benefits that come from what we consider to be a part or residual effect of "Babylon."

Still, this is why I would encourage us to not concentrate on this issue to the point that it makes us voice assumptions about "compromise" or the notion that the church might be "beyond hope" as if our conclusion on the matter is the "Gospel truth."

We are all at various points of our spiritual walk with the Lord. It is a straight and narrow way. However, the purpose of meeting with one another is to encourage one another in the Lord rather than to constantly warn one another for every non-essential matter that we feel we have received from prayer or study. There are much more important issues than voicing prohibitions about voting for a particular unsaved candidate (or stating that it is "compromise") or various statements about being separate from an ambiguously defined "Babylon."

Yes, we should be separate from "Babylon." The best way to accomplish this is to encourage one another to walk wholeheartedly with Christ.

The Lord bless you!

I think I understand your beliefs. And by the way, I know what THE WHITE HORSE PROPHESY is.

Bearnaster

Interesting Bearmaster. I never knew about this. Makes you think a little bit. Made me think that the enemy is raising his army for the last days.

Thanks for sparking the interest. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy

"To vote Democrat or Republican is to vote for either side of the same coin." - quote from a Wise Man

Although we all know that Mormonism is a cult, I think that we need to be careful about spreading rumors about a "white horse prophecy."

According to most sources (including secular historians and even the Mormon "church"), this is nothing more than an urban legend.

I am not saying that it isn't true. I am just saying that I don't think anyone should spread this as if it were true.

As believers, we owe it to the Lord to be pure in our speech. We should refrain from false imaginations or even spreading things that others have said if we aren't absolutely sure of their authenticity. Mormonism is ungodly and it has little to do with some whispered and rumored "prophecy."

Most importantly, it would be a terrible thing to be spreading a lie -- even for what is thought to be a good reason or motive.

Hi bearmaster,

I am simply saying that the notion of the "white horse prophecy" is a myth. It seems that the only "sources" for this claim are the very thing that people of this world do: They repeat the story.

Again, I am NOT saying that it is not true. I am just urging caution before someone introduces something that may very well be a lie into a discussion or website like this. This supposed "prophecy" wasn't introduced with a disclaimer that admits that it may not be true. Rather, it was introduced the way that much gossip is introduced.

I do find it interesting that the leaders of the Mormon cult reject it. With all of the crazy "prophecies" that they DO accept, I think that it is odd that they would reject this one.

Still, I am simply saying that we shouldn't be introducing conspiracy theories like this. We need to be very careful about purity in our speech and typing. And, of course, this is obviously NOT a defense of the Mormon cult or even a presidential candidate.

I hope that this clarifies what I was saying.

No matter how much activity man engages in, God will raise up who He wants to raise up.

Does anyone have any ideas why He raised up Obama?

If one voted for McCain, were they working against the Lord?

As a spiritual people, how should the Church be engaged?

Politics divides. That is the nature of the "party spirit".

Pilgrim

Hey ya’ll don’t be so hard on everybody “Jesus said Father forgive them for they don’t know what they do” and he said this from the cross of suffering for them.

Stephen said to the Lord Jesus, who stood up while he was being stone for his witness, lay not this sin to their charge because he wanted them to be forgiven even though they were stoning him.

So lighten up and realize as Christians our kingdom is not of this world no matter who is president and so let us pray that God’s will is done on earth in reaching the lost for Jesus and making His presence known in this world.

Blessings…from brother rbanks

Hi Frank

Hey bro Bear, if someone always says " I am not defending someone," and then goes on and defends them, its called not taking a stand on anything. Its a way of straddling the fence. Christians down through the centuries have taken bold stands and paid severly, often with their lives. Mormonism is a cult, its satanic in origin and it denies every tenet of the Christian faith. If one wants to vote for such a man, then one should be bold enough to say it. I believe that many Christians will just stay home, which is something I suppose..............bro Frank

I take that this is directed at me?

Brother, this is simply untrue. I can caution someone before they spread something that might very well be a LIE (the "white horse prophecy") without "taking a stand" upon Mormonism or even Mitt Romney.

In the past here on SermonIndex, I urged the same type of caution when individuals were repeating similar conspiracy theories about Obama being a "Muslim" or implying that he was born in Kenya. Hopefully, people are wise enough to not call that an "endorsement" of Obama or "straddling the fence" on his candidacy either.

Yes, it is true that many Christians have paid dearly for taking bold stands on certain issues. However, there is a difference between taking a stand on a black-and-white, essential DOCTRINE and a mere doctrinal OPINION. I suspect that many people often spread opinions "in the name of Jesus" and think that they are persecuted for doing so.

In this case, no one is arguing about the origins of Mormonism. No one is arguing about the origins of Catholicism. No one is arguing about the origins of Liberation Theology cults. When I urged caution last night, it was in the case of spreading some "white horse prophecy" around as if it were true. Like I also said, its validity is very much in question. Yet, there was no mention of this when it is spoken of. It is simply mentioned just like the most "spiritual" gossip or conspiracy theories by some believers across America.

As for the boldness of voting in November: I may very well do so. I may decide that Mitt Romney is the better choice of the two primary candidates. Then again, I might not. Regardless, it will come only after much prayer and study.

Some of have stated repeatedly that this "is not about voting." Yet, it seems like the underlying implication is always there about WHO someone can vote for. If we are going to say that this isn't about voting and agree that one should pray before they come to a conclusion, then why push the issue in rebuttal? Is saying that we will pray and study before making a decision not enough?

Still, no one here should suppose or imply that a prayerful believer who simply decides upon one man over another in a general election is immature, unspiritual, worldly or dwelling in Babylon. Such an implication denies those believers the grace that we often hold for ourselves.

In regard to what I said to bearmaster, it was to simply urge caution before spreading a myth that may not even be true. As believers, our purity in speech should be so that if we decide to share such things, we are clear that it might not even be true. This is the problem with conspiracy theories. It isn't that someone mentions them. Rather, it is that they are seldom mentioned with the caution that they might not even be true -- even if we believe them to be so. This is why some people put such conspiracies in the same category as gossip and slander.

No one should suppose or suggest that anyone who questions the validity of such a thing to be "defending" someone or "straddling the fence" if they are simply trying to clarify the difference between truth and lie, fact and fiction.

I hope that this makes a little more sense.

Hi Frank,

And PRAISE GOD that there are many of us here who are uncompromising, fearless children of God, and on fire for God (via love and passion for His Name) REGARDLESS of whether or not we choose one candidate over another in an election!

I do fear that we might place ourselves "above" others when we get angry that others don't share our views. We shouldn't be haughty with our views by suggesting that others who don't share our views are somehow less spiritual (or worse) or that we are "hated" by mere differences of opinion.

And of course, it would be ridiculous to suggest that those who might caution others about being caught up in the spreading of myths, half-truths, lies or conspiracy theories -- especially those "apolitical" individuals who tend to debate such things more than others -- are somehow "arguing for whatever winds have blown in" depending "on how the wind is blowing at the time."

But thank God that we aren't that people, right? We aren't condescending with those who don't share our views on such matters. We aren't lukewarm. We aren't given to spreading rumors or hearsay. We are children of God. We are the children of light. We have the wisdom of God within us...as we seek His face and sit at His feet and learn from His Word. We don't follow the wisdom of this world but the wisdom imparted to us as we seek the Lord.

This is why, in matters like this, I suggest that we should just allow individuals the grace to pray sincerely and wholeheartedly and act with a clear conscience as we are led by the Lord.