Comments on: Chuck Baldwin claims that Christians use Bible prophecy as an excuse to be lazy.

By: nasrani

nasrani — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:34:48 +0000

Brian, your wife is right. Romanticism deludes people’s thinking. That’s not to say people should hate and despise their countries, but people should put things in the right perspective. We always insist on putting Bible verses in their context. Why not apply the same rule to history? Sure, the Founding Fathers were “conservative.” All you need is to redefine the term conservative. They were definitely social conservatives by our standards – but then even until just a few decades ago, Western society was socially conservative because it still had a belief in the merit of Judeo-Christian moral values. Even most Communist peoples of Eastern Europe and Latin America were social conservatives when it came to family values and patriotism. So were the Soviets politically conservative because they were socially conservative? Of course not. All this labeling is disrespectful of your Founding Fathers’ ideals. In many ways you might even say their views were extremely progressive at the time. So Conservatives are wrong to claim their views were “conservative” and that it was somehow the Bible that served as the main inspiration for the Founding Fathers. But the point is not about whether they were conservatives or not, anyway. I think it’s about the morality of their views. Isn’t being a Western conservative today about supporting tradition over vain ideas, good over evil and truth over lies? Edmund Burke is considered a conservative but he was nevertheless a Whig and not a Tory. The Classical Liberals (also known as “liberal conservatives”) of Britain likewise did not engage in social engineering because they believed that the family was a God-given institution that had been formed years before the appearance of representative government, and therefore beyond their jurisdiction. Lastly, Liberal Americans should stop claiming that the Founding Fathers would have approved their vain causes of feminism, abortion and the gay agenda. The only reason they didn’t address these issues was because the immorality of future generations of Americans was simply unthinkable to them and they certainly could not envision it. I think it’s utterly absurd to suggest that any of the Founding Fathers would have agreed that such things would have to be protected under the Constitution. I don’t think they ever meant the Constitution to be applied to such Liberal fantasies, and yes, in that sense I do agree with American Conservatives that they would have been more in their camp if they were alive today.

By the way, this is also in part why Jesus never addressed homosexuality. The fact He never talked about it in the Gospel doesn’t imply He approved of it at all. If anything, His silence on the issue reveals that He considered it sinful just as the Torah says, and so did all the Jews. Well, two thousand years ago, at least. Now half of them are some of the most vocal supporters of one of most abominable and destructive sins that exist on this planet. It is only when St Paul writes to the Romans and the Greeks that this issue receives some attention because it was more relevant to his audience since their cultures allowed that kind of… practises.

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:13:13 +0000

The downfall of America could come like the flood in Noah’s day. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,….. Things could get a lot worse all of a sudden. Just like when we have a rain storm here in the desert the flood waters move very swiftly, washing away everything in it’s path. Watch and pray so you are not caught up in the gulley washer. Be also warning others of the coming disaster, if they listen then they will be saved, if they don’t it is not your responsibility, it is God’s.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:31:24 +0000

Also keep in mind that I think the downfall of America is coming some time before the biblical tribulation.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:16:17 +0000

i had read that article on Baldwin’s site, but not thought it through really. I do see your points now. Baldwin gets people all worked up into a Christian Revolution, and in the end…the actual end…when we are asked to worship someone else rather than God, then our direction will be clear. Like the times of Meschach (sp?) and Daniel, and the coming tribulation, God never wants the state to supersede his authority, and expects us to be faithful to Him. I think in the meantime, it’s a balancing act, and I can’t turn off someone to Christianity if I portray myself as a crazy Christian revolutionist….many Christians are lazy in SO many other respects and areas; I think the tribulation is going to weed out a lot of people simply because constitutionally I believe our liberties will be limited, and we will experience much of the external harshness of what it means to be a Christian. But at the same time, this is what the Church is meant to be anyway….not a system of concerts and enrollment forms as it has become today…and since my wife is crazy into history, she equally agrees that the romanticism of conservatives concerning our forefathers is just ridiculous! The facts speak for themselves, and a lot of those guys, although could be defined as conservative politically, practiced behavior far from Christian principles.

By: Don Koenig

Don Koenig — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:06:00 +0000

I agree, It is nice to have someone on this blog who actually reads what is posted, who is informed on the issues and who thinks about what he says.

I expect I will be taking some heat on this issue since many Christian patriots see things Baldwin’s way. I do think that the American system of government was the best man ever designed for a free people but even one of our founders said the system will only work with a moral people. With morals now breaking down we are seeing that he was absolutely correct.

So how do you make the American system work now with a nation of people who have embraced liberal postmodern thinking? Chuck Baldwin’s teaching has no real answers for that because he is teaching as if the majority of Americans still believe in moral absolutes like our forefathers. Obviously that is not true or Americans would not be electing amoral Liberals that are set out to destroy the American system that our forefathers set up.

Perhaps it is time for Christians in America to realize like Abraham that our real country is not of this world.

By: nasrani

nasrani — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 06:04:50 +0000

I think that you’ve said this very well. In these times we’re easily tempted into believing that resisting societal and political evils or evil man-made religions will make us good Christians. But if it goes at the expense of preaching the gospel then it’s mostly just vanity – even if what we are saying is basically true. True does not include NWO though. Sure there may be some sort of new global order emerging, and that is undoubtedly what many elitists are seeking to create in the long run, but the idea of a secret club of mighty men controlling the media and our governments in a conspiracy to bring about a world government, is far-fetched at best, or an outright lie at worst. It’s most likely just the natural course of events, history has a tendency of repeating itself anyway. A true world government has never existed but many empires have existed that comprised the known world at the time. I believe the States would not have been better off today without the American Revolution, but I don’t like the overly romanticized image people give to the revolution either. It’s probably true that most American colonists were much better off under British rule than the French were under their absolutist kings. Even so I’m very sympathetic to the principles of the American Revolution, and rather skeptical of the French counterpart. The American Founding Fathers basically implemented the British system of representative and constitutional government but they took it further than that by incorporating classical liberal Enlightenment ideas. Hardly considered conservative at that time, though not necessarily incompatible with [orthodox] Christian faith (some Whigs in Britain were an example of that). Many well-known Founding Fathers were archetypes of Englightenment since they were individualist deists. Hardly orthodox and conservative Christians at all. American Christian “patriots” should stop claiming the Founding Fathers and the Constitution for themselves because they are misinforming the public. There are very good political conservative thinkers out there who (sadly) are not born-again Christians. Does that make them immoral and bad conservatives? True, they’re sinful and lost, but does that mean they cannot make decent politicians, inventors, actors, musicians, writers, business executives and so on? For heaven’s sake, no! You’re not Conservative and Christian because your Founding Fathers supposedly all were orthodox Christians; you are Conservative because you firmly believe in the merit and wisdom of their ideals and think these principles should be preserved, and you are a [socially conservative] Christian because you believe in Christ as your Savior and accept the Bible as God’s personal revelation to mankind. People who fail to distinguish between these things pose a danger to the very ideals they claim to believe in and to the freedom of others whose rights and liberties are covered by that very same U.S. Constitution.