Looks like Obama has scared the Christian right into uniting behind McCain:
At a meeting Tuesday in Denver, about 100 conservative Christian leaders from around the country agreed to unite behind the candidacy of John McCain, a politician they have long distrusted, marking the latest in a string of movements that bode well for McCain's general election prospects among the Republican base.It probably helped that McCain moved to the right a little bit on the gay marriage amendment in California (which may or may not be a flip-flop depending on your view :-) I bet it made supporting him a little easier for the Christian right.[...]
A second person who attended the event, but asked not to be named, said that the group was motivated principally by a desire to defeat Barack Obama. "None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn't do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president," the participant said. "You've got these two people running for president. One of them is going to become president. That's the perspective. That that's the whole discussion."
Even though the Evangelical vote is fractured this year between those who oppose abortion and gay marriage and those who want to focus on the poor and the environment, the support of the Christian right leaders could actually help McCain if they can energize their organizations as well. Their organizations are a good source of grassroots support, which were used by the Bush campaign to get Evangelicals to the poll and they are also a good source of campaign workers, working the phones and going door to door. When they're energized and working to get someone they believe in elected, they will work diligently. But I'm not sure they will be able to get behind McCain the way they got behind Bush given McCain's treatment of them and their issues. I guess the way they'll energize the base is in opposition to Obama, not really support of McCain (that's what Dobson did).
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in November, won't it?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Karen, I had similar a question. Basically he's pro-life so you would think that single wedge issue would be enough for the Evangelicals to vote for him.
"Could God stop them if He chose to?"
Yes of course, that's why I said:
"If it is his will to stop an abortion, he will."
"LOL...I'm not looking for an ah-ha moment, Michele."
You cannot blame me for being a little gun shy given the adversarial relationship I have with the commenters.
"people being saying that it is not God's will for such to happen"
They may be saying that because they aren't thinking through the implications of what they're saying. How could God not be in control of any situation that leads to death since he's sovereign over death? And I think most Christians do believe that (though I could be wrong).
I should make it clear before I answer your questions that the Reformed believe that in the Bible God's will is used in generally two different ways (some Reformed think there are three and others think there are four): his decretive will and his preceptive will. The decretive will is God's secret plan that has to come to pass because he has declared it. Everything that God's wills will happen, that's his decretive will. His preceptive will is his declared will in his law and his word (all commands found in the Bible). It's the way he commands us to live.
"then nothing happens that God does not cause to happen."
I would say that nothing happens that God has not allowed to happen because God does not cause us to sin, we sin he does not:
James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
"Can man do anything that God does not permit him to do?"
No.
"Can man do anything that God does not permit him to do?"
God allows man to sin.
"If so, then how does that relate to the traditional definition of sin being "that which is against the will of God"?"
This is where the above definition comes in handy. When we say that something is against the will of God, we are saying it's against his preceptive will (that which he commanded us to do in the Bible). He allows man to sin which is part of this decretive will even though it's against his preceptive will.
"This may be somewhat outside your interests, but something to consider is the concept of constancy and completeness. This is a mathematical concept that it is not possible for a system to be both complete and internally consistent. You only get to pick one. So when you throw around the omni prefix you are demanding God be complete which means you're bound to run into inconsistencies.
I realize you view God as something outside our reality and beyond our ability to understand, but when you use logic to try and analyze God the system of logical rules you set up will run afoul of this limitation."
Though God is beyond our ability to understand, he has revealed enough to enable us to understand something about him. Though God is not bound by the laws of logic, his word is not illogical. And the God revealed is logically consistent, that's the beauty of Reformed theology.
Michele: "You cannot blame me for being a little gun shy given the adversarial relationship I have with the commenters."
LOL...no I can't. Thanks for the explanation.
You're welcome.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.