Politically Correct: The Road to Spiritual Destruction

a politically correct christians seeks approval of men and not God, and as long as that christians plays the worlds games they will not have God's approval as they watered down chritainsity with the worlds system.
If your being tolerant you can't be preaching the gospel, if your preaching the gospel you can't be tolerant, or you'd have nothing to preach for fear of offending those your being tolerant of.

 

You have succinctly summarized many errors of the Church today. Sadly Christians fail to understand that the tolerance of small errors leads to the tolerance of heresy. I used to tell my Sunday School class that the church of Rome did not become the Roman Catholic Church overnight. In fact it took hundreds of years. Heresies grow on themselves and eventually a church as the body of Christ is no more. In truth it took the period of time from when Constantine became the first pope until Vatican II for the Roman Catholic Church to reach where it is today. I want to make clear, believing in election as I do, that I believe there are many fine Christians within the Roman Catholic Church. In fact I know some. That does not negate the fact that they are a far cry from the Church in its New Testament form that Jesus Christ built.

Just as Rome fell because of error, just as many mainline churches in this country have already fallen because of their accommodation of homosexuality, adultery, support of abortion, accommodation with the world, preaching a false or watered down Gospel so the Baptist Churches can fall. All we ned to do is look at Europe where only 3-4% of the people attend church.

However God will not leave himself without a witness in the world. Though many churches may go the way of the churches at Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodecia, there will always be churches like Smyrna and Philadelphia.

Paul you say one thing above that has mystified me for years, that is the idea that the Church must be tolerant. Jesus Christ was not tolerant of sin. He could and would forgive sin but he was not tolerant of it. Yet we hear today, even from Church "leaders", that we must be tolerant.

Much of the Old Testament, both the historical and prophetic books, continually chastise the children of Israel for their tolerance of sin, their accommodation with the world. Most of the books of the New Testament, after the Gospels point, out doctrinal errors and moral failings in the Church. The World will always try to subvert the Gospel. Christians must be eternally vigilant.

 

Exactly right. No where in scripture are we told to be tolerant, and when it comes to sin and false religion we are told the opposite. But in the worldly name of political correctness some have watered down christianity for tolerances sake, giveing a false view of christianity. God wasn't tolerant, Jesus wasn't tolerant, and Paul never taught tolerance, all did exactly the opposite. Yet now we have christians preachng tolerance, bowing down to the world.

 

Christians should always be IN this world but not OF this world. We are told to support the existing political structure until it tramples on our faith. That's why I've been so adamantly against George W. Bush.

 

And allowing babies to be stabbed in the head with scissors doen't trample on your faith?

 

I have a question that is along these lines...

Yesterday I received a Fundamentalist publication that a friend signed me up for. I was reading it last night while watching a Don Knotts movie (I like Don Knotts!). The writer of the publication spent two pages pointing out the faults of Barack Obama, right down to calling him a "LIBERAL APOSTATE" (yes, in all caps) and highlighing the word Muslim every time it was typed. He then spent a couple paragraphs talking about John McCain, especially dwelling on that McCain said his first marriage was his worst moral mistake. He went on to talk about Biden for a paragraph, focusing on Biden's disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church's stand against abortion. Finally he spoke about Palin. She got nearly a page, admonishing her for her hair, her skirts, her anti-abortion stand, her support of her pregnant out-of-wedlock daughter (while condemning fornication), her church attendance (and anti-pentacostal feelings), etc. After reading all of that, the author threw in a disclaimer that said, "The *.*. editor does NOT endorse political candidates in his paper, but does provide documented information on candidates to help Bible-believing Christians make intelligent choices.

My long-winded approach leads me to this question----why the disclaimer? The publication was clearly biased, and pushing for particular candidates, even. I don't understand the editor not owning his words. Do you suppose it's to keep his tax exempt status?

I'm all for putting your opinions out there, but adding the disclaimer after such bold statements is odd, imo. He doesn't have to apologize for his bold words.

 

<off topic deleted - LE> BTW, I've stated here at least a dozen times I am against abortion. After 3 Republican Presidents over a period of 20 years in office do nothing I don't believe that voting Republican is voting against abortion. <off topic comment/PA deleted - LE - Please stay on topic>

 

Not you, either. By your own criteria, the only candidate was Chuck Baldwin.

Repub voters get used by the abortion issue, dem voters by the war issue. They're both silly. Neither one will stop.