• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trinity United Church of Christ

R

Rufus_1611

New Member
What is "supposed" about the Biblical morality of not taking the life of innocent humans made in the image and likeness of God? Are you stating that abortion is acceptable according to the Bible?

[Edit: Removed "Quote" thingy]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rufus_1611

New Member
tragic_pizza said:
Why does every conversation always go there? I'm not going to argue extremes.
Click to expand...
What's the extreme here? We're only talking about two days. What's the difference between a mother executing her child at one day old versus negative 1 day old?

"And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren." - Genesis 29:31

"And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb." - Genesis 30:22

"Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?" - Job 31:15

"Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galatians 5:21​
 
T

tragic_pizza

New Member
Show me the verses where Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or any of the other writers of the New Testament spoke out against infant exposure.

The fact is that the Church was opposed to infant exposure, and if you know how they addressed it, you'll perhaps understand my position better.
 
R

Rufus_1611

New Member
tragic_pizza said:
Show me the verses where Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or any of the other writers of the New Testament spoke out against infant exposure.

The fact is that the Church was opposed to infant exposure, and if you know how they addressed it, you'll perhaps understand my position better.
Click to expand...
Not only do I not know how they addressed it, I have never heard this expression before relative to baby killing. I can't find the word exposure in the Holy Bible, and a google search of "infant exposure" reveals information on exposures to illnesses, tobacco, pets, chemicals, vaccines and other like topics. Are one of these what you are talking about or is there something else that you can point me to?
 
T

tragic_pizza

New Member
In the Roman Empire, children had no legal standing (women didn't have much, either, but that's another subject). A father (paterfamilias) could have even an adult child put to death at his whim.

When a baby was born, the infant was brought to the father and laid at his feet. If the father picked up the child, he or she was a part of the family. If the father turned away, the baby was literally thrown out. In Rome itself, babies were generally left on the steps of the comitta (sp?) where they would either die from exposure to the elements (hence the term "exposing infants") or would be picked up by others for training in prostitution or sale as slaves.

So the question was, admittedly, a little provocative, since Jesus was mainly concerned with Jewish law and tradition, and Jews didn't practive exposure in the first century.

However, when people in nonJewish cities were converted and established churches, their reaction to exposure was the same as their reaction to widows and orphans - they rescued them and provided for them.

At least one third-century apologist noted this practice as a reason Christianity
was superior to paganism.

But in no case did the Christian church depend upon the civil authorities to enforce moral issues. Rather, they took it on themselves to show Christlike compassion to all people, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan.
 
R

Rufus_1611

New Member
tragic_pizza said:
However, when people in nonJewish cities were converted and established churches, their reaction to exposure was the same as their reaction to widows and orphans - they rescued them and provided for them.

But in no case did the Christian church depend upon the civil authorities to enforce moral issues. Rather, they took it on themselves to show Christlike compassion to all people, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan.
Click to expand...
That's an excellent explanation, thank you. Now, if you would tie it together for me.

Certainly, I would agree that it was and is a good thing for the church to take in these children regardless of the civil authorities. I would add that it would be a good thing for the church to take in any children that were scheduled for death via abortion. Conversely, it would be a bad thing for a church to support the Roman right to infant exposure and I would add that it would be wrong for the church to encourage Romans to kill their children via abortion. Thus, as equally as I would be opposed to TUCC supporting the right of infant exposure, I would also be opposed to TUCC supporting the right of infant killing through abortion. In your worldview where am I in error and why do you maintain that this is a political concern rather than a moral one?
 
T

tragic_pizza

New Member
Oh, I think it's entirely a moral concern, and as such we shouldn't be looking to the government to enforce our morality.

"Supporting the right" of someone to abort is not the same thing as encouraging abortions. From a legal standpoint, we Christians lost the high ground when we allowed abortion to become an issue of women's rights. In the same way that you cannot put toothpaste back in the tube, we cannot unmake abortion a matter of personal freedom of choice.

What we can do as Christian activists is to reach out in love to all communities, offering hope, real assistance, and love, thus making abortion unneccessary. In this, and only in this, do our efforts have any hope of succeeding.

Thus while I may or may not agree with TUCC's reported stance, I at least understand the approach, and respect it to some degree.
 
J

Jack Matthews

New Member
tragic_pizza said:
Oh, I think it's entirely a moral concern, and as such we shouldn't be looking to the government to enforce our morality.

"Supporting the right" of someone to abort is not the same thing as encouraging abortions. From a legal standpoint, we Christians lost the high ground when we allowed abortion to become an issue of women's rights. In the same way that you cannot put toothpaste back in the tube, we cannot unmake abortion a matter of personal freedom of choice.

What we can do as Christian activists is to reach out in love to all communities, offering hope, real assistance, and love, thus making abortion unneccessary. In this, and only in this, do our efforts have any hope of succeeding.

Thus while I may or may not agree with TUCC's reported stance, I at least understand the approach, and respect it to some degree.
Click to expand...

I've always said that if the church would invest the time and energy into evangelism of youth and college students, and ministry directed at those who are put in a position of feeling that abortion is their only choice, we could do a whole lot more about the problem than we are accomplishing with a political solution.

I think your analysis is right on target. There was a shift in the perception of abortion when it became a civil right. I read a blog article entitled "A Moral Obligation" which pretty well sums up what might happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Would the church just stand around and declare "victory" or would we step up to the plate and provide genuinely loving, meaningful ministry? I wonder.....

You can find the article here: http://deepintheheart.wordpress.com
 
R

Rufus_1611

New Member
"Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church, but because of the type of attention it was receiving on blogs and conservative talk shows, he decided to avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself." - Bill Burton​

Senator Obama rescinded an offer to have Jeremiah Wright Jr. speak at an Obama engagement. The following video is a Sean Hannity interview with Jesse Lee Peterson of BOND who confirms that TUCC is a racist church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB7XkZUIHEQ
 
B

bound

New Member
Jack Matthews said:
Statement from Trinity's website:

"Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!"

It seems they have also adopted the full confession of faith of the United Church of Christ, which is consistent with the Biblical definition of the term Christian, from I John 4:1-3.

http://www.ucc.org

I'm not familiar with the UCC, and I'm guessing that it is made up mainly of African-American churches that are motivated by their faith to social action.
Click to expand...

Salve!

One of my concerns is with Liberation Theology which appears to be what they are taught and are teaching. Liberation Theology often, if not always, focus' on social and political issues at the expense of the salvation of souls. It often, if not always, reduces Christ's Gospel to a call of worldly reform of societies and not spiritual reform of the individual. Some might conclude that Liberation Theology is simply no longer the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Regardless I find it very questionable that such Theology teaches or imparts the 'Whole' Gospel.
 
R

Rufus_1611

New Member
FriendofSpurgeon said:
Really??? You KNOW that President Bush is not a Christian.
Click to expand...


eightball said:
You've peeked my curiosity, and interest. GWB is not a Christian because?
Click to expand...

GWB is not a Christian because of his fruits. To seal the deal, in my Christian worldview, universalists are not Christians.

Bush is a universalist? - Youtube Video 1:56

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6​
 
E

eightball

New Member
Rufus_1611 said:
GWB is not a Christian because of his fruits. To seal the deal, in my Christian worldview, universalists are not Christians.

Bush is a universalist? - Youtube Video 1:56

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6​
Click to expand...

Rufus: I thought that all the bad fruit will be like wood, hay, and stubble, it won't stand the test in the last judgement, as believers will vary in what is good and bad fruit in their lives. Some believers will have a great abundance of good fruit or works that stand as they were done in sound, truthful, resting faith, yet other Christians, possibly not discipled/guided and/ or even very carnal most of their lives will not have much in the way of fruits that will stand, but will as wood, hay and stubble.

I think indeed we will be very surprised one day, who is and is not a Christian.

Do you know every deed that GWB has done in his life, aside from that which you ascertain from media, or other places? Do you know anything of his private devotions, or what his relationship is to his Maker is. I know/not what his prayers contain to God. I understand he starts everyday with bible reading and prayer.

It is true that we can observe folks who claim to be believers and possible make a "call" on them possibly not being a believer, but can we be sure.

There are Christians that deal will besetting sin, all their lives, and basically struggle, while others seem to overcome. Do we know why. Do we need to exercise some care and caution in calling the kettle black in lieu of our own lives?

As much as I love the Lord and want to be obedient, I do "screw up". The power of sin is ever-knocking at the door of my flesh and wages a massive war againt my mind and emotions to. As Paul transparently shared his Romans 7 struggle, with the power of sin, and the pull of the flesh, he even more realized how weak a creature he was, and then called out that when he is weak, God is his strength.

So with that in mind, how can we surmise that GWB is not a Christian, as we do not know or observe every aspect of his living/breathing life, but what the media allows us.

David commited murder, yet God cherished him. Solomon fell into great debauchery yet later wrote Ecclasiates.
******
I guess, what I'm saying is that good fruit, isn't always easy to distinguish, from bad fruit, as many Christians do deeds are fleshly or carnal yet appear to be deeds of graciousness, and charity. Yet, God knows the heart and agenda of the person doing that deed.

Many fruits that you and I think will pass the test, will be burned-off as wood, hay and stubble before the great believer's judgement.

Many, a Christian have served all their lives in all kinds of volunteer capacites, and have impressed the body with their diligence, yet the motivations of those works were not from an aspect of serving out of love, or devotion that was motivated through the Holy Spirit's urgings, but was a form of legalistic works, that come from working off guilt, doing personal pennance, etc...

So to just write-off GWB's life as "non Christian" is to take a big step in the area of having some divine insight, that only GWB's Maker holds, in my opinion.

I don't think there is anything wrong with observing, and making a statement that says, that GWB has done things that don't seem to parallel scripturally what a Christian ought to be doing, but to take the larger step of considering him a non Christian is stepping into a realm that is not ours.

We are given discernment, to protect us from being carried away by bad teaching or led into sin, but to call a person such as GWB a non Christian because of where he attends worship, or what some of his policies have been as a political leader, is not fair.

As James said, anyone who says they haven't sinned and calls themselves a Christian is a liar. GWB did wrong things in his live, and he will continue to do wrong things. Hopefully as his life progresses, God will continue to discipline and prune away his rough edges and he will grow in God's holiness.

I find that transparency of one's life on an ever-growing mode as the years go by, is often a good sign that God is working in that person's life as a Christian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rufus_1611

New Member
eightball said:
...
Click to expand...

While you make some nice points and I might intend to agree with you on many, what you avoided was the point that he is a Universalist by his own words. If a Muslim says he's a Muslim, then he's not a Christian. If a Jew says he's a Jew then he's not a Christian. If a Universalist says there are many paths to the almighty, then he's not talking about the God that I serve. Either I'm a Christian or GWBush is but our two world views can not be reconciled and be called Christianity. If he believes that Muslims serve the same God that I do and have a different path to the almighty, then he is preaching a different Jesus.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mohammed];" - 1 Timothy 2:5​

If you have evidence of him repenting of this testimony or if you have evidence of his recent conversion to Christianity, I would be delighted to entertain it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top