ARMY REPORT SAYS CHRISTIANS THREATEN US FOREIGN POLICY By Chuck Baldwin

[bobbyw24]

ARMY REPORT SAYS CHRISTIANS THREATEN US FOREIGN POLICY



By Chuck Baldwin
April 14, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Army Report A Precursor To Christian Persecution?

Last Friday, I told readers of this column that I had come across a very disturbing government report and that I would be exposing that report during my Sunday address this past Sunday morning. I did exactly that, and anyone wishing to see an archived video of that address can do so by using this link (the video should be uploaded by this weekend)

The report's header reads, "Strategic Implications of American Millennialism, A Monograph by MAJOR Brian L. Stuckert, U.S. Army. This monograph was defended by the degree candidate on 01 May 2008 and approved by the monograph director and reader named below. Approved by: Timothy Challans, Ph.D., Monograph Director; Robert Taylor, COL, MI, Monograph Reader; Stefan J. Banach, COL, IN, Director, School of Advanced Military Studies; Robert F. Baumann, Ph.D., Director, Graduate Degree Programs." The School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, produced the report.

Here is the TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Why Millennialism Matters
The Role of Civil Religion and Culture
Millennial Theologies in America
Post-Millennialism and the Founding of America
Civil War, World War and the Rise of Pre-Millennialism
Israel, Nuclear War and the Last Days
Contemporary Pre-Millennialism in the American Electorate
Contemporary Pre-Millennialism and American Culture
The Holy Land and Armageddon: U.S. Policy in the Middle East
Anti-Christ, Gog, Magog, and Armies From the East
Conclusions and Recommendations
Bibliography

Remember, this is not a Christian university report or even a secular university's religion department report, but rather a report written by an active duty Army major (who is now stationed in Afghanistan, I am told) for one of America's war colleges. Before analyzing this report, here are some questions to ponder. Whose brainchild was this report? Did the major select the topic himself or did a superior assign it to him? To whom exactly was the report distributed? How was the report used? What are the interconnections between this report and the MIAC and Department of Homeland Security reports that draw similar conclusions? And perhaps the biggest question is, What does this report portend for government action in the future?

When Major Stuckert speaks of millennialism, he is referring to the Biblical doctrine of Eschatology--specifically, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to the earth to institute a 1,000-year (millennial) reign. He recognizes some of the nuances of this doctrine in his study, most notably post-millennialism and pre-millennialism. His report is heavily focused on pre-millennialism, however.

At this point, I feel it is necessary to make this observation: whether one is a post-millennialist or a pre-millennialist, the fact that we Christians believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ to the earth to establish His Kingdom puts us in the same boat, as far as the ramifications of Major Stuckert's report--and similar reports--are concerned. We Christians need to recognize that, as far as the Stuckerts of this world are concerned, because we believe the Bible and we believe in the literal return of Christ, we are considered an enemy. We can disagree with one another all we want to about whether there is a Rapture (and if there is one, when it will occur), whether Christ will return before or after a millennial kingdom takes place, and scores of other theological differences, but none of that is important to the events at hand: there is a growing sense among many governmental and military leaders in America that Bible-believing Christians are an enemy that must be marginalized, warned about, watched, and even controlled. And it does not matter to a tinker's dam to these Machiavellians whether one is a post-millennialist or a pre-millennialist. If we believe the Bible and believe that Jesus is coming again, they consider us "dangerous." And we Christians better wake up to this stark reality, stop fighting each other, and focus on working together to preserve our liberties!

And one more early observation: there is an eerie and uncanny connection between the verbiage and spirit of Stuckert's report and the now-infamous MIAC and Homeland Security reports. The timing, too, is significant. The MIAC and Homeland Security reports were produced shortly after Major Stuckert's report was produced. A coincidence? Not on your life!


Advertisement

Here are some excerpts from Stuckert's report:

"Millennialism has great explanatory value, significant policy implications, and creates potential vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit." (Abstract, page iii.)

"These factors [results of millennial belief] can be problematic for any military leader or planner attempting to achieve U.S. Government policy objectives through strategy, operations and programs." (Abstract, page iv.)

Notice that from the very outset of this report, Stuckert asserts that Christians who believe in the Second Coming create circumstances or conditions that might be "problematic" for America's military leaders. We Christians also create "potential vulnerabilities" that America's enemies may "exploit," according to Stuckert. Furthermore, Stuckert laments that we Christians may even interfere with "U.S. Government policy objectives."

Pray tell, exactly what are those "U.S. Government policy objectives" that Christians might prove to be "problematic" for? And is Major Stuckert suggesting that those Christian military officers currently serving in the US armed forces are somehow "problematic" to "U.S. Government policy objectives"? And do these same Christian officers make America "vulnerable" to our enemies? Is he suggesting that military officers in the US armed forces who believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ be expunged from military service, because of their beliefs?

As one will observe when reading the 61-page treatise, Major Stuckert, with a broad brush, paints millennialist Christians as being serious problems for America's foreign policy and for "U.S. Government policy objectives," and that we must be dealt with; but he offers no details on what, exactly, should be done. Or if he did, that part of his treatise is not a matter of public record.

More quotes:

"The impact of American millennial religious ideas on U.S. Government policy will add to strategic hubris, compel increasingly reckless international action, and continue to over-commit the military in ways the Nation cannot afford." (Page 1)

Again, notice that Christians who believe in Christ's return add to pride, recklessness, and war. Good grief! I suppose that we Christians are also responsible for the escalating price of gas and oil too--and maybe even global warming!

Stuckert continues:

http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin582.htm

[pcosmar]

I listened to his sermon last Sunday, He covered this report.

It dovetails with some other recent events.
Not good for the future.
:(

Page #3 of this thread,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=239600

[Pete_00]

Baldwin makes some good points. But the report also warns about the effects of modern dispensational premillennialism in internal and external policies, Chuck Baldwin doesnt like this doctrine too..

[silus]

Sundays Chuch Lessons: Jesus Christ healing the lepper and why millennial religious beliefs don't hurt American foreign policy.

[pcosmar]

Sundays Chuch Lessons: Jesus Christ healing the lepper and why millennial religious beliefs don't hurt American foreign policy.

Quoted for Ignorance.

Did you listen to what he had to say? I did.
Do you understand the relevance of the Hutaree arrests?

Their only guilt is in opposing what this report promotes.
:(

[jkr]

:eek:well, if this IS true then
come
and
get
me


I'm unarmed
i'M AN EASY TARGET
I won't put up a fight
...BUT you have to kill me
no jail
no re-education camps
cut off my head and drag my body through the street

I am NOT affraid of you


you people are sick, I will pray for you
first they came for the hippies and the lovers of peace
then they came for the Islamist who honnor God (In there own way I hope) and are willing to fight for thier beliefes
Next they come for the Christians who love peace and will die for thier beliefes
Next?
All the tools
the middle management
the local governments
and then the cops

all that is left are the slaves.

[Vessol]

Meh, Chuck Baldwin only cares when Christian's are targeted. He has stated he couldn't care less if any other religious group was targeted.

[silus]

Quoted for Ignorance.

Did you listen to what he had to say? I did.
Do you understand the relevance of the Hutaree arrests?

Their only guilt is in opposing what this report promotes.
:(
I take a conservative Christian view here that you don't mix preaching the word of god with politics. If you think that is ignorant i'd prefer you explain why vs. just calling it ignorant.

[pcosmar]

I take a conservative Christian view here that you don't mix preaching the word of god with politics. If you think that is ignorant i'd prefer you explain why vs. just calling it ignorant.

Ok. Because church leaders are in the position to educate. They educate on not only the Bible, but on how it applies to everyday life. To how we chose our representatives, To what we should expect from them.
And more,
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BLACKREGIMENT.HTML
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/1789

[fisharmor]

I take a conservative Christian view here that you don't mix preaching the word of god with politics. If you think that is ignorant i'd prefer you explain why vs. just calling it ignorant.

It's true that the separation of Church and state isn't a state idea, it's a Christian idea.
However, statements to the effect of "God and politics don't mix" are not Christian.
Nor are they particularly wise.



Meh, Chuck Baldwin only cares when Christian's are targeted. He has stated he couldn't care less if any other religious group was targeted.

This.
When I see Chuck defending muslims, I'll think differently.
Until then.... well, Chuck, as a stalwart amillenarian, I see YOU as another religious group, and I feel inclined to react to this development as you would to the persecution those of differing beliefs...
... that is, with indifference.

[1000-points-of-fright]

"The impact of American millennial religious ideas on U.S. Government policy will add to strategic hubris, compel increasingly reckless international action, and continue to over-commit the military in ways the Nation cannot afford." (Page 1)

That sounds like a perfectly valid criticism. You think it's just AIPAC that keeps our "special relationship" with Israel going? These end of days Christians need us to kiss Israel's ass before their messiah can return.

[jkr]

I dont think that true at all...Christians SHOULD strive for peace.

[silus]

Ok. Because church leaders are in the position to educate. They educate on not only the Bible, but on how it applies to everyday life. To how we chose our representatives...
His teching is based on how you can legislate Christian values. A strategy contratictory to what Jesus Christ practiced and professed. His teaching is focused on saving government here on earth vs. individual souls for eternity.


It's true that the separation of Church and state isn't a state idea, it's a Christian idea.
However, statements to the effect of "God and politics don't mix" are not Christian.
Read above response.

[pcosmar]

His teching is based on how you can legislate Christian values. A strategy contratictory to what Jesus Christ practiced and professed. His teaching is focused on saving government here on earth vs. individual souls for eternity.


Post proof. I have never heard that from Chuck. I read a lot of his writings while he was campaigning for Ron Paul. I never saw that.
Post proof.
Ron Paul endorsed him. I voted for him and have been listening to his sermons online.
I haven't heard that.
Post proof.

Otherwise you are talking out of the wrong orifice.

[nate895]

His teching is based on how you can legislate Christian values. A strategy contratictory to what Jesus Christ practiced and professed. His teaching is focused on saving government here on earth vs. individual souls for eternity.


Read above response.

How can you substantiate the statement that mixing God and politics is somehow wrong according to Christ? If God is, in point of fact, God, then he rules over politics too. Or is it that somehow, the magnificent power of the state mysteriously gets to be exempt from God's will and judgment? Nay, God and Christ have things to say about the purpose and function of government in a Christian society, and we Christians have a duty to interact the culture and be salt and light in every area of life, not just Sunday mornings at church.

[silus]

Post proof. I have never heard that from Chuck. I read a lot of his writings while he was campaigning for Ron Paul. I never saw that.
Post proof.
Ron Paul endorsed him. I voted for him and have been listening to his sermons online.
I haven't heard that.

"That?" Did you understand my post correctly? I'm talking about what his sermons tend to focus on. Which is less individual salvation, more legislating christian values, less preparing for eternity, more about influencing politics here on earth. Again, i'm listening to his sermons and making note of what he tends to emphasize. And contrasting his style with other pastors, this becomes even more obvious.



How can you substantiate the statement that mixing God and politics is somehow wrong according to Christ? If God is, in point of fact, God, then he rules over politics too.
1. I'm not saying what is right or wrong. Nor am I saying whats right or wrong according to Christ.

2. What i'm saying is the real message of Christian salvation is diluted when your sermon focuses on how to influence politics.

[nate895]

"That?" Did you understand my post correctly? I'm talking about what his sermons tend to focus on. Which is less individual salvation, more legislating christian values, less preparing for eternity, more about influencing politics here on earth. Again, i'm listening to his sermons and making note of what he tends to emphasize. And contrasting his style with other pastors, this becomes even more obvious.



1. I'm not saying what is right or wrong. Nor am I saying whats right or wrong according to Christ.

2. What i'm saying is the real message of Christian salvation is diluted when your sermon focuses on how to influence politics.

Depends on the context of the sermon. I do agree with you the Baldwin seems to focus too much on politics and not enough on the Gospel, but I don't attend his church, so I can't be sure. He could just publish more on the political element, but preaches just as much Gospel as Law. Anyone who gets those two confused is teaching heterodoxy, for we need to preach the Law to convict the sinner, Gospel to save him, and then both to apply the Law and Gospel to all of life.

[BlackTerrel]

That sounds like a perfectly valid criticism. You think it's just AIPAC that keeps our "special relationship" with Israel going? These end of days Christians need us to kiss Israel's ass before their messiah can return.

Libertarians believe people should have a right to worship and believe whatever they want.

Unless you are a Christian who supports the state of Israel. Or a Christian who opposes gay marriage. Then it is a problem.

Why is the ARMY concerned with Christians beliefs?

[1000-points-of-fright]

Libertarians believe people should have a right to worship and believe whatever they want.

Unless you are a Christian who supports the state of Israel. Or a Christian who opposes gay marriage. Then it is a problem.

Why is the ARMY concerned with Christians beliefs?

Anyone can believe what they want with their own money and suffer the consequences of their beliefs. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Other people have to suffer for beliefs that are not their own.

[acptulsa]

The powers that be don't seem to like it when someone turns on them.

When we were just protecting God's Israel the Dubya administration thought Christians were the best thing since sliced bread--and the more fundamentalist the better. Now that some Christians are reading their Bibles and saying, hey, wait a minute, supporting war isn't actually Christian, well, suddenly more than half the population are pariahs.

Great! I love it when the @$$#%&*$ in charge alienate over half the voting population!

[BlackTerrel]

Anyone can believe what they want with their own money and suffer the consequences of their beliefs. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Other people have to suffer for beliefs that are not their own.

Why is the army conducting reports on what Christians believe to begin with?

[pcosmar]

Why is the army conducting reports on what Christians believe to begin with?

Ding ding ding.
The $64,000 question.

Te answer is in the report and the Bible.
:(

[silus]

Why is the ARMY concerned with Christians beliefs?
I HIGHLY doubt this major is representing the Army in any capacity by writing this.

On another note, I tried to get on Chuck Baldwin's website to hear more of his sermons but unfortunately I got to this message...

Disks or Downloads of Dr. Baldwin’s archived sermons are available for donations of $10 per audio download
Wow, can you trust a guy that steals an altruistic word to serve his own interests. Pathetic.

[pcosmar]

I HIGHLY doubt this major is representing the Army in any capacity by writing this.

On another note, I tried to get on Chuck Baldwin's website to hear more of his sermons but unfortunately I got to this message...

Wow, can you trust a guy that steals an altruistic word to serve his own interests. Pathetic.

:confused:
The report he is referring to,

The report's header reads, "Strategic Implications of American Millennialism, A Monograph by MAJOR Brian L. Stuckert, U.S. Army. This monograph was defended by the degree candidate on 01 May 2008 and approved by the monograph director and reader named below. Approved by: Timothy Challans, Ph.D., Monograph Director; Robert Taylor, COL, MI, Monograph Reader; Stefan J. Banach, COL, IN, Director, School of Advanced Military Studies; Robert F. Baumann, Ph.D., Director, Graduate Degree Programs." The School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, produced the report.
pdf.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA485511

Yes, he sells the disks. Or watch it live For Free on Sunday. I have and do.
The archived sermons are available free.


You can view or listen to Dr. Baldwin's sermons here, free of charge. Plus, anyone looking for Downloads, DVD or CD copies of the archived sermons will be able to order these here.

[silus]

:confused:
The report he is referring to,

Correct me if i'm wrong, but it says he wrote the report in the capacity of "degree candidate." A student in other words.


Yes, he sells the disks. Or watch it live For Free on Sunday. I have and do.
The archived sermons are available free.
Oh c'mon. I know you see it as well. He is selling his media, I get that. But its the fact that he can't just say he's selling it. No, he's saying you can have it if you "donate" ten dollars. lol.

[nate895]

I HIGHLY doubt this major is representing the Army in any capacity by writing this.

On another note, I tried to get on Chuck Baldwin's website to hear more of his sermons but unfortunately I got to this message...

Wow, can you trust a guy that steals an altruistic word to serve his own interests. Pathetic.

It's probably some sort of word used to remain on the up-and-up. I know that a lot of people do that to keep the government off of their back. Why is there a problem with charging people a modest sum for access to a resource? It is probably meant to pay for regular expenses. Baldwin doesn't live the princely lifestyle of the John Hagees or Joel Osteens of the world, that's for sure.

[silus]

Why is there a problem with charging people a modest sum for access to a resource?
1. My point was how he sells things and calls it a donation. Its a pretty obvious lie. I can't see how anyone can disagree. The facts are there.

2. P.S. I have no idea what Baldwin spends the money he makes from his sermons, nor will I guess, but I'd like to make a bigger point here. I don't feel any man/woman should use preaching the word of God as a money making opportunity. I see some Christian writers that create media empires in this fashion, and I flat out do not understand it. To me, the money is not theirs. So they really have no entitlement to it above paying for their basic needs.

Its pretty much on par with what Ron Paul things about government representatives. He feels they should still be able to work in their normal profession, vs. making politics their occupation.

[pcosmar]

Correct me if i'm wrong,lol.

I am more curious of what your problem is with a patriot that was a strong and solid Ron Paul supporter, That supports the liberty message, and who Ron Paul endorsed of president when he dropped out of the race.
He still does support both the Constitution and liberty message in both his writings and his preaching.

You seem to have a problem with that. :(

[pcosmar]

Wow, can you trust a guy that steals an altruistic word to serve his own interests. Pathetic.
In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/9-14.htm
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/5-18.htm

Do you have a problem with that?

[silus]

I am more curious of what your problem is with a patriot that was a strong and solid Ron Paul supporter, That supports the liberty message, and who Ron Paul endorsed of president when he dropped out of the race.
He still does support both the Constitution and liberty message in both his writings and his preaching.

You seem to have a problem with that. :(
1. Your quote of me is wrong. Not sure why you did that.

2. My problem here is really nothing to do with politics. I have a strong association with a simple and humble Christian philosophy. Its what I grew up with. And so it pains me as I see Christianity become more a tool of man to pursue his own agenda. The man I see that most represents the Christian philosophy I believe, in and outside of politics, is Ron Paul. Baldwin to me is the complete opposite.

I'm from a perspective that has no need to explicitly tell others what I believe. I don't need to advertise my beliefs as often this new generation does with bumper stickers and the like. It starts internally and flows outward. Whereas I think the popular trend is to support ones belief by creating an environment more accepting/supporting of it.

I believe men like Chuck Baldwin and many others hijack Christianity to support an agenda built of their own personal concerns and I don't like it one bit.

[fisharmor]

1I have a strong association with a simple and humble Christian philosophy. Its what I grew up with. And so it pains me as I see Christianity become more a tool of man to pursue his own agenda. The man I see that most represents the Christian philosophy I believe, in and outside of politics, is Ron Paul. Baldwin to me is the complete opposite.

I'm from a perspective that has no need to explicitly tell others what I believe. I don't need to advertise my beliefs as often this new generation does with bumper stickers and the like. It starts internally and flows outward. Whereas I think the popular trend is to support ones belief by creating an environment more accepting/supporting of it.

I believe men like Chuck Baldwin and many others hijack Christianity to support an agenda built of their own personal concerns and I don't like it one bit.

Now, I would not go so far as to throw Baldwin in the same bucket as Jim Bakker. I don't think he's thinking of his own personal concerns. I think he's really drastically wrong about what he thinks God's concerns are.

I also think you're drastically wrong when it comes to Christianity, and I think Ron Paul is much less than what I would expect of a Christian role model. In fact, Nate is the first person I've seen to post something here about Christianity that I would agree with 100%.

Baldwin doesn't realize three very important things.

First, that even though he believes Christianity is defined by millenarian thought, not all Christians believe this.

Second, that inside US borders he's probably in a slight majority, but outside the US millenarians basically don't exist. Millenarianism is a minority opinion, when one takes all of Christendom into consideration.

(One can't help but notice that the same type of people seem to be against Hispanic immigration as a rule, and wonder if their attachment to Roman amillenarianism is a factor...)

Third, that those of us with memories that extend back farther than what we had for breakfast realize that blood has been spilled over this issue. This is not a simple matter of protecting the liberty to "disagree with one another all we want to about whether there is a Rapture".

To sum up, when discussing Christianity, I don't agree with Baldwin, I don't agree with Silus, and I don't agree with Ron Paul... and it hasn't been that long since matchlock volleys were traded over those very disagreements.

That is the purpose of the 1st amendment. It was not penned to protect Wiccans. It's there to keep Christians from killing each other.

So forgive me for saying so, Silus, but you're wrong. Christianity is not an internalized self-discovery religion. It's very much external with external elements and objective doctrines. It is a religion of hearing an external word, the word of Christs atoning death and resurrection, and responding to it. It very much starts outward.

Of course, I'm comfortable that despite our disagreement we will not now try to kill each other, and that is a good thing. Unlike many others, I can't find a divine mandate to now force you to behave the way God wants us to.

It is our duty to correct and resist the state when it goes against God, but we may not employ the state to do God's work. But to say that God has no place in politics is wrong. Our decisions as active participants in the political process absolutely should be driven by our devotion to Him.

And there's a piece of paper that says how the political process is meant to work in this nation. Following what is on that paper is God-pleasing because he calls on rulers to rule wisely in His name - and we are all rulers in this nation. What is on the paper doesn't conflict with God's wishes.

I disagree with Baldwin because I haven't heard him make statements to this effect, and likely never will. His statements always tend to push the idea of a Christian state. We are not a Christian nation. We might be a nation of Christians, but that's a different thing, and as pointed out a nation of Christians will still fight each other.

Like I said, when he defends the liberties of Muslims the same way, and for the same reason, I'll think better of him. Until then, I agree that he's only using the constitution to push an agenda. I just don't think he believes it's his agenda.


Libertarians believe people should have a right to worship and believe whatever they want.

No, I don't think so. Libertarians believe that choice in worship and choice in a god is a natural right.
One can not stop someone from believing something any more than one can stop someone from thinking something.

If anything, I would say that libertarians recognize (not believe, recognize - as in, this is axiomatic) that it is utterly futile for the state to suppress natural rights.

The state could dynamite Mosques and threaten death to anyone not professing to be Christian... but this will not eliminate Muslims.
The state could take away all our guns, but this will not stop people from defending themselves.
The state could put to death those who speak against it, but it will not stop people from spreading anti state messages.

The amazing thing to me is how many people are out there claiming to be Christian, who would do all that and more, all in the name of Christ.

[pcosmar]

It is our duty to correct and resist the state when it goes against God, but we may not employ the state to do God's work. But to say that God has no place in politics is wrong. Our decisions as active participants in the political process absolutely should be driven by our devotion to Him.

And there's a piece of paper that says how the political process is meant to work in this nation. Following what is on that paper is God-pleasing because he calls on rulers to rule wisely in His name - and we are all rulers in this nation. What is on the paper doesn't conflict with God's wishes.

I disagree with Baldwin because I haven't heard him make statements to this effect, and likely never will. His statements always tend to push the idea of a Christian state. We are not a Christian nation. We might be a nation of Christians, but that's a different thing, and as pointed out a nation of Christians will still fight each other.


.
Well I have been listening to him. Perhaps you have not heard this because you have not been listening.
This is exactly what he has said.
He is not pushing for a Theocracy. That will come, and in Gods time. But is won't be by man ruling in Gods name, but by Christ himself ruling personally.
In the mean time, we are to preserve the freedom of this nation, The freedom to worship as we chose, the freedom to spread the message (and that includes the wealth to do so).
He opposes the pointless wars, government theft, and is very opposed to the globalist agenda.
It is that globalist agenda that is warned of in the Bible. And it is that agenda that this Army thesis addresses. Christians stand in the way of a Global Agenda.
We are the core opposition of the NWO.
John 15

18If the people of this world hate you, just remember that they hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, its people would love you. But you don't belong to the world. I have chosen you to leave the world behind, and that is why its people hate you. 20Remember how I told you that servants are not greater than their master. So if people mistreat me, they will mistreat you. If they do what I say, they will do what you say. 21People will do to you exactly what they did to me. They will do it because you belong to me, and they don't know the one who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin.

23Everyone who hates me also hates my Father. 24I have done things that no one else has ever done. If they had not seen me do these things, they would not be guilty. But they did see me do these things, and they still hate me and my Father too. 25That is why the Scriptures are true when they say, "People hated me for no reason."

[silus]

I think Ron Paul is much less than what I would expect of a Christian role model.
Before I get into anything else, can I ask why you think this?

[fisharmor]

Well I have been listening to him. Perhaps you have not heard this because you have not been listening.
It's entirely possible I've missed it. I can count on both hands the number of pieces of his I've read and I haven't listened to him since the 2008 race.


This is exactly what he has said.
He is not pushing for a Theocracy. That will come, and in Gods time. But is won't be by man ruling in Gods name, but by Christ himself ruling personally.
In the mean time, we are to preserve the freedom of this nation, The freedom to worship as we chose, the freedom to spread the message (and that includes the wealth to do so).

I'm not discounting that I might be wrong. Though he did run under the Constitution Party banner, which comes as close to pushing a Christian state as you can without using the word "theocracy".
But I'm focusing on something quite narrow here. Let's see if I can get this across.


At this point, I feel it is necessary to make this observation: whether one is a post-millennialist or a pre-millennialist, the fact that we Christians believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ to the earth to establish His Kingdom puts us in the same boat, as far as the ramifications of Major Stuckert's report--and similar reports--are concerned.

This sentence encapsulates my problem with the Constitution Party as well.
Who are "we Christians"? He has left room only for post-milleniarians and pre-millenarians. He has essentially stated that as I am an amillenarian, I am therefore not a Christian. Not only would I say the exact reverse, but as I pointed out I have numbers on my side.

Am I splitting hairs? Again, blood has been spilled over this issue, and it's not the first thing I've found to disagree with him on. I didn't bring this up. He did. If he stuck to issues of the kingdom of the sword, as does Ron Paul, then I, as a fellow ruler, would be much more inclined to listen. But the second he blurs that line, the second he invites me to analyze what he is saying in terms of my faith, he gets demoted to heretic.


He opposes the pointless wars, government theft, and is very opposed to the globalist agenda.

I did vote for him.


It is that globalist agenda that is warned of in the Bible.
But here is another example of what I'm talking about. Blurring the line, and in a way that I find objectionable. Is the globalist agenda bad? Yes, a thousand times yes. Should we resist it? Yes, a thousand times. Do we need to have Christian agreement on it? No, and bringing it up opens wounds that are much older than either of us.

I'm not against Baldwin, I merely want to point out why a lot of Christians aren't lining up behind him.



Before I get into anything else, can I ask why you think this?

Because he has so little to say about Christianity.
It ties in with what I wrote earlier. Christianity is an external faith, with objective truths.

I don't know if he goes to church, or if he can explain the fundamentals of the Baptist faith which he apparently espouses.

I pointed out that you and I are in disagreement on the internal/external nature of the faith - but surely you can see that I as an "externalist" would take issue with not knowing much of anything about what he believes.

Considering that Christians are under divine mandate to spread the gospel, I consider him to be a lousy Christian role model. If he's an active Christian outside of his public life, then that would change my mind. He fills his vocation in the most God-pleasing manner of any politician - but that doesn't make him a model Christian. It's equally possible for a Jew or Hindu to do what he does.

[silus]

I think Ron Paul is much less than what I would expect of a Christian role model.
Why?


Because he has so little to say about Christianity.
Wow. I'm utterly shocked at that statement. It sort of implies how little you understand the bible. Mainly because the first thing you emphasize is what he "says"... You place greater emphasis on mere words than everything else you see and know about the man in his 72 years of existence. You liken being a good Christian role model to being a good promoter of Christianity.

That very idea is the thing that is corrupting and diluting the core of Christianity today.


Christianity is not an internalized self-discovery religion. It's very much external with external elements and objective doctrines. It is a religion of hearing an external word, the word of Christs atoning death and resurrection, and responding to it. It very much starts outward.
No one said anything about a "self-discovery" journey. Not sure why you twisted my point there. The simple fact is that Christianity is about faith, a very personal relationship outside the interactions of mankind. That is where Christianty starts. Your idea about Christianity starting outward is just factually incorrect. If you're talking about how one is exposed to Christianity that is another argument entirely. But you do seem to favor promoting by words vs. by actions, which we disagree on.

But anyways, the point is not about the common person. Its about a pastor in the house of god using the position as representative of his faith to preach his own political views. And your idea having a "duty to correct and resist the state when it goes against God" makes me wonder who you think can stand up and say what is and what is not going against god. Thats such a ridiculously arrogant statement, I can see how we are split in our beliefs. I perfer to take the more humble approach. :shrug

[pcosmar]

But anyways, the point is not about the common person. Its about a pastor in the house of god using the position as representative of his faith to preach his own political views. And your idea having a "duty to correct and resist the state when it goes against God" makes me wonder who you think can stand up and say what is and what is not going against god.

I think you are confusing the very different roles of ministry. The role of Pastor or shepherd and the role of the Evangelist or Missionary.
There are different ministries and each has a different role. Each of us has different talents.

[silus]

I think you are confusing the very different roles of ministry. The role of Pastor or shepherd and the role of the Evangelist or Missionary.
There are different ministries and each has a different role. Each of us has different talents.
Personally I think you are complicating the role of ministry. I don't see a distinction that needs to be made.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm unarmed
i'M AN EASY TARGET
I won't put up a fight
...BUT you have to kill me
no jail
no re-education camps
cut off my head and drag my body through the street


If the forces of the state are on their way to illegally detain you and you are unarmed and won't fight, why would they kill you?

You will be put in prison, you will be re-educated, you will renounce your beliefs.

[nate895]

1. My point was how he sells things and calls it a donation. Its a pretty obvious lie. I can't see how anyone can disagree. The facts are there.

2. P.S. I have no idea what Baldwin spends the money he makes from his sermons, nor will I guess, but I'd like to make a bigger point here. I don't feel any man/woman should use preaching the word of God as a money making opportunity. I see some Christian writers that create media empires in this fashion, and I flat out do not understand it. To me, the money is not theirs. So they really have no entitlement to it above paying for their basic needs.

Its pretty much on par with what Ron Paul things about government representatives. He feels they should still be able to work in their normal profession, vs. making politics their occupation.

No money is ours, it is a blessing from the Lord. That is why we return a tithe to the Church, to show thanks to God for blessing us the past week and to acknowledge that it is God's in the first place. As far as Christian media empires, if you will notice, most of those are run by heretics (the so-called "Trinity Broadcasting Network" broadcast TD Jakes, a Modalist/Oneness Pentecostal). Baldwin is not in the business of setting up a heretical media empire.


1. Your quote of me is wrong. Not sure why you did that.

2. My problem here is really nothing to do with politics. I have a strong association with a simple and humble Christian philosophy. Its what I grew up with. And so it pains me as I see Christianity become more a tool of man to pursue his own agenda. The man I see that most represents the Christian philosophy I believe, in and outside of politics, is Ron Paul. Baldwin to me is the complete opposite.

I'm from a perspective that has no need to explicitly tell others what I believe. I don't need to advertise my beliefs as often this new generation does with bumper stickers and the like. It starts internally and flows outward. Whereas I think the popular trend is to support ones belief by creating an environment more accepting/supporting of it.

I believe men like Chuck Baldwin and many others hijack Christianity to support an agenda built of their own personal concerns and I don't like it one bit.

You are commanded by God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, to bring the Gospel to all the nations, and to teach them all that He has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). If you are not in support of bringing the Law and Gospel to all the nations of the earth and to interact with the culture on that basis, you are in serious error. You are against the entire history of the Christian faith, from the very moment Christ started ministering, through the Apostolic Age, and beyond if that is indeed your position. Are you a member of a Congregation? If so, what denomination is it?


Wow. I'm utterly shocked at that statement. It sort of implies how little you understand the bible. Mainly because the first thing you emphasize is what he "says"... You place greater emphasis on mere words than everything else you see and know about the man in his 72 years of existence. You liken being a good Christian role model to being a good promoter of Christianity.

That very idea is the thing that is corrupting and diluting the core of Christianity today.

One of the actions that is spoken of is the spreading of the Word and witnessing to non-believers. Does that mean people who don't convert a single soul don't go to heaven? No. Salvation is by faith, and not by works.


No one said anything about a "self-discovery" journey. Not sure why you twisted my point there. The simple fact is that Christianity is about faith, a very personal relationship outside the interactions of mankind. That is where Christianty starts. Your idea about Christianity starting outward is just factually incorrect. If you're talking about how one is exposed to Christianity that is another argument entirely. But you do seem to favor promoting by words vs. by actions, which we disagree on.

But anyways, the point is not about the common person. Its about a pastor in the house of god using the position as representative of his faith to preach his own political views. And your idea having a "duty to correct and resist the state when it goes against God" makes me wonder who you think can stand up and say what is and what is not going against god. Thats such a ridiculously arrogant statement, I can see how we are split in our beliefs. I perfer to take the more humble approach. :shrug

Your statements here indicate little understanding of the corporate aspects of Christianity. We in the Body of Christ are to be one with another, as the Son is one with the Father (John 17:21-22).

As for expressing one's own political views as the head of the Church, while you shouldn't express your own political views, it is your duty as a shepherd in the Body to express the views of the Christian religion on the matter and to make sure the flock is not attacked by the ravenous wolves who wish to use Christians for their own nefarious purposes. Wolves come in every walk of life, and they are always after the sheep.

[pcosmar]

Personally I think you are complicating the role of ministry. I don't see a distinction that needs to be made.

Not complicated, and I didn't make it that way. And what you don't see,,, is what you don't see.
http://bible.cc/ephesians/4-11.htm

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

[nate895]

He has left room only for post-milleniarians and pre-millenarians. He has essentially stated that as I am an amillenarian, I am therefore not a Christian. Not only would I say the exact reverse, but as I pointed out I have numbers on my side.

To be fair, Amillenialism is considered a form of Postmillenialism by some. The only necessary division between Amillenialists and Postmillenialists is that Postmillenialists are optimistic about the future in that eventually God brings the whole earth into the Church and Amillenialists aren't as optimistic. There are some other differences, but not all forms of either Amillenialism and Postmillenialism contain those differences. Theologically speaking, they don't make as big of a contrast as between Premillenialism and the other millennial beliefs. In fact, you'll often see Amillenialists and Postmillenialists teaming up to take on Dispenstational Premillenialism.

[phill4paul]

You will be put in prison, you will be re-educated, you will renounce your beliefs.

And after all that you will die.
Not sure what is on the other side. Not scared. Every individual in the history of this earth has proceeded me.
I'll be damned if I will acquiesce to the afore mentioned scenario.
This life was made for LIVING.

[moostraks]

Because he has so little to say about Christianity.
It ties in with what I wrote earlier. Christianity is an external faith, with objective truths.

I don't know if he goes to church, or if he can explain the fundamentals of the Baptist faith which he apparently espouses.

I pointed out that you and I are in disagreement on the internal/external nature of the faith - but surely you can see that I as an "externalist" would take issue with not knowing much of anything about what he believes.

Considering that Christians are under divine mandate to spread the gospel, I consider him to be a lousy Christian role model. If he's an active Christian outside of his public life, then that would change my mind. He fills his vocation in the most God-pleasing manner of any politician - but that doesn't make him a model Christian. It's equally possible for a Jew or Hindu to do what he does.

And the problem seems to be yours by your own admission. As you are an "externalist" you seem to embrace an ideology that requires Dr.Paul to be a reflection of your views of Christianity. Each is born with their own gift and it is clear that Dr.Paul has a fine way with reaching people of diverse backgrounds to embrace the concept of liberty which is ultimately the expression (any real christian knows) of the first true gift our Father gave us despite our sorry, ungrateful selfish natures. :)

He (Dr.Paul) was called to service in his way not yours and expecting him to be a reflection of your calling is unfair. Give the Creator credit to be able to parent His own children.

As for being a lousy christian role model he is an exemplary one imo. He is humble and gracious. (most of the time, lol!) He has been able to reach across the religious spectrum to be an example of grace and allow people to see christians outside of the tyrannical dictates that are usually embraced. He is championing the very free will our Creator gives us to make decisions which we will suffer or prosper by. Furthermore, by removing the responsibility from federal government regarding social issues it will make the church more effective as opposed to the weekend entertainment venue it has become. So how much more is he furthering the work of the church by pursuing this laissez faire method as opposed to your "externalist" method?

As for your dig at Jews and Hindus a little tolerance goes a long way. Remember Jews and Greeks were both called to service.

The Bible says it best to sum up my ramblings:

I Cor 12:1 Now in regard to spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be unaware.2 You know how, when you were pagans, you were constantly attracted and led away to mute idols.3Therefore, I tell you that nobody speaking by the spirit of God says, "Jesus be accursed." And no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the holy Spirit. 4 There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; 5 there are different forms of service but the same Lord;
6 there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.7 To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit. 8 To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit;9 to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit;10 to another mighty deeds; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another varieties of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues. 11But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes. 12 As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. 14Now the body is not a single part, but many. 15 If a foot should say, "Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.16 Or if an ear should say, "Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20 But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you," nor again the head to the feet, "I do not need you."
22 Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,23 and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,24 whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.26 If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.275 Now you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it. 28Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; 6 second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds?
30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?
31 Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way.

[pcosmar]

He has put up the sermon that went along with this.
http://205.178.152.128/1450989/Persecution-56K.wmv
or.
mms://205.178.152.128/1450989/Persecution-56K.wmv

I am watching it again (for free) with Kaffeine player. You can too.

On this page.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/sermonvideo.php
"Seeds of Christian Persecution Growing in U.S."

[pcosmar]

Today's sermon live now.
http://crossroadbaptist.net/live.html

[Vessol]

There is a reason we are a Republic and not a Theocracy. Rule by religion is rule by tyranny under the guise of moral righteousness.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Thomas Jefferson

The Founders knew this and established us as a Republic.

Chuck Baldwin reminds me more of Sun Myung Moon then any of our Founders.

My dream is to organize a Christian political party including the Protestant denominations, Catholics and all the religious sects. Then, the communist power will be helpless before ours. We are going to do this because the communists are coming to the political scene. Before the pulpit, all the ministers of the established churches must give their sermon on how to smash or absorb communism — but they are not doing that. We are going to do this. Unless we lay the foundation for this, we cannot carry it out. In the Medieval Ages, they had to separate from the cities — statesmanship from the religious field — because people were corrupted at that time. But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world. So, we cannot separate the political field from the religious. Democracy was born because people ruled the world, like the Pope does. Then, we come to the conclusion that God has to rule the world, and God loving people have to rule the world — and that is logical. We have to purge the corrupted politicians, and the sons of God must rule the world. The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most.

* Sun Myung Moon

Keep in mind, this is the man who founded the Washington Post and was arguably Bush's biggest fan.

[pcosmar]

Chuck Baldwin reminds me more of Sun Myung Moon then any of our Founders.


huh,

Well is is obvious from your spew that you didn't listen to anything that was said. Quite likely have never listened to him at all.
You seem to have an adverse reaction to the title "Pastor" and a mind block on anything past that.
How about listening to what the man says and then comment on that?
Hmm.

[Vessol]

I've listened to some of his stuff and read his articles, my comment is a bit over the top. But I would reckon he would not argue against the rhetoric made by Sun Myung Moon.

I have no issues with Pastors at all, a bit of a blanket statement there, no? I do have an issue with someone who thinks that one's religion should determine if they should receive equal rights under the law or not.

[pcosmar]

I've listened to some of his stuff and read his articles, my comment is a bit over the top. But I would reckon he would not argue against the rhetoric made by Sun Myung Moon.

I have no issues with Pastors at all, a bit of a blanket statement there, no? I do have an issue with someone who thinks that one's religion should determine if they should receive equal rights under the law or not.

And that has exactly what to do with anything that Chuck Baldwin Has said here.

That's right. Nothing.
He was discussing issues relevant to Liberty though.


or are you just using this thread for pointless Christian Bashing?

Please keep the discussion relevant to the Army Report that is the topic.

[Vessol]

Stop strawmanning my argument. I am NOT bashing Christians. I'm pointing out Chuck Baldwin's hypocrisy where he'll speak out against Christians being targeted yet he'll support the targeting of other religious groups, that is NOT liberty.

[pcosmar]

Stop strawmanning my argument. I am NOT bashing Christians. I'm pointing out Chuck Baldwin's hypocrisy where he'll speak out against Christians being targeted yet he'll support the targeting of other religious groups, that is NOT liberty.

Quote and link

and still not relevant to this thread.

[pcosmar]

He has put up the sermon that went along with this.
http://205.178.152.128/1450989/Persecution-56K.wmv
or.
mms://205.178.152.128/1450989/Persecution-56K.wmv

I am watching it again (for free) with Kaffeine player. You can too.

On this page.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/sermonvideo.php
"Seeds of Christian Persecution Growing in U.S."

[catdd]

You can find wisdom nearly anywhere if you know what you are looking for, and Chuck has a way of digging it out of the Bible; probably because he's a pretty enlightened individual to begin with.
It's all a matter of interpretation.
Was the raid on Hutaree a form of religious persecution? Starting to look that way.