Hillary: I’ve “felt the presence of the Holy Spirit”…but not Sure Jesu
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, March 10, 2008
- Viewed 228
- (100) comments so far
Hillary said, “I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth.”
Luo then asked, “Can I ask you theologically, do you believe that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, that it actually historically did happen?”
Clinton replied, “Yes, I do.”
Luo: And, do you believe on the salvation issue – and this is controversial too – that belief in Christ is needed for going to heaven?
Clinton: That one I’m a little more open to. I think that it is, as we understand our relationship to God as Christians, it is how we see our way forward, and it is the way. But, ever since I was a little girl, I’ve asked every Sunday school teacher I’ve ever had, I asked every theologian I’ve ever talked with, whether that meant that there was no salvation, there was no heaven for people who did not accept Christ. And, you’re well aware that there are a lot of answers to that. There are people who are totally rooted in the fact that, no, that’s why there are missionaries, that’s why you have to try to convert. And, then there are a lot of other people who are deeply faithful and deeply Christ-centered who say, that’s how we understand it and who are we to read God’s mind about such a weighty decision as that.
Luo: And your attitude toward the Bible about how literally people should take it. ...
Clinton: I think the whole Bible is real. The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship, but we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understandings of the time into the Bible might be actually missing the larger point that we’re supposed to take from the Bible.
Hillary on prayer: “I’ve always responded that I was fortunate enough to be raised to understand the power and purpose of prayer...But had I not been, probably one week in the White House would have turned me into one… It’s wonderful to know that the sustaining power of prayer is there for so many of us.”
Clinton said in the November speech one of her favorite passages of the Bible is the book of James’ admonition that “faith without works is dead.”
“But I have concluded that works without faith is just too hard,” she said. “It cannot be sustained over one’s life or the generations. And it’s important for us to recognize how, here in what you are doing, faith and works comes together.”
More here at WorldNetDaily.com...
OK… your thoughts?
Sen. Hillary Clinton has "felt the presence of the Holy Spirit" in her life and believes in the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, but she is ambivalent about the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation, according to segments of a New York Times interview that either went unused or received little attention at the time of publishing. Christian Broadcasting Network reporter David Brody unearthed the quotes, which came from New York Times reporter Michael Luo's interview with the senator in July....
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Jim on Mon, March 10, 2008
Peter, these accounts were related to me from the Congressman who saw these activities in the Clinton White House. In addition, it was common knowledge among the Washingtonians that these things were going in the W.H. Besides, if we eliminate the second hand words of people, then we had stop reading the Scriptures; many of these accounts are also first hand accounts, and certainly Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts, since they contain many second and third hand accounts.
Besides, we had some local politicians who would show up at Church during election season carrying the largest Bibles you have ever seen carried. Actually they were table top Bibles and, then after the election, they were not seen until the next election season.
Peter Hamm on Mon, March 10, 2008
There’s a big difference between the Gospels and the stories you are relaying, Jim. I hope you can see that.
Politicians courting church people is nothing new, either.
Jim on Mon, March 10, 2008
Peter, I’m certainly aware that there is a difference with the Gospels and with Luke’s writings, and an account told by another individual. Yet, we are all faced with the same situation as the early Church Fathers when we come to placing trust in certain first hand accounts, which today we call Scripture-do you trust the integrity of the one sharing their experience? The Congressman to whom I’m referring is a devout Christian, and I don’t use this term lightly. When he told me these things, he was cofirming much of what has been written about by other observers of the Clintons by other observers-the former White House FBI agent, sorry, but I don’t remember his name.
If we fall for Hillary’s and Bill’s Christianity, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for their push to make legal those things that are immoral, and they will continue to push to make criminal those things that are right and moral. Anyone who hasn’t settled the Deity of Christ, and the only oneness of Christ being the propitiation for sin, hardly has “low theology”. What ever it is called, it’s definitely a lot lower than “low”.
I am always amazed at how open and accepting of everyone and what they believe. Is there any sense of discernment that screams out-that’s wrong, or that’s heresy? We wouldn’t let Hillary teach a S.S. Class with her “low theology”, but many will vote to allow her to “run” and set the course of our nation. I am dumbfounded by this lack of consistent standard. When Bill Clinton got into office, one of his first decisions was the “don’t ask” policy in the military. His first official act was to legalize and accept homosexuals into the military service. He said he would do it, and he did it. Hillary is for homosexual marriage, special rights for homosexuals, and placing the U.S. under the U.N. “rights of children’s act”, which literally makes it a crime to make any of your children to go church against their wills, and this is at any age, and it also makes a parent a non-entitiy in the life of a child. And these are just a few of her positions. She may regard the Bible as real-it’s a book, it can be carried, and yes it can be read. But if I don’t believe its contents, then it’s not any better or inspirational than any other book on a bookshelf.
Peter Hamm on Mon, March 10, 2008
Jim,
As much as I disagree perhaps with the Clintons’ theologies, it is not the basis on which I am judging a person who wants to be president of our country, a wholly and completely secular job.
And her theology is not the measuring stick I am using to decide whether or not I would vote for her. I am not looking to her for right or wrong doctrinal statements. I would be, if I were voting for her, hoping that she would be a good leader for our nation and surround herself with good advisors.
The problem with making theology a litmus test for a presidential candidate is that our country is not a theocracy.
I continue to believe that it is possible for someone to be a real bona-fide believer and still be “wrong” on several points, even important points, of theology. And I WILL NOT tell someone who says they follow Christ that they don’t based on my disagreements with them on those issues.
Joe Louthan on Mon, March 10, 2008
I wasn’t about to judge her. Not in the least bit.
My concern is that if she truly goes to church, who are the people who minister in their lives who would have Senator Clinton confused about the non-issue of salvation of only through Jesus Christ and that none shall go to the Father but by His Son?
This is why we pray.
Stewart on Mon, March 10, 2008
Is it possible that “believing in Christ” and “Jesus is the way the truth and the life” are not exactly the same thing?
I was once “saved” from being mugged by someone I never knew. He intervened without my knowledge. I learned about it two days later.
CS Lewis makes the argument in Mere Christianity that God can save people through Jesus who never knew Jesus.
Thinking about it this way helps solve the problem of the people who die as children, the people who die in places where they may never have heard about Jesus and the people who live in places where the message and love of Jesus has been so distorted as to be unrecognizable. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif That pretty much covers most churches too!
Just a thought.
Joe Roitz on Mon, March 10, 2008
There are plenty of Christians who would not condemn all non-Christians to hell. Hillary Clinton, like George Bush, is a Methodist, as am I. Here’s a statement on universal salvation.
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=16&mid=9077
Phil DiLernia on Mon, March 10, 2008
That statement specifically states that they do not promote Universal Salvation (nor do they promote that Universal Salvation is false?)
As I said earlier, when speaking with others I cut thru the clouds very quickly by affirming God’s potential grace on those who have not heard .... however the people I speak have heard (even if only from me) and therefore are going to be judged by what they believe (or do not believe) about Jesus.
Hillary is under no such umbrella that she hasn’t heard.
Rejecting Jesus Christ is a sure fire path to eternal seperation from God. I laugh as we concern ourselves about some theroretical person who hasn’t heard or had the opportunity all the while forgetting that anyone we speak with will be held accountable (as we will be held accountable as to HOW and WHY we speak to them.)
Jesus is God in the flesh (that is a common theme in the NT which is affirmed in the OT) therefore rejecting the truth of Jesus is in fact rejecting God.
Wendi on Mon, March 10, 2008
I agree with Daniel. Arrrgh. Why must we make Christianity into “who’s getting in and who’s not?” The kingdom of God is already and not yet. Can’t we focus on the already, since that is where we’ve been strategically and intentionally placed by our creator?
A great quote I heard a while back from a very solidly orthodox seminary president was this: “Jesus is the only way to God, but there are many ways to Jesus.” Can we take off our 21st century, western, conservative evangelical lenses for just a few minutes?
And another arrrrgh. Who do we have to keep boiling everyone’s standing as a Christ follower on where they stand on two political issues, neither of which Jesus ever mentioned.
Thank you Leonard, for being honest about wanting to find fault to justify your dislike for her. I can find plenty of things that make me not want to vote for her, but her theology isn’t one of them.
Peter is right, she is running for a secular job, and we live in a secular country. What on earth difference does it make if she is a universalist? Having orthodox Christian theology and the “Christian” viewpoint on every issue (as if there was such a viewpoint), is not in the job description.
Wendi
Phil DiLernia on Tue, March 11, 2008
Hi Wendy:
I believe the reason why so many focus on “who’s in” and “who’s out” when referring to God’s Kingdom is because Jesus, Paul, and John focused on whether someone was “in” or “out” when referring to His Kingdom.
And I believe the reason why so many find the theology of our President (and their other leaders) important is because the history of humanity has been consistent ... how the leaders go is ho their people go. Leadership is of utmost importance. The OT is full of examples of how God’s people were led by ungodly leaders who should have known better ... and the nation of Israel was not a theocracy either. God not only spoke harshly (and acted as such) against His people and their poor leadership but He also spoke harsh against those nations that were not His own.
In other words, no matter the country, God will hold the people accountable and He tells us that ungodly leadership will lead to disasterous results.
That’s my take.
God’s peace,
Phil
CS on Tue, March 11, 2008
Wendi:
“Peter is right, she is running for a secular job, and we live in a secular country. “
In a larger sense, when someone puts on the title of being a Christian in the role of being a world leader, the whole playing field changes.
If a non-Christian, secular ruler decides that a group of people should be killed, for instance, I would expect that person to make decisions that would reflect their unsaved, fallen minds and beliefs, which may be in conflict with God’s Law. That is why, looking back at history, I can see why Mao, Stalin, and Hohxa all behaved the ways they did.
However, if a Christian ruler decides that a group of people should be killed, for instance, I would expect that person to make decisions in light of Scripture, that reflect what God would want done in that situation. And if there is conflict between what the Bible says and the actions of that person, then there is something that requires scrutiny from citizens and repentance from the leader.
So, if Hillary is running in this race and taking on the mantle of being a Christian, her actions, beliefs, and stances should reflect those premises.
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Tue, March 11, 2008
[So, if Hillary is running in this race and taking on the mantle of being a Christian, her actions, beliefs, and stances should reflect those premises.]
However, too many Christians are judging candidates solely, as Wendi points out, on two issues that Christ never mentions. I’m not saying that abortion isn’t an important issue, on the contrary.
Leonard Lee on Tue, March 11, 2008
Peter, I don’t think it is fair to say these are two issues Jesus never mentions. Kind of like saying Jesus never mentions Joblessness, HIV in Africa, environmental stewardship, the war in Iraq, domestic violence, pornography, education opportunities, national trade agreements, immigration, and a host of other issues.
He does however indicate that marriage is for a man and a wife. This seemed important enough to for him to make clear. He also seems to indicate the importance of children coming to him. It is just a bad argument.
Wendi,
The article and those responding IMO did not make it about who is in and out (Daniel did that cause that is his hot button) but rather can someone enter into any kind of eternal relationship with God apart from Christ. That is different.
If dying without Christ is not a big deal then lets not evangelize anymore. But if as Paul says that apart from Christ people are cut off from the presence of god forever,( assuming that is bad) then the faith in Christ and the is Jesus the only way question matters to everyone.
If spending eternity with Christ (assuming that is good) is something offered to us by God through faith in Jesus Christ, then we should never cease to say that. “In this world we will have trouble, but be of good cheer, I have overcome this world… In my fathers house… I will go prepare a place and then I will come back and get you and take you to where I am…”
Phil DiLernia on Tue, March 11, 2008
Peter:
I always appreciate your input here but must disagree with your nuancing here. Everyone understands that politics is more than a two-pony trick.
HOWEVER, the fact that so many Christians care more about how politicians stand on economics, free-trade, foreign relations, etc. over protecting unborn life is part of the reason we’re in this mess.
God spoke to us about these matters MANY times throughout scripture (both OT and NT) and He consistently and unremittingly tells us to worry about things of God before our stomachs, images, clothes, and even personal, family, and national saftey.
And even if you disagree with what I just said; as a Christian how can you trust the healthcare judgement, for example, of somebody who believes in aborting babies?
How can you trust the military, education, and marriage views of someone who promotes homosexuality?
I just don’t get it and I KNOW that you’re one of the smartest guys on here. You cannot be liked by everyone you speak with in this world IF you’re promoting the Gospel of Jesus.
Wendi on Tue, March 11, 2008
Leonard,
You make a good point, the list of things Jesus didn’t specifically mention goes on and on. Which is exactly why we shouldn’t try to make anything on the list a litmus test for ones Christianity. The point is that for so many American Christians these are the only issues. And worse, many question whether someone can be a Christian and have a wrong perspective, or have a right (biblical) perspective but a different take on the right way to address it. For example, I am opposed to abortion and gay marriage, but I don’t support overturning R v. W or a marriage amendment. I don’t support these because I feel that attempting to legislate the moral behavior of people who aren’t Christ followers does more to drive them away from Jesus than draw people to Him, where they will find the real transforming power which changes behavior. I might vote for a pro-life candidate, but when looking at where he/she stands in relation to my views on the sanctity of life, I will also consider what he/she believes America should do about the genocide in Darfur and the Aids crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, and even the death penalty in the US. I don’t appreciate having my Christianity questioned for considering an anti-death-penalty candidate who is pro-choice over a pro-choice candidate who supports the death penalty.
Also, I the title of the article asks us to consider “who’s in” and “who’s out.” Jesus calls us to make disciples, Christ followers. Disciple making is what evangelism should be about (and I know you agree with that). God will decide who gets into heaven. When we get all preoccupied with what will happen after we die, it diminishes the beauty of the gospel and understandably ruffles the feathers of people who don’t understand. Heaven and hell are true, but the existence of these represents one small element of the gospel.
CS – you said [So, if Hillary is running in this race and taking on the mantle of being a Christian, her actions, beliefs, and stances should reflect those premises.] That would be fine, if it were possible to determine exactly what the “Christian actions” are for every situation.
Phil – I totally agree with you that the leader influences the direction of the followers. But I disagree that one must be a Christian to be a leader of good character, worthy of following. And I’m not sure how you see the nation of Israel as anything other than a theocracy. Their leaders were appointed by God, who demanded to be their ultimate leader. Jesus ushered in the kingdom of God, intending it to be completely separate from the kingdom of the world (any kingdom, even the kingdom of Israel – though I know I might push some theological buttons w/ that statement). By trying to impose Christian values into our laws, or fighting to get all Christian political leaders, we are acting just like the disciples right before Pentecost when they asked Him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” To which Jesus responded (my paraphrase) “don’t worry about that, you just focus on making other disciples who will live their lives following me.”
And I don’t find any support in scripture for the idea that God will hold America accountable the same way He held Israel accountable. He will hold His people accountable, our churches and faith communities, but not American citizens. If America doesn’t reflect Jesus (which it doesn’t), it’s not because we haven’t passed enough Christian laws, it’s because haven’t been a very good influence to our neighbors, family and friends (and my words sting me very bad).
Wendi
Page 2 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Post a Comment