Hillary: I’ve “felt the presence of the Holy Spirit”…but not Sure Jesu
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, March 10, 2008
- Viewed 227
- (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.
pmp68 on Tue, March 11, 2008
I don’t think Sen. Clinton’s view on salvation is that uncommon among Christians. I think there are quite a few Christians who are faithful, but do have trouble with or feel uncomfortable with the whole notion of there only being one way to the Father. While I do hold to that belief, I also know that God reserves the right to make the final judgment on who “makes it in”. Quite frankly, a lot of people that we Christians say aren’t acceptable or good enough, God is reaching out to them and saying, “Come”. I think we have to trust God more to do the necessary work in people’s heart, regardless of what banner they may be under.
CS on Tue, March 11, 2008
Wendi:
“That would be fine, if it were possible to determine exactly what the “Christian actions” are for every situation.”
Thinking in light of someone being the President of The United States, what are some situations where you couldn’t find some basis in Scripture for the principles that Christians should follow in that role?
This kind of bridges off of that other post of the “12 Most Influential Christians in Hollywood,” where you hadn’t yet identified the, “very few specific 21st century activities which scripture absolutely clear.”
—
CS
Wendi on Tue, March 11, 2008
CS - Are you asking what I personally would look for in a president, or what is on the job description? This is a secular job, but there are some principles of good character which are reflected in our constitution and are shared among nations; highly value basic human dignity, integrity and honesty, seeking the best for the masses, etc. Of course, many politicians have closets full of skeletons (as we all do), so how do we ever really know much about them? We go before the Lord, pray for his direction as we exercise our personal right to vote. But the Lord might not say the same thing to each of us who claim Christ.
Because this is a democracy, an atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, or Mormon can run for president and any could be fully qualified for this job. In fact, a good reflection of American DNA would be legacy of fine presidents of very different faith traditions and ethnicities. Some would embrace biblical values, because there are many biblical values shared by different faiths. Romney embraces many of the values of scripture, but we would agree that his theology is off. That wouldn’t make him a poor president.
As for my comment about “very few 21st century activities about which scripture is absolutely clear,” on the thread about the 12 most influential Christians in Hollywood, here is what I meant.
The bible doesn’t say anything about whether we should listen to music on the radio, watch television, go to movies, eat in restaurants, drive SUV’s, send our kids to public school, use computers, have sound systems in our churches, video screens, a stage full of instruments, on and on . . .
I have some friends who feel good adherence to biblical principles prevents them from owning a television or ever going to movies. They believe our institutional churches have violated what Jesus intended when He established the church which we see birthed in the book of Acts. They are part of a small home church. We do not have these same convictions. We do not condemn nor criticize one another. We read the same bible and consider ourselves brothers and sisters in Christ. This is Christian liberty.
Wendi
Daniel D. Farmer on Tue, March 11, 2008
We have to be careful when we talk about “who’s in and who’s out.”
I have no problem whatsoever in affirming Scripture’s teaching that the baptized are IN the Church, the New Israel, by God’s grace and by faith, and that the non-baptized are OUT (with the additional note that bad enough sin gets you OUT even if you’ve been IN). No problem at all.
The ‘in and out’ language that I think is much more problematic (as well as much less grounded in the NT) is proclamation of X is going to heaven or Y is going to hell. First of all, Christianity’s not about heaven and hell. Secondly, if we interpret this generously as referring to God’s inclusion or exclusion of individuals from the new heavens and the new Earth at the final judgment, then I think Scripture is unequivocally clear: we are judged by our works. God is 100% impartial. This is why epistemic humility is so crucial in talking about such matters.
More to come, I’m sure.
Peace,
-Daniel-
Phil DiLernia on Wed, March 12, 2008
With all due respect Wendi the Kings over Israel were not appointed by God (with noted exceptions when the nation actually seemed to be doing better) but by the people instead. In fact, it seems to me that the more “secular” their nation had become to further from God they walked. The results were disasterous.
God always comments on the moral fiber of nations - even those that don’t claim Him as their own. I guess the problem that we’re having as a nation (in my view) is that while once we claimed God/Jesus to be our foundation of our new nation that is obviously no longer the case ... we are officially secuarlized now. But when God speaks to us face to face - to those who know what the truth is and are going to held accountable to what we’ve done with that truth - don’t you believe He will be harder on those that claim faith in Jesus and yet believe their nations can be led equally well by those who believe and trust in false Gods versus those who believe and trust in the one true God?
Our willlingnness to love ALL PEOPLE no matter their status as “enemy” or “friend” makes great sense since Jesus gave us that example AND instruction. However, our willingness to find no earthly difference in the leadership potential between those who pray to the one true God and those that pray to fake Gods, or don’t believe in any God, makes no sense to me whatsoever.
The problem that many people have with some candidates isn’t their dissassociation with Christ but rather their public association with Jesus while at the same time promoting Abortion, Homosexuality, Socialism, Impure Heterosexual Sexuality, and yes even their “skeletons.” I believe that while most Christians would be (and are) forgiving of past skeletons I can’t see us promoting any candidate (from either party) who has current skeletons! There comes a point when Christ’s followers must promote repentance from lives that are moving away from God’s Kingdom and not towards it.
Last, your comment on what a good American heritage would be (a nation of many leaders from different religous backgrounds) is a major problem. If God’s major concern is stomachs ad bank accounts you may be right ... however if God’s biggest concern is the promotion of His Gospel (which all ALL ABOUT WHO’s IN AND WHO’s OUT) then your liberality on what makes a good leader is not based on God’s truths.
I believe that as long as we are fractured in the “church” vis-a-vis our views on leadership and what constitutes good leadership then Satan has won some serious battles (even if we all agree that he will lose the war) and that’s a shame because while I certainly believe in Christian liberty (whether you worship in a home church, mega church or anywhere in between or whether you listen to organ music or electric guitars or whether you dress in suits and dresses vs. dungarees, etc etc.) I’m saddened that we are fractured in the areas where there is no liberty ... people who claim to follow Christ CANNOT promote abortion, CANNOT promote Homosexuality, CANNOT promote underage and pre-marital Sexuality, CANNOT behind the scenes act out of selfish power interests or financial interests, CANNOT lie in order to govern, CANNOT deceive those they govern to promote their own agenda that they were not voted in to promote, CANNOT promote the cause of the rich at the expense of the poor, CANNOT promote abuse of achohol or drugs, CANNOT promote Hollywood values that have all but taken over the airwaves, CANNOT promote any policy that will endanger families, and CANNOT promote any values that will put Allah, Buddah, or any other false God on equal plane of the one true God ... manifested in His Son Jesus.
In these areas there is no liberality ... none whatsoever (other than being liberal to love them which is a far cry from promoting their ability to lead our Nation.)
There is a reason for all the ills of our country and world and it is NOT the followers of Allah or any other god ... it is that God’s people have folded the tents and have hidden their light under the proverbial bowl.
Daniel D. Farmer on Wed, March 12, 2008
I agree with Phil 99%. The sole exception I would make is that ‘our’ nation is the Church, not the U.S. of A. We are the New Israel, we have ‘no King but God’ (cf. I Sam. 8), we are a light on a hill.
Governments will do what governments will do, and we’re certainly able to give them a piece of our advice. But no government is legitimate which does not recognize Christ. Since none of them recognize Christ, no government is legitimate.
So let’s quit fussing, vote what we think is best for the CHURCH (not the darn nation) and for God’s glory.
My question to y’all is this: do you really think it’s a good idea to have the president of the world’s last remaining superpower be a self-proclaimed Christian? Do we really want to make the world feel like it’s ruled by a Christian? Might this not be BAD for the Church?
I say we take national self-interest into account when we vote: what will be best for the country I have pledged my allegiance to? What will be best for the reputation of God and of God’s Church?
Just some thoughts…
-Daniel-
Leonard on Wed, March 12, 2008
Daniel, are you talking about the ten lost tribes church is Israel thing of something else?
Phil DiLernia on Wed, March 12, 2008
Thanks Daniel ... I’ll take 99% and we’d probably agree totally once nuances were taken into account!
Peter Hamm on Wed, March 12, 2008
Phil,
Thanks for your comments. I didn’t mean to imply I would vote for Hilary, and yes, I am troubled by those two strong issues that many Christian leaders think are the only ones we should vote based on.
However, I think we need to weigh more than two issues. I care deeply about abortion, I’m not sure I care nearly as much about whether a secular institution (the government) recognizes “gay marriage”. I recognize the biblical model of marriage, but don’t expect people who don’t follow Jesus to be made to share my view.
But the plight of the world’s extreme poor is a big issue, too. It might, in the wake of the AIDS crisis in places like Africa, become as big a “killer” as abortion, and yet I don’t think it’s even come up yet in this discussion here as many of us have brought up issues related to the campaign.
Bottom line: I am finding it harder to choose a candidate than it has ever been for me. I believe or disbelieve all the candidates claim to faith equally, too. If someone says they follow Christ, I believe them unless I know them and it’s proven otherwise. I’d rather give them the benefit of the doubt.
Leonard on Wed, March 12, 2008
Peter,
I think that the extreme poverty around the world is a huge issue, African delegates have said this president has done more than any other president has ever done. For both poverty and HIV.
Agreed we need more than two issues but I think we have to remember that these two issues have in my lifetime (at least) gone from illegal activities to legal activities. Both without a vote. (thank you Supreme Court) These two issues are not separate from poverty, the health of the family and HIV in this country or the world. My value of others should be learned and strengthened in the family.
The necessity of caring for the poor is huge but caring for the poor is not only about giving them food to eat. It is about attacking the very causes of poverty. The number one reason we have poverty in this country is the distress of the family.
That said no candidate has my total values package. I am weird in that I have 4 issues I primarily look at as a litmus test. I find that when a candidate matches these four issues I am aligned in many more as well. Sort of a simple test, but still it has worked for me. None of the issues has to do with someones Christology.
Daniel on Wed, March 12, 2008
Leonard, I have no idea what the ‘ten lost tribes’ thing is. What I’m doing is suggesting that we take seriously the fact that Jesus fulfilled the covenantal requirements of Israel, and reconstituted the people of God around himself. This is why Paul calls the Church the “Israel of God”. The Church is thus God’s people, God’s holy nation, transcending all ethnic and geographical boundaries, delimited by baptism, and pledging allegiance to Christ alone.
Fanciful hypotheses about the ‘lost ten tribes’ of Israel are not particularly my cup of tea.
Does that help?
Wendi on Wed, March 12, 2008
Phil –
I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree here, but I’ll elaborate just a bit more on my perspective.
I believe most people understand the period of the kings as the time when Israel chose leaders after the world rather than God’s appointed leader, ultimately God as their leader (1 Sa 8:7, 10:19). The theocratic relationship between the people of Israel and Yahweh started with the Abrahamic covenant, affirmed through the Sinai covenant and the Law, and again through David. Not America, nor any nation, can be rightly understood as analogous with OT Israel. We have no such relationship with Yahweh.
Jesus engages us in a new covenant – but it is with His church, not with a nation. Within a few years of Christianity’s inception, the people attempted to mix the kingdom of God (which Jesus ushered in through the new covenant) with the kingdom of the world . . . with disastrous results (the imperial church begun by Constantine, leading to the crusades and on and on). I believe that is exactly what American Christians are doing in their attempts to make America into a people who must (or should) follow God. Jesus ended the period of covenant with any nation, and entered into a new covenant with His church. Only WE (not America or any nation) are accountable to God and our covenant with God through Christ’s blood.
And you suggest that we aren’t the godly nation we once were. I believe that this is a huge fallacy. Consider the way our “Christian” forefathers settled this new land by committing genocide on the native Americans and build their farms and business and even government infrastructure on the backs of black Africans who they ripped from their families (so much for family values), half of whom died on the journey to the wonderful shores of America.
You also suggest that a U.S. president can only be a qualified leader if he/she worships our God. Problem is that in the constitution our fathers instituted, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists are all welcomed into the White House. Are you suggesting a new “Christian only” constitution for the good ole USA?
I agree with you that God’s biggest concern is the furtherance of the Gospel (redemption of His fallen creation). But not only does He in NO WAY intend to do that through any government, I believe our attempts to further the gospel by electing Christian leaders deeply saddens Him. This method of gospel spreading cheapens the gospel of grace and causes us to abdicate our genuine call to make disciples. I don’t believe I shine my light by voting “Christian.” I believe that I shine it when I do what Jesus said would shine light; feed the poor, care for the disenfranchised, visit those in prison, engage with the sinners and disciple the new believers.
Enough of my opinions on this post. Thanks for the discussion all.
Wendi
Katrina on Wed, March 12, 2008
Wendi,
You wrote: “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.” “
Sorry but that is Biblically incorrect. The only way to Jesus is through the Father drawing them to Jesus. (John 6:44) The Bible clearly teaches that it is the Law of God that brings us to Christ where we are justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24) God the Father raises our dead spirits and draws us to Christ by the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (1 Cor 1:21) That message uses the Law to bring about the knowledge of sin so that sinners run to Christ for salvation.
Wendi on Wed, March 12, 2008
Katrina –
I don’t think that the person I quoted is doubting the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing people to the Father. But he was stating that God is not limited to the written word or to any particular method in how He reveals Himself to His creation. Through most of history the common person had no access to the written word. For the first 400 years of the church, scripture was not canonized. While Jewish Christians would have had an understanding of the law, most Gentile converts were clueless about the law, so were convinced of their need for the Savior in other ways. Today there are still many people in the world who come to Jesus without any access to scripture. I know of a Muslim Christian who was mysteriously led to Jesus while studying the Qur’an, having never opened a bible or talked at length with a Christian. I know of many missionary stories where language barriers prevented any communication and no scripture was available, so God revealed Himself (yes, even in 2008) through great and amazing miracles.
Sorry, but I think it is biblically incorrect to speak for God in stating how He is going to go about revealing Himself to every single human being throughout history.
Wendi
Phil DiLernia on Thu, March 13, 2008
Hi Wendi:
Believe it or not I do agree with some of what you said in your response to me. But I do believe it’s false to state that the public recongition of God is no different today than it was earlier in our history. Did we make some huge errors? Certainly. Were we the perfect “Christian” nation? Obviously not. But to pick out our faults without mentioning the good things is disingenuous and falls into our current “America is the Devil” mentality.
While I do not believe that “only” a Christian could lead our country (I believe that mischaracterizes my view) ... I do believe this:
1- we should not be led by those non-Christians who disrespect life, the poor, the unborn, our national sovreignty, our health, our education, our jobs, our markets, or any racial section of society; etc. etc.
2- we most definitely should not be led by any self-professing Christian whose views and policies will be the same as the non-believer’s stated in #1. I would say that this is even worse than having the non-believing leader who promotes such things.
You seem to believe that since the Church is not the same as Israel (granted to a degree) that governments and Christianity should almost ignore each other. When Isaiah predicted our Savior’s coming in Is 9:6 what was the very first thing that we would note about Him? “The government will be on His shoulders!”
Your ideas about government seem to be derived from an Israel/Church seperation which I believe is not an accurate read of scripture. Are they the exact same? Of course not. Are they irrelated? No ... they are very closely related in that each has been chosen by God to be the instruments of spreading His image. I would not throw out the entirety of OT teaching about governments as I developed my views of governments in 2008.
How can we be spreading His image if we support candidates whose values (not religion) are diametrically opposed to Jesus’? (and some shamelessly claiming Jesus at the same time.)
Your statements about caring for the poor etc. seem a bit self-righteous as if anyone who believes that the values of our government may not be caring for the poor. Jesus would say “Continue to care for the poor but don’t forget that governments matter.” It’s not “either or” but “both and.”
Last, no one suggested that Christians want to spread the Gospel through government (in fact I stated that the Gospel was more important than our stomachs, etc.) and should be careful of your conclusions. However, how can you believe that you, Wendi, can spread the Gospel equally effective as God sends you out into the world and you enlighten others to your political view that the Gospel is somehow disconnected to your personal vote? To put it simply, who you vote for demonstrates what you value the most. That is undeniable.
What I said earlier and will repeat, Christians need to demonstrate that there are more important things to them than their own stomach; such as truth, love, liberty, truth, love, liberty, truth ...
Phil
Page 3 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Post a Comment