Why must it always come back to ‘going to heaven when you die’? Why do we make such a big fuss about a temporary holding tank? Why does the story of the calling of a people of God enjoined with the task of showing God’s individual and social salvation off to the world never get any mention?

With that out of the way, Clinton sounds boringly orthodox. Though of course her politics might seem problematic to many.

My two cents.
-Daniel-

[who are we to read God’s mind about such a weighty decision as that] We’re not reading God’s mind, we’re reading what He has given us in the scriptures.  And, what the Savior says is what the Savior says: “No one comes to the father but by me.”

Nuff said.

Preach it, Rob, preach it! All Hillary is doing is throwing out her politically correct answer to this question. If she says, “Jesus is the only way to salvation,” then she could offend those who don’t agree with her and lose their vote.

It’s about time those who are running for public office start standing up for the truth and show some character and integrity. Even if their stance might cost them votes. One day we will all stand before God and be held accountable. That should be a concern for our politicians and not whether they get all the votes they can.

Either the Word of God is truth or it is a lie. We can’t have two contradictory ways for man to be saved. Either Jesus is the only way to salvation or there is no salvation found in Him. As for me and my house, we will follow the New Testament teachings and stand on the truth that “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

I’m shocked that you guys didn’t point out that Hillary believes in Jesus’ resurrection! 

What I don’t understand is this; how did she come to know of the resurrection of Jesus?  Through the Bible.

Then why isn’t that same Bible good for gaining knowledge about how people move from children of darkness to children of light?  Seems hypocrytical, not well thought out, and quite frankly ... nonsensical.

However, about Jesus and salvation we must be a bit humble.  FOR CERTAIN anyone who rejects Christ CANNOT BE SAVED.  However for those who have not heard His name and have yet responded to the amount of revelation they have received (aborted babies and infants who die before being able to process truth come to mind) cannot we as followers of Christ have some humility and claim that Christ’s sacrfice IS IN FACT BIG ENOUGH to pay for their sins and we trust God to know what is right in those circumstances?  Can we then claim, as scripture says, that Jesus’ payment was IN FACT for the sins of the whole world - EVERYONE’S - and that the people we are speaking with do not have the excuse or even opportunity of the aborted baby, man in the jungle, etc.

This way we can stop the excuses and digging like the reporter who interviewed Hillary.  Personally I would have asked him what he thought about Jesus (after admitting the possibility that God’s grace can cover those who have never heard but have not rejected the Spirit by following idols.)

God’s peace.

Phil

Peter:

“In all seriousness. following Jesus is not an intellectual exercise in knowing and doing all the right things and rejecting and not doing all the wrong things. It is a journey in faith where we follow Jesus. If we are born again and filled with His Spirit, we can be wrong about a great many things and still be “saved”. And, presumably, the Holy Spirit WILL in that case lead us into all truth (note that doesn’t necessarily imply that we know all truth instantly...)”

Absolutely true.  Yet, we have to balance this statement with correct understanding of Jesus.

For example, (to plagiarize slightly from Todd Friel) if I believed that Jesus was incarnate in the form of a small taco-loving dog, and that if by hopping around 20 times while shouting, “Oprah!” I would go to Heaven, I would be wrong.

More practically, the Mormons claim to know and love Jesus Christ, but their understanding of him is contrary from the Jesus Christ of the Bible.  They believe such things as Him being a created being, the spirit-brother of Lucifer, having sex with no less than three wives, and that He lives on a planet near the star called, “Kolob.” This is a damnable heresy.

We can be wrong about a great many things, from tongues to tithing, but if we are wrong in our understanding of Jesus Christ, nothing else matters.

--
CS

There is one point that is missed in this interview, and the following discussions: Hillary and some of the other Democrats are those who hired “evangelical” coaches to help them learn how to speak to evangelicals.  I seriously doubt that the positions she takes on abortion, homosexual marriage, and “it takes a village” to raise a child, which shreds parental rights, reflect Biblical positions on these topics. 

Hillary’s response that she believes that the Bible is “real” is a fairly common way many liberals, and non-christians use to actually attack the Bible.  I attended a very liberal seminary for one year, and I heard phrases like that for that year.  Of course they believe the Bible is real, but they also believe that it’s wrong, inaccurate, misinformed, and written by uneducated, uninformed men.  What they don’t believe is that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.  If they believed that, then their other positions would be so contrary to Scriptural teaching. 

Jesus taught that the way to fellowship with God is a narrow path, and not a wide path.  Jesus also declared that He was the only way to fellowship with the Father.  So, Jesus was either uninformed and absolutely crazy, or we had better take His declaration to be eternally accurate; there are no other options.  Yet, if we believe the Bible is real, then we can’t pick and chose by our own standards of what we think is real.  The “the Bible is real” crowd set themselves up as the discerners of what is truth and accurate, as well as what is “truth”.

I have a good friend who was a Congressman from our district through the Clinton years, and the filth they promoted is beyond description.  The Congressman said he hated going to the White House, because you never knew what you would run into when you entered a room.  The sexual immorality was unbelieveable-he walked in on men with men, women with women, and regular heterosexual encounters, all in the open in the rooms in the Clinton White House.  Keep in mind that Hillary ran the White House, so she gave approval for all of that activity.  Knowing this attitude in the White House re. sex, it is easy to see that no one in the White House was surprised by the Monica Lewinski affair.

In deed low level theology. Difficult questions
simple answers. What about all those people
committing horendous brutalities killing innocent people before they have a chance to become believers. Will they go scot free? Surely in a just judgement the killers would carry some responsibility for killing unbelievers.

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, 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.

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.

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

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