Jimmy Carter: Saved by the Blood of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Huk-N-Duck
  • Start date Start date
Yes you misread me, 100%. I’m not judging the salvation of Teresa or Jimmy. I merely was pointing out that CNN would obviously take the left-leaning political and theological hot-take in favor of Carter at the expense of us mean ol’ fundies and white nationalist nazi wannabes. On the other hand I will judge their Biblical fidelity to what I own as evangelical theology.

And secondly I was pointing out that it is Carter who is out of step with historic evangelicalism.

Thirdly I was pointing to the obvious hypocrisy of a media outlet who could not give 2 rat’s behinds about orthodox Christian theology at all but will exploit that issue when it serves their greater liberal good.
My apologies if I misunderstood.

On a different note, you clearly pointed out the differences of some of my opinions versus those my pastor and church would hold, so my question is this: Would you advise a Christian with liberal interpretations of Scripture to attend a likeminded/liberal church, or would you advise such a person to attend a conservative, traditional church?
 
My apologies if I misunderstood.

On a different note, you clearly pointed out the differences of some of my opinions versus those my pastor and church would hold, so my question is this: Would you advise a Christian with liberal interpretations of Scripture to attend a likeminded/liberal church, or would you advise such a person to attend a conservative, traditional church?

That’s a really good and interesting question, one I had thought about recently. As a preacher/leader who is persuaded that I have my theological priorities aligned properly I would advise folks in situations like you’ve described (which I imagine is far more common than I’d like) to stay true to the Scriptures according to their understanding/conscience, and of course I’d try to persuade them via logic/philosophy/Scripture that the conservative paradigm makes the most sense of reality and truth.

In that vein I’d urge them to examine their motives for why they believe and practice exactly what they believe and practice. It’s my fairly dogmatic opinion that most people at evangelical churches aren’t there as a first priority due to theological depth and soundness (though they usually are there for the most basic foundational purpose of worship and hearing a rudimentary form of the gospel), but rather because of cultural and sociological factors. In regard to that impression, where they have beliefs that are at odds with the clearly aligned positions of the church, leaders, and covenant I would ask them to examine why they aren’t persuaded to the position of those who they subject themselves to for oversight and to some extent (if I thought they could handle the advice) challenge them to “not just play church”.

I realize that secondary issues will often cause a difference of opinion that should not serve to divide members, and I have an example of that in my own church experience. My (former, beloved and respected) pastor came from the “no pants on women” crowd and subscribed to it. I entertained the same notion early in my growing years of fundamentalism but ultimately turned from it because of what I perceived to be hermeneutical flaws in arriving at that conclusion and Biblical application. My pastor never stopped any expansion of the ministries available to my participation despite my privately known verbal opposition to a view he strongly held to be Biblically true. In some churches such minutia would have been viewed as cause for suppression of growth within ministry leadership and participation and if that had been the case with my situation I would have evaluated if that philosophical difference was enough to justify looking for a different pasture to graze in.

By the way, that former pastor eventually changed his belief structure regarding pants on women.
 
As Commander in Chief, he was charged with upholding the law of the land despite not agreeing with it.
The "law of the land" can be changed and often is. He opposed and impeded that lawful and peaceful process to protect innocent life.
 
Tha article talks about his brand of Christianity, the one that is not racist. He refused the Southern White Citizen's Council pressure to join, among other things. I think it is something. Basically they are saying he is for social justice. However, he was pro-abortion and homosexuality.

"Yet Carter quickly fell out with many White evangelicals over issues that have come to define evangelical culture today: public stances on racism, homosexuality, abortion and the separation of church and state. To varying degrees, Carter disagreed with conservative White evangelicals on all those issues."
 
That’s a really good and interesting question, one I had thought about recently. As a preacher/leader who is persuaded that I have my theological priorities aligned properly I would advise folks in situations like you’ve described (which I imagine is far more common than I’d like) to stay true to the Scriptures according to their understanding/conscience, and of course I’d try to persuade them via logic/philosophy/Scripture that the conservative paradigm makes the most sense of reality and truth.

In that vein I’d urge them to examine their motives for why they believe and practice exactly what they believe and practice. It’s my fairly dogmatic opinion that most people at evangelical churches aren’t there as a first priority due to theological depth and soundness (though they usually are there for the most basic foundational purpose of worship and hearing a rudimentary form of the gospel), but rather because of cultural and sociological factors. In regard to that impression, where they have beliefs that are at odds with the clearly aligned positions of the church, leaders, and covenant I would ask them to examine why they aren’t persuaded to the position of those who they subject themselves to for oversight and to some extent (if I thought they could handle the advice) challenge them to “not just play church”.

I realize that secondary issues will often cause a difference of opinion that should not serve to divide members, and I have an example of that in my own church experience. My (former, beloved and respected) pastor came from the “no pants on women” crowd and subscribed to it. I entertained the same notion early in my growing years of fundamentalism but ultimately turned from it because of what I perceived to be hermeneutical flaws in arriving at that conclusion and Biblical application. My pastor never stopped any expansion of the ministries available to my participation despite my privately known verbal opposition to a view he strongly held to be Biblically true. In some churches such minutia would have been viewed as cause for suppression of growth within ministry leadership and participation and if that had been the case with my situation I would have evaluated if that philosophical difference was enough to justify looking for a different pasture to graze in.

By the way, that former pastor eventually changed his belief structure regarding pants on women.
Great response. I attend a more conservative IFB church for a few reasons. I’ll explain. A chief reason is the convenience of commute. I’m only a mile or two from the church, and I’m not a guy who will be faithful at getting up early on a Sunday morning and driving a long distance, so for the sake of being faithful to church attendance (not just for me, but my family as a whole), it’s important to have a short commute.

A second reason I attend a conservative church is because, spiritually speaking, I feel that I most align with the doctrine of an IFB church more so than a liberal leaning church. True, I compartmentalize some of the hot button topics you mentioned by separating my church vs state ideas, but that’s just me at this stage in life. Some have said that makes me a hypocrite, but that’s me being authentic about my views, even if seemingly contradictory.

A third reason I attend a conservative church is because I’m just plain ol’ more comfortable with it. It’s how I was raised and I’m not very comfortable in a more progressive setting with circling strobe lights and a loud rock band. I prefer a little more decorum and depth, not just a feel-good message with little explanation of the Bible.

A fourth reason I attend a conservative church is because I like what it’s doing in my own kid’s life. She’s made friends and, I would argue, is more spiritually fervent than I am. I won’t mess with God’s goodness in her life, even if I might not agree with all of the teachings.

Lastly, I attend because it’s where God has led me. My pastor has an obvious heart for me. I have a feeling I’m on his short list for prayer. I sometimes feel like I’m perceived as the guy who is on the “backslidden list,” but unlike some other IFB pastors I’ve experienced, he never scolds me like I’m a kid, he just welcomes me and offers occasional advice. For example, he recently (in a kind manner), suggested “as your pastor,” that I attend a different Sunday school class than the one I was planning to attend because he felt it would be more beneficial for me at my “stage.” I accepted his advice and am doing so. I understand that he means I’m not spiritually mature enough for that other class. No problem.
 
The "law of the land" can be changed and often is. He opposed and impeded that lawful and peaceful process to protect innocent life.
False. Let’s listen to his actual words:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
I have no reason to be for or against The President but I do think it's important to listen to what he said rather than what it has been said that he said.

And just after commenting that he had a hard time believing that Jesus would have been for abortion (and saying that he was not for it), he said:

"My oath of office was to obey the constitution and the laws of this country as interpreted by the Supreme Court . . ."

That he is not in favor of a theocratic state does not make him an "evil" person, although the Ayatollah might disagree with me.
.
 
Remember that presidents are ranked by historians, sometimes not accurately until some years after their demise. However, currently Carter is ranked #26 or #24 (depending on the year’s ranking) and Trump is almost dead last. I give Carter and Trump credit though: both kept the country relatively safe and out of war while in office. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/
How in the world do you get that? We may not have been to the point of a shooting war with Iran, but they're holding our citizens hostage for a year and a half is an act of war. Declared or not it WAS a war.
 
.
Do you feel President Carter is an evil person?
.
i don;t think jimmie carter is an evil person..... not at all.... .but as president he made many mistakes and allowed himself to be used of evil people and did little to nothing to oppose them.... which made him an enabler of evil both within our own country and abroad.... the sad thing is that he doesn;t seem to believe he made any mistakes as a president... .

carters mistake where row vs wade was concerned was to accept it as the law of the land... when it clearly wasn;t.. .. only congress can create law..... and row vrs wade was never codified into law by congress... ... .at it;s best... and as it stood, row vs wade was a highly flawed court decision handed down by a liberal activist court..... . ...though jimmie carter could not reverse or annul the decision - as president he still had the power to put restrictions on it... .....but he did nothing..... .. and as a result carter came off to the american public and rest of the world as being fully in support of abortion - without restrictions.... ...

later both presidents reagan and bush made their opposition to row vs wade well known... and both successfully pushed for restrictions and limitations to abortions during their administrations - which were later reversed by bill clinton.... ..but during that period in the reagan and bush years the lives of many children were saved... and babies were born alive that would have been aborted otherwise...


james 4;17 ...therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin...
 
Last edited:
How in the world do you get that? We may not have been to the point of a shooting war with Iran, but they're holding our citizens hostage for a year and a half is an act of war. Declared or not it WAS a war.
exactly.... while america under carter may not have fired a shot in anger or done anything "warlike"..... we definitely had a war waged against us.... and then due to carters downgrading and defunding of the u.s. military the u.s. didn;t even have a force capable of responding to it.... ..the rescue mission attempted ended in disaster due to mechanical breakdowns and miscommunications... as a result the burned bodies of american servicemen were left behind in the desert.... ..

and all of that was the direct result of carters policy of peace through appeasment in the face of enemies - and the projection of weakness..... ...assuring americas enemies we would surrender and beg for mercy rather than fight back.....

but trumps policy in the face of enemies was peace through strength and superior firepower..... and not just the projection of it... but the assurance the he would use that firepower if they harmed americans.... ..very different from the roll over and play dead policy of the carter years......
 
exactly.... while america under carter may not have fired a shot in anger or done anything "warlike"..... we definitely had a war waged against us
OK, so let’s not call it a “war” then.
and then due to carters downgrading and defunding of the u.s. military the u.s. didn;t even have a force capable of responding to it
False. Carter actually raised the military budget over that of his predecessor—to the chagrin of many. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...rojects/6a04fed3-ca48-433e-a972-cca13bdf83a0/
 
carters mistake where row vs wade was concerned was to accept it as the law of the land... when it clearly wasn;t.. .. only congress can create law..... and row vrs wade was never codified into law by congress... ... .at it;s best... and as it stood, row vs wade was a highly flawed court decision handed down by a liberal activist court..... . ...though jimmie carter could not reverse or annul the decision - as president he still had the power to put restrictions on it... .....but he did nothing..... .. and as a result carter came off to the american public and rest of the world as being fully in support of abortion - without restrictions.
“Only Congress can create law,” you say? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. law. Are you familiar with common law? Executive orders? Statutory law? Etc?
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/522726-the-supreme-court-does-make-law/amp/

Let’s return to middle school civics class:
later both presidents reagan and bush made their opposition to row vs wade well known... and both successfully pushed for restrictions and limitations to abortions during their administrations - which were later reversed by bill clinton
As governor, Reagan actually made getting abortions easier,
although as president he became more against it: https://www.baptistpress.com/resour...-on-abortion-key-legacy-to-pro-life-movement/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel he's a Christian who is and was very misguided and weak.
Sorry, but this sounds like a double-tongued endorsement for an idiot. I would rather ANYONE with a brain be on the ballot than Trump. I WON'T vote for him again but would have to do a write-in instead. I haven't fallen for any media lies. I have my own brain, good reasoning ability, and can think for myself. I'm also not a snowflake. But, then again, I'm not someone who can't make up his mind, either! If he weren't so narcissistic and could stop acting like a child with the ME attitude all the time, I could stand it. But, he's beyond hope.
^^^How are you feeling about Trump these days compared to November last year?
 
OK, so let’s not call it a “war” then.

False. Carter actually raised the military budget over that of his predecessor—to the chagrin of many. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...rojects/6a04fed3-ca48-433e-a972-cca13bdf83a0/
you are the one dealing in falsehoods..... and your timeline is way off...... carter had already been president for 3 years and allowing the military deteriorate the entire time...... the increases carter proposed in 1980.... (an election year hoping to beef up his chances against ronald reagan..)..... was for the 1981 defense budget and as it turned out was too little too late..... .the iran hostage crisis started in 1979.... .. the disastrous iran hostage resuce attempt happened in april of 1980 - .none of the money in carters defense request was even available to them yet..... ......but even had all the money carter asked for been available prior to that rescue mission the military still would have been forced to work with faulty and failing equipment....... .

but in truth i expected nothing less from you...... what was that somebody said a couple of weeks ago about loyalty blinding people to the truth?........ who was that anyway?..... do you remember?........
 
Last edited:
you are the one dealing in faslehoods..... and your timeline is way off...... carter had already been president for 3 years and allowing the military deteriorate the entire time...... the increases carter proposed in 1980.... (an election year hoping to beef up his chances against ronald reagan..)..... was for the 1981 defense budget and as it turned out was too little too late.
You’re right about the timing, but I’m also referring to the budget compared to his predecessor (Ford). Carter raised the budget. That’s why people were upset with him and saying he didn’t keep his campaign promise: https://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/digital/api/collection/AFLCIO/id/67342/download
 
Back
Top