I will answer number 3 on my upcoming podcast.

John, anything is possible but the question you asked is more than dangerous. If a Roman Catholic gets saved he doesn’t always leave the Catholic Church but that doesn’t guarantee he isn’t saved.

But the Mormon faith is chock full of heresies, and it would seem miraculous to have a Mormon believe in the true Jesus and then continue worshipping the false one. Only God knows but I have my doubts. We can pray for him like most of the other conveniently religious candidates.

BTW – Bob Jones III endorsed Romney for president. If the originla Bob Jones was here he would remove his grandson for such an incredible compromise.

And as far as Mitt Romney is concerned, like you said, only the Lord knows who are really his. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Mormon ideology is consistent with Scripture. I’m just wondering out loud whether or not a “nominal” Mormon can have a saving knowledge of the one true Lord?

Now equally as important as faith is the object of that faith. Since only Christ saves all faith must be placed upon Him for salvation. That means that a pious and painfully sincere religious man places His faith on Mohammed and practices his faith to a greater commitment than the average Christian still dies unsaved. His faith was strong, the object of his faith was not.

Mit Romney believes in a false Jesus and a salvation by works. The Mormons have even made the family an idol which attracts the flesh but is an affront to God. The family has an important place in the body of Christ, but having a good and close family cannot save, and in the case of Mormons it is a substitute for true salvation.

I do not think the outcome of the Jesus seminar in and of itself was worth much, but there was some very good theologians in the mix… not enough of them but we cannot condemn them in with the whole… even some of them have remorse to an effect in the manner.

iggy

“Rick, You are right. The Jesus Seminar is thoroughly apostate. What do you think of the fact that McLaren and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar share a lot of the same theological ideas? McClaren quotes him quite a bit in his new book.”

There were conservatives that were part of the Jesus Seminar that did not agree or like the outcome… Such as N.T. Wright who took part of it but is not in any way a “liberal” theologian.

So to say that it was all apostate gives the impression that anyone involved in it was also…

Now the real issue was also in the misreading of the results and the color code… the part that went wrong was that some took the things stated as Jesus did not state this, was not that He did not, but that the probability of His stating it was less likely that some other statements.

the issue was how they tabulated this in that it was by a “vote”… so in many cases since liberals out numbered the conservatives the vote was swayed considerably

Over all many conservatives did not agree or had a bit of remorse in taking part of the Jesus Seminar… but we should not paint them also as apostate for they did defend the truth.

So please do not castigate people with such broad swipes without some sort of understanding of the situation as it really happened.

On Brian McLaren, if you really study him you will find he seems very much inline with the theology of N.T.Wright… in fact it was through Mclaren I found Wright. For McLarne to wuote one person you may disagree with seems to over look that he also quotes many other people in which on might agree with. The issue is not that he is quoting a heretic, yet even some heretics have a bit of truth that some overlook and cast out without looking at.

It seems that there is no care for the baby when the bathwater is tossed out.

iggy

This is a lie…
“Most of the arguments on this site thus far sound like this, “Rob Bell isn’t a Universalist because Ken Silva is mean and unloving man.” ”

the real issue is how can you have a conversation when someone states out right lies about someone else then when challenged to show facts to back up those lies just calls you names like, “man-loving -semi pelagian” and never produces any facts.

It is not that we answer with “Ken is mean and unloving” though the facts seem to sway that way in his behavior, but that I have called for direct statements that prove the accusations against people… even Brian McLaren and not one of you guys has give a statement that proves your points…

To have a conversation one must respond to the questions asked and even with my dealings with you, you do not answer my questions but dodge them and tell me how you are not responsible for anyone but yourself… but still then never answer anything asked of you.

If you want to talk theology, we can do that but then let us start with the basic… do you or do you not see lying and slander as a sin?

If you do not as you have stated, other than it is “pettiness” as you called it.

I see it is a sin as it is in the same list as “homosexuality” so if one continues in a sin such as lying and makes is a habit I wonder if that person is a sincere believer or not.

I mostly wonder if a person who condones such said sin is also one or is under some sort of delusion that would allow them to justify their or another’s actions in slander and lying.

These people here at this site have consistently shown time after time where posts at CRN and SoL are not accurate and have only be faced with the attitude of “it is true because I state it is” or in the case of Ken Silva “it is true because I linked to an article on this from my other site.” (No these are not direct quotes but these are the actions that they show.)

So before you state a lie as above, make sure the truth can back it up…

I’ve already stated that I am not a modern. I am pre-modern

And I don’t even exist, that’s how pre- I am.