Comments on: Battles against compromise

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:44:29 +0000

i like that: ” i look forward to future occasions wherein I hope to elicit your participation”, meaning, “you done pissed me off…”

Report comment to moderator

By: John Lofton

John Lofton — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:50:37 +0000

Almost all of modern Christianity is compromised, cowardly, Biblically illiterate and thus engaged in de facto, Christ-denial, operational atheism. Please visit our site. Here’s our “Mission Statement”:

Mission Statement

“For the nation and kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” — Isaiah 60:12.

As Christians, we are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to teach all nations — including ours — to observe all things He has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). This means bringing into captivity to Christ all areas of life and thought. This means destroying arguments that are against the knowledge of God (II Corinthians 10:5). In obedience to these commands of our Lord, this Web site is established. We covet your prayers for our success in obeying Him.

We are seriously concerned about, deeply grieved by and lament the fact that far too many of today’s so-called “Christian leaders” are a sinful embarrassment and are responsible for the cause of Christ being mocked and ridiculed. By being, first, cheerleaders for the Republican Party, they have dishonored their Lord and sold their Christian birthright for a mess of partisan political pottage. These individuals and organizations are Christian in name only, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” From such, it is added, we must turn away.

Secular, Christless conservatism — even when it is supposedly “compassionate” — will not defeat secular, Christless liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and, thus, predestined to failure.

More than 100 years ago, speaking of the secular, Christless conservatism of his time, the great Southern Presbyterian theologian, Robert L. Dabney, observed:

“[Its] history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”

Amen! And what Dabney says has been proven with a vengeance in modern times, under recent Republican Administrations and Congresses who were supported enthusiastically by individuals and organizations who called themselves “Christian” but who, alas, when judged by their fruits, were not.

To those who will accuse of us of desiring and trying to bring about “a Christian America,” we unashamedly plead guilty though the accusation is far too modest and somewhat muddled. To be sure, we desire a Christian America, and a Christian world, a Christian galaxy and a Christian universe. And, over time, by His grace, we hope to demonstrate that all these things already belong to the Lord Jesus Christ because He created them all and they are His property. This is why all knees must bow to the Lord and all tongues confess that He is the Lord — because He is!

Jude 1:3 3

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (KJV)

John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

Report comment to moderator

By: metanoia

metanoia — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:33:37 +0000

I prefer “resolute” or “conviction” to “stubborn.

If the best word that describes what you are trying to convey is “needs a minister” rather than “may need a minister” you had to stay true to what you believe.

Plus, there is a world of difference between “needing Christ” and “needing religion. The writer has the final say so over the editor, even if that choice results in not being published.

Report comment to moderator

By: llama

llama — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:29:14 +0000

When it comes to quality, many times a good character attribute to have is stubborn. Without being able to stick to your guns you will be tempted, even by the devil himself it seems sometimes, to compromise quality, accuracy and possibly the resulting profit true quality brings, but there are many other examples where stubborn, not accepting or allowing less, is both very good and or very bad.

Report comment to moderator

By: twpeck

twpeck — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:45:58 +0000

Bravo. We hope that God used your one shot with the article to touch a life for His Glory. He will provide all the opportunities you need.

Report comment to moderator

By: krm

krm — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:05:09 +0000

Rdean – No one ever accomplished anything significant (good or bad) without being stubborn (or is you were on the same side as the person, use any of the positive euphemisms for it that Pauline listed).

Stuborn is a not a good or a bad quality without knowing the context. Some who is utterly inflexible about everything is often called stubborn – and being so reflexively is not a good quality.

Report comment to moderator

By: Pauline

Pauline — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:24:37 +0000

Oops, I didn’t edit that very well. Please ignore the words “neutral term, though tending to suond negative.” in #5

Report comment to moderator

By: Pauline

Pauline — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:23:42 +0000

#4
RDean,
That’s true, compromise can be good or bad based on the situation. neutral term, though tending to suond negative. Someone who is “stubborn,” “obdurate,” “intractable,” or “obstinate” in one situation, may be “resolute,” “tenacious,” or “determined” in another. Or simply from a different person’s point of view.

Olasky’s first sentence suggests that compromise is not always bad. Asking “how much we should compromise” implies that sometimes we should, but we need to know where to draw the line. This article is about where to draw the line in one particular context.

Report comment to moderator

By: rdean

rdean — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:08:03 +0000

Depending on the situation, the opposite of compromise is “stubborn”.

Report comment to moderator

By: Make it Man

Make it Man — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:48:21 +0000

Standing firm in good conscience against opposition is difficult. It always seems to have consequences.

I just wish that the consequence was always like the the outcome of Wilberforce battle against slavery.

In this case, opportunity never came your way again, and so it would seem, neither did any more money?

In my case, I refused to lie about what I did to a car in order to get paid for the amount of time I put into it. So I only made a small paycheck. I would like to say I made a difference in the system, but I finally had enough and got out of working on cars. There’s easier and cleaner ways to make money. And I don’t have to put up with irate customers that cannot be pleased…

Report comment to moderator