RIP to a truly classy wife, mother, and woman. She’s an example to us all. May her family rejoice in her well-lived life and the joys of her eternity.
(CNN)Barbara Bush, the matriarch of a Republican political dynasty and a first lady who elevated the cause of literacy, died Tuesday, according to a statement from her husband’s office. She was 92.
Only the second woman in American history to have had a husband and a son elected President (Abigail Adams was the first), Bush was seen as a plainspoken public figure who was instantly recognizable with her signature white hair and pearl necklaces and earrings. She became a major political figure as her husband, George H.W. Bush, rose to become vice president and president. After they left the White House, she was a potent spokeswoman for two of her sons — George W. and Jeb — as they campaigned for office.The mother of six children — one of whom, a daughter, Robin, died as a child from leukemia — Barbara Bush raised her fast-growing family in the 1950s and ’60s amid the post-war boom of Texas and the whirl of politics that consumed her husband.She was at his side during his nearly 30-year political career. He was a US representative for Texas, UN ambassador, Republican Party chairman, ambassador to China and CIA director. He then became Ronald Reagan’s vice president for two terms and won election to the White House in 1988. He left office in 1993 after losing a re-election bid to Bill Clinton.Quick-witted with a sharp tongue, the feisty Barbara Bush was a fierce defender of her husband and an astute adviser.
She was a class act. Always loved her sharp wit.
Here most important accomplishment was training her kids (and eventually grandkids) in the Christian faith.
That is the one accomplishment that truly matters among all the other accomplishments.
She was a practicing Episcopalian, Kevin. You wouldn’t share as much as a simple grace before meals with her while she was alive.
Oh Major,
She showed outward evidence of the doctrine where one’s eternal destiny rises or falls: salvation by faith alone in Jesus. Her kids and grandkids also show major outward evidence of her Christian training as a mother.
She, like many Christians, were not perfect. She was described as “old school” in a church body that rejects some biblical doctrine because of the godless penetrating the church. That indicates to me The biblical Word, and her faith in Jesus by the Holy Spirit, guided her, not godless secular liberalism. This is why Jesus saving grace does not depend on our merit, but his merit.
Do you celebrate the grace of your salvation through Jesus in your life?
Good to know that the fruits of the Spirit transcend petty denominational differences.
Would you pray with her husband if he invited you to share his grief?
Yes or no will suffice.
Major,
In order to answer your question, you need to answer my question first.
It will make a difference if I give you the answer geared for the godless heathen.
Or an answer for the persistent errorist.
The answer isn’t for me, Kevin. I’m quite familiar with your doctrine in this area already. Just wanted to see if you’re as bold in your witness when there’s a real chance of alienating ideological allies instead of just imaginary liberals. You aren’t.
Major,
No courage to answer my simple question?
I’m disappointed. I viewed you as having courage.
You seem to forget I know you, Kevin. And for as long as I’ve known you, you’ve consistently and thoroughly ignored what people tell you about their beliefs when it doesn’t fit the narrative that runs through your head. Whether I say I am a Catholic, a Calvinist, a humble follower of Christ, an atheist, a Muslim, or a Jedi, it won’t make the slightest difference when it comes to our conversations. Your mind is a fortress and the gates have been barred since childhood.
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” If it’s good enough for Scripture, it’s good enough for you.
Major,
It will in this case.
If you are on devil’s team, I have to ask: why would you care?
If you are claiming faith in Christ, we can have an honest discussion on the doctrine.
Stand firm, unashamed.
For the record , I Find no consistent political views whatsoever between agnostics , atheists or anti theists like Hitchens .
They are simply looking for evidence for the other sides religious beliefs and find none except faith , a belief without evidence .
Man has created over 10,000 religions . Some folks pick one out as the only tried and true one .
Others just go those other folks one better .
Thanks to Major Asshat for coming in and shitting all over this discussion.
RIP Mrs Bush.
Mark,
You will not find Conservatives waring on Christians in public sphere. Liberals are constantly waring on Christians, whether it is religious liberty, religious speech, prayer, helping the homeless, etc.
Not all atheists are liberal. However, a majority of them are.
k:
You have consistently disparaged fellow christians that disagree with you (the pope isn’t a christian) because you feel you and only you have the one and only true belief. And as usual you are just fabricating to prove your point. You failed biggly.
Christians not warring on Christians in the public sphere? How else do they protect their revenues? Have you ever watched any of the religious channels on cable? They’re all telling us they and only they have the right views and that everyone else is wrong.
Nord,
I may disagree with my fellow Christian, but I have not disparaged them. To be clear, what I said about the Pope was: If he teaches a gospel other than Christ crucified and risen again for forgiveness of sins (salvation by faith in Christ alone), he would be practicing a gospel that is NOT Christian. Most Roman Catholics will say that is what their church teaches. If so, great. If the Pope adds something to Christ’s unmerited grace for salvation….like by our own merit, however small, that would not be Christian. The Pope will never overtly admit the last part, but there is debate whether Roman Catholicism teaches merit by works.
So try and quote me in context.
jjf,
I said “conservatives” are not warring on Christians. Liberalism, as an ideology, is at total war with biblical Christianity.
The war” on Christianity is folks simply asking for evidence of the claims people make for their beliefs .
Unable to produce any, the discussion shifts to atheists “persecution” of Fundamentalist Christians to unable explain their views of than state the obvious , that they believe based upon bad evidence .
Most people believe the religion they were born into.If you grew up in India, you might believe in the Monkey God . You also might be a person of the highest personal character .The idea that the “God” who made their birth happen there simultaneously denies them an entrance to heaven because they don’t believe in the correct God is a uniquely arrogant and morally bankrupt idea .
A friend of mine’s dad has a piece of paper on his refrigerator . It’s simply stated “Beware the man who knows what God thinks “
k:
What you said was, since the Pope disagreed with you on climate change/global warming and evolution he wasn’t a christian. Spin that however you want.
MHM:
Excellent.
Nord,
Point out the quote. Try to quote it accurately and in context, which I know might be a challenge for you.
Mark,
https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF17F51.pdf
k:
It wasn’t a quote, but a thread months ago. Guess you forgot. How do you feel now about the pope? Your opinion change?
Nord,
You have misquoted me in the past. You do have a demonstrated comprehension challenge from time to time.
Show your proof and we can talk about it.
I have “refreshed” you on what I did say. Show the link you would like to challenge me on, or quote supporting your erroneous contention….otherwise you would be bearing false witness. Christians consider that very bad.
I can’t respond to fantasies in your head.
k:
I didn’t save the quote, it was months ago. But if you want strict adherence to accurate quotes, so be it. Goes for you as well. But I wouldn’t bet on you remembering that either.
Nord,
Of course you did not save it….it does not exist.
I will refresh your recall on what I said about evolution (don’t recall ever questioning someone’s Christianity based on their foolish belief in global warming). I said that a Christian advocating evolution risks destroying their faith because denying Creation, the Genesis 3 Fall into sin, denies the very need for Christ as your Savior/redeemer from sin. Christ as your redeemer from sin is theee foundation thing that makes you a Christian. If you deny the seriousness of sin by denying it entered the world at the Garden of Eden near Creation (essentially denying the existence of the problem of sin)….what does that say about your Christianity, and you faith in Christ as your redeemer?
It certainly does not draw you closer to Christ.
“If he (the Pope) teaches a gospel other than Christ crucified and risen again for forgiveness of sins (salvation by faith in Christ alone), he would be practicing a gospel that is NOT Christian.”
According to Luther’s own writings as well as current WELS doctrinal statements, that is exactly what he is teaching. The Papacy is clearly identified as ‘the very Antichrist’, even if the Pope as an individual human being might, against all odds, not himself be among the reprobate. Maybe. Can’t presume to judge someone’s heart now, that’s a big no-no.
It’s the passive-aggressiveness of the whole thing that’s so darn maddening, Kevin. On the one hand, doctrinal unity is emphasized to the point that a WELS member would be prohibited from playing the organ at her LCMS cousin’s funeral, lest she somehow give the impression that the two synods agree on all points of doctrine instead of almost all of them.
On the other hand, under the pretense of ‘not judging others’ hearts’, much more serious doctrinal differences can be glossed over with backhanded compliments like ‘He was a Methodist, but despite the grave errors of his visible church body, he may yet have possessed a simple, childlike faith in Christ alone.’
Or that Billy Graham ‘might have been a little confused about the means of salvation’, despite preaching, teaching, and studying the subject for over 70 years.
WELS doesn’t claim to have exclusive rights to salvation, that would be presumptuous. On the contrary, they go out of their way to state that God alone recognizes the invisible church, whose members can be found in all sects where the true and effective Word can be heard.
The implication, though, is that those members are simply too ignorant to understand the errors of their denominations, for if they did, they’d quickly abandon them for a pure and uncorrupted (*cough* WELS *cough*) church.
It’s what the kids these days would call a ‘humblebrag’. You’re either one of us, you’re dumb, or you’re damned.
Major,
Thanks for getting quote correct. That was not what Nord represented.
Does Pope teach a gospel other than Christ? (Sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptural). When I ask Catholics about the doctrine of sola fide, they always agree with it!
The Catholic catechism teaches a gospel other than sola fide, but it seems most Roman Catholics I know embrace Christ’s unmerited grace alone. (In other words, their faith is pretty Lutheran in action).
You see Major, no one claims WELS has a monopoly, that is all you. Are there Christians with saving faith in Episcopal church? Roman Catholic Church? Etc? Yes, of course.
When it comes to your question of disagreement of more minor doctrine, it should be every Christian’s duty to gently correct the persistent errorist under Matthew 18. That includes not “backing up” the error when someone is teaching error by representing you agree with their error.
Just because I view Episcopal church members to be in error on some things does not mean the doctrine where one’s faith rises or falls, sola fide, is being rejected. Saving faith in Christ can occur through fog of false teaching. Barbara Bush seemed to demonstrate, by outward action she was constantly striving by faith in Christ through Holy Spirit.
Why is my comment about her faith being her greatest accomplishment and legacy get you guys in such a twist?
K from K
If I send you an issue of the Freedom From Religion Foundation ( FFRF ) , are we even ?
“no one claims WELS has a monopoly, that is all you.”
I don’t claim that at all, Kevin. Read what I wrote again, slowly. Out loud, if it helps.
“WELS doesn’t claim to have exclusive rights to salvation, that would be presumptuous. On the contrary, they go out of their way to state that God alone recognizes the invisible church, whose members can be found in all sects where the true and effective Word can be heard.”
Please tell us you’re trolling at this point, Kevin. No one can possibly be this obtuse without trying.
Major,
I’m confused as to what you are driving at here. This all started with your first snarky comment about prayer. You wanted to suggest something nefarious about WELS members, only to prove yourself wrong?
Mark,
Will it have Satan’s personal seal on it?
Major,
You still have 2 outstanding questions on mine you seem to ignore:
1.) why does my comment about Barbara Bush’s Christianity get you in such a twist?
2.) Do you celebrate your faith in Christ by being part of the invisible church of all believers?
I think your answers will clear up a lot of this discussion.
Reminds me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fAcxcxoZ8
Can’t speak for the northern conservative fundamanetalist baptists of 1912, but the only “die ye heretic” I hear is from the godless secular humanist disciples when they are exposed to something outside godless secular thought.
1. Your church has a strong taboo against presuming to know who is and is not among the elect and places a very heavy emphasis on doctrinal unity. Praising the Christian life and example of a person who subscribed to a theology that differed from yours on many key points seems to violate both of these.
Saying ‘maybe they just didn’t understand the errors of their church’ is patronizing in the extreme. Likewise, while your church recognizes that a person can possess saving faith in Christ despite holding incomplete or mistaken beliefs on other theological details, you yourself have a long history of using such beliefs (age of the earth, role of women in church, stewardship of creation, etc.) as evidence of one’s willful opposition to the clear teachings of Scripture. Hearing you gush about the Christian example of a person who in life would be prohibited from any joint expression of the faith you allegedly shared strikes me, like so many other things about you, Kevin, as callous and hypocritical.
2. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.
Major,
A lot to unpack there.
1.) It is every Christian’s duty to discern outward actions. We can judge someone by the fruits of their action. I was merely commenting Barbara Bush had outward signs of her faith in Christ. 2 Peter 1 describes what that election looks like. I re-read 2 Peter 1 and I could not exclude Barbara Bush from the description based on actions.
2.) There are some doctrines that are not critical to salvation in invisible church. Take, for instance, decision theology. I know many that believe in the “decision for Jesus” philosophy. I know quite of few, by their faith in Jesus, that embrace decision theology. The danger of it being your decision, our total depravity and hostility to God can raise doubts whether our faith is good enough. This is a perfect example of doctrine that can mean one is still elect, but just in errror. I always try to correct the error when decision theology discussion arises. I don’t openly agree with them, or publically back up the error when issue arises. So one has to draw a distinction between critical and non-critical doctrine to election.
3.) Fellowship. I hope we can agree on critical doctrine and that those who openly reject Christ as Savior and redeemer from sin, eliminates them as Christians and from the group of the elect. When it comes to non-critical doctrine, we do not (WELS) fellowship with those in error on non-critical doctrine. Being in error on non-critical doctrine opens up the church to more attack by Satan. Decision theology as prior example. Fellowship means unity and agreement on biblical matters. So, yes, WELS should not spiritually fellowship with episcapol church members until unity in doctrinal agreement has been established.
4.) This formal fellowship challenge does not prohibit me from complimenting a fellow Christian, in the invisible church, in political arena. That is not fellowship. It is perfectly fine for me to compliment a Roman Catholic for helping food pantry. So your first comment was a snarky comment about fellowship between WELS and Episcopal Church (or lack thereof). I was not commenting about fellowship status of our church bodies, I was only praising her good fruits as a Christian.
You take much of WELS doctrine out of context. Try a little more Gospel grace, and a lot less legalistic Law
Thank you, at last, for the nuanced and informative response. Much appreciated.
Anytime you want to discuss doctrine and theology…I am your humble servant. (Ok…admitedly working on the “humble” part yet.)