Pastor Jeffress - Theological Question

[_honorentheos]

Pastor Jeffress was on Bill Maher's HBO show last night (Friday, Oct. 14th). Naturally a significant part of the interview had to do with his comments regarding Romney and there are plenty of threads on that issue already.

What interested me, and hope to discuss here in this thread, were his later comments regarding the equivalency of Paul and Christ's words in the New Testament. His comments turn from Romney to religion and politics in general beginning around 6:50 in the video, here.

I'd be interested in the views of our religious friends on this comment -

Around minute 7:15 Maher asks Jeffress about the killing of Osama Bin Laden and that, as a non-Christian, he feels there is no issue with "shooting our enemies in the face." But, after quoting a number of scriptures from the New Testament regarding blessing those that curse you, and turning the other cheek, etc., he asks Jeffress, "Were you for killing Bin Laden?" to which the pastor replied he was.

His response, when questioned why after all that Christ had said about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, was to suggest Christ had said these things in the context of the individual, but that Paul in Romans 13 explicitly gives permission to the state to carry out such actions.

First, I read Romans 13 and didn't see his point being made explicitly by the author of said book. But if there is anyone here who shares the pastor's view, I wouldn't mind a little exegesis.

Second, I think his follow up to Bill Maher was incomprehensible. He basically told Maher that, because both Christs words and Paul's are in the same book they carry the same weight.

Do people really believe this? As a former Mormon, I could see feeling this way due to being raised in a faith system where men spoke for God with equal weight every 6 months on the most benign of subjects and every month via magazine. But I'm not sure how someone who is more traditional in their Christianity could arrive at this point.

Some connecting of the dots would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[_bcspace]

Yes. Equal weight. Evidence? LDS do not distinguish between the words of Christ and the words of a prophet or an apostle when giving scriptural references. Proof? The manuals, the Topical Guide, etc.

[_DrW]

With regard to the Real Time with Bill Maher program referenced in the OP, I would be interested to know what the believers here have to say about Maher's take on Mormonism.

Both Maher and Jeffress expressed decidedly negative views of Mormonism on the show. Jeffress was trying to be polite as he claimed that Mormons were not true Christians. Not sure that Jeffress' opinion matters much one way or the other to voters outside of the deep South.

Bill Maher, as usual, didn't pull any punches when talking about the bizarre craziness of Mormonism in general. Bill Maher reflects the views of a lot of voters outside the deep South and especially in the blue and purple states.

Given the fact that Jeffress and the Southern Baptists seem to believe that any true Christian church must adhere to the Nicene Creed (which was imposed upon Christianity in 325 to make it suitable as a state religion), how can anyone claim that they just have it wrong when it comes to Mormonism?

If everything that Bill Maher said about Mormonism was true (and as I recall he did have his facts straight) is there anything that Romney, and Mormons who support him, do to overcome this negative perception of the LDS Church among voters?

[_ontheotherhand]

Second, I think his follow up to Bill Maher was incomprehensible. He basically told Maher that, because both Christs words and Paul's are in the same book they carry the same weight.

Do people really believe this? As a former Mormon, I could see feeling this way due to being raised in a faith system where men spoke for God with equal weight every 6 months on the most benign of subjects and every month via magazine. But I'm not sure how someone who is more traditional in their Christianity could arrive at this point

I think the catholics would differ with the good pastor. These quotes are from the catechism and dei verbum:

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures 'because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior'”

“The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times”

“It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.”

[_DrW]

ontheotherhand,

Welcome to the MDB.

Thanks for your comment.

Hope you will tell us a bit about yourself and look forward to your participation.

[_Hoops]

Second, I think his follow up to Bill Maher was incomprehensible. He basically told Maher that, because both Christs words and Paul's are in the same book they carry the same weight.

What's so incomprehensible? They carry the same weight. They both contain the word of The Word.

Do people really believe this? As a former Mormon, I could see feeling this way due to being raised in a faith system where men spoke for God with equal weight every 6 months on the most benign of subjects and every month via magazine. But I'm not sure how someone who is more traditional in their Christianity could arrive at this point.

[/quote]Not quite the same. Jesus was the last prophet, and since He is still alive, there is no other prophet we should be looking for. so His words are the end of the story, so to speak. My RCC friends are good with this as well, so don't bother going there.

There's a lot going on with your question, so if you narrow it a bit I would be glad to offer more. But I'm not sure what you're asking (other than what I've answered).

[_Hoops]

I think the catholics would differ with the good pastor. These quotes are from the catechism and dei verbum:

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures 'because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior'”

“The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times”

“It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.”

Where can I get from this that epistles are not The Word?

I think you're looking for division for division's sake.

[_honorentheos]

Yes. Equal weight. Evidence? LDS do not distinguish between the words of Christ and the words of a prophet or an apostle when giving scriptural references. Proof? The manuals, the Topical Guide, etc.

Thanks BC. The LDS view held little mystery for me, given it's my own religious background as well. And your response confirms what I had suspected.

[_honorentheos]

Second, I think his follow up to Bill Maher was incomprehensible. He basically told Maher that, because both Christs words and Paul's are in the same book they carry the same weight.

Do people really believe this? As a former Mormon, I could see feeling this way due to being raised in a faith system where men spoke for God with equal weight every 6 months on the most benign of subjects and every month via magazine. But I'm not sure how someone who is more traditional in their Christianity could arrive at this point

I think the catholics would differ with the good pastor. These quotes are from the catechism and dei verbum:

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures 'because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior'”

“The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times”

“It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.”

Thanks ontheotherhand (I hope you don't mind if I shorthand this to otoh from here on out?)

I have to admit I found Jeffress' response questionable and wondered there would not be some disagreement. I had not specifically considered the Catholic view so I appreciate the quote.

Would you happen to have any thoughts on the meaning of Romans 13? I read it more as instructions to subjects of governments who, at the time, were under Roman rule. It doesn't seem too out of place compared to other instruction by Paul for servants to obey their masters, etc.

I don't read it, however, as some form of divine protection for government action. I don't read it as condemnation, either. Merely that Paul was telling a group of people in a certain place (and I may be off given the timeline, but I don't recall Rome being a great place to live as a Christian) how to live under that particular government and avoid trouble. In other words, do justly and don't break the laws because God is using the Romans as the sword to punish your breaking of the laws.

I'm also curious now about the statement "there is no power but of God"? Could one interpret this to mean any government that gets established automatically must have the sanction of God for some perhaps unknowable purpose?

Anyway, welcome to the board!

[_honorentheos]

Second, I think his follow up to Bill Maher was incomprehensible. He basically told Maher that, because both Christs words and Paul's are in the same book they carry the same weight.

What's so incomprehensible? They carry the same weight. They both contain the word of The Word.

You answered this yourself, Hoops. You say, right under this, that Jesus was the last prophet and "there is no other prophet we should be looking for. so His words are the end of the story, so to speak."

So you still need to explain yourself. It's no clearer to me than when we began.