KK: You've made a point which bears repeating. Even though Obama is unprincipled, he isn't ruthless enough to succeed in the world of politics. And that will be his downfall. As Machiavelli and Hobbes understood, the politician makes a Faustian bargain--selling his soul for the sake of honor and glory. He must be sufficiently cynical to cultivate one persona for himself, and another for public consumption. This means that he cannot himself really believe in the latter. If he clings to the latter in the vain hope that he will have something left if he loses, he deludes himself. In politics, there's no reward for failure if the Faustian bargain doesn't work out. Wait until after the elections. When he has lost, he will fade into oblivion, just as Kerry did four years ago. Who takes Kerry seriously now? The same is true of Al Gore, notwithstanding his vain attempts to revive his image by invoking crank science and airy New-Age metaphysics.

What you say is true: other than receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, there’s nothing else we can DO TO ACHIEVE salvation. But just what does it mean to say that one has “received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?” Some think that once I've made the decision, that’s the end of it. But that would be a simplistic interpretation of sola fide, would it not?

If I decide to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, that decision implies conduct consistent with it. If I make the decision and then do things which tell the world that my decision really makes no practical, observable difference in the way I conduct my affairs, then in what sense is my decision anything more than empty words?

It's frustrating, isn't it, that we live in a country in which a significant segment of the electorate can blithely overlook Obama's position on abortion, and support him because of his shallow promises to make us "one people." We are not "one people," and we never will be until Roe v. Wade is overruled and every abortion mill in this country is shut down. It frightens me to reflect on what might happen to me in my later years, when I've outgrown my usefulness, and the State can no longer afford to keep me alive. On the other hand, I am encouraged by the near unanimity among the writers in this forum on the issue of abortion. As Christians, we can no longer be intimidated by liberals who wail and moan that we're trying to "impose our views" on others. If this be imposition, so be it.

bernie wrote:
. . . this man will probably gain the presidency, because he is exactly the kind of leader America deserves.

But now: if the KJV is still the authorized version 1500 years from now, who will be able to read it? And if a new translation will be needed, which manuscripts will be used? (I assume it won't be a translation from the English of the KJV.)

JD wrote:
I really don't know who "church fathers" would be. Whoever formulated this question should have named a few as examples. There are no "fathers" of the Christian faith mentioned in the NT that I am aware of.

Radio45 wrote:
The more I read the Bible the more I am firmly a Roman Catholic. It all begins with the interpretation of the word "is." "Is" is and that's that. God said it, I believe it and that settles it for me. The words are "This is my Body," and "This is my blood."

It's remarkable, isn't it, that today centuries after the Reformation some haven't gotten the message. While I was associated with an Eastern Orthodox church, I was taught that the "Church Fathers" were the only qualified interpreters of Scripture. I sensed a disdain, in particular, for contemporary Protestant commentators.

Is there any reason why we, in the 21st century, can't read and understand Scripture as well as our predecessors? Is it not only our right, but our duty to do so?! Anyone who has read the Church Fathers knows that they often disagreed with each other. Many of them taught doctrines (like "theosis") which are, at best, of dubious value. Origen was arguably a pantheist.