It is a common assertion in our modern society that a person’s personal beliefs should not matter when it comes to matters of public affairs. This is especially true for their religious beliefs. Well, setting aside the fact that true Christians seem to be an exception to this rule, let me use a story I found to illustrate why a person’s religious beliefs cannot be separated from their public life.
Here is the story:
And here is just one pull quote from the story, but it is a very telling quote:
He [Carson] also does not believe in hell: “I don’t believe there is a physical place where people go and are tormented. No. I don’t believe that,” he says.
OK, if a person does not believe in hell, then how can they claim to believe in Jesus? Jesus taught that hell is real. So, anyone who dismisses the reality of hell is dismissing Christ’s Gospel? So how can they claim to be a Christian? Well, before we answer that, let’s make sure Carson actually believes he is a Christian. This story will help:
In this story, Carson makes a telling comment:
Carson emphasized during the AP interview that, though he believes that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is right for him, he does not focus too intently on denominational affiliation and, instead, focuses in on his faith.
“The reason that there are like 4,000 denominations is that people have looked at this and said, ‘Let’s interpret it this way. Let’s interpret it this way,’” Carson said. ”Sometimes they get caught up in that and forget about the real purpose of Christian faith.”
The ‘real purpose of Christian faith‘ is to teach and accept Christ’s Gospel message of salvation! But Carson has made several comments that demonstrate he has dismissed Christ’s Gospel and replaced it with one of his own making. The statement in the first story about denying the reality of hell is one such example, but there are others. From the Blaze story:
“I don’t see any reason why women can’t be ordained,” Carson told the Associated Press in a recent interview.
Jesus said He and the Father are in perfect agreement; and in the Old Testament, the Father (Yahweh) gave the duty of priesthood to males and only males. Now, this is not sexism. If one reads the Bible, one will find that God simply assigned certain roles to the different sexes, but God’s word makes it clear these roles are not connected to the worth of the sexes. God sees men and women as having equal value.
So Carson has created a different Jesus and a different Gospel message to suit his personal sensibilities. The Bible specifically says that anyone who does this is to be accursed. Still, most people will read this and dismiss it simply because they believe none of this has any bearing on Carson’s ability to hold public office — and they will be very wrong! Simply put, here is what Carson’s religion tells about his qualifications to hold public office:
By calling himself a Christian, then dismissing Christ’s Gospel, Carson has shown us that he feels free to dictate to God!
Now, understand what this means: the only way to do away with hell is to be above God! The only way a person can change Christ’s Gospel is to be of a higher authority than God! And by redefining the meaning of Christ’s Gospel, Carson is putting himself above God. This is the very essence of the man of lawlessness.
So, if Carson feels he has the authority re-define Christ and to re-write Christ’s Gospel — essentially, to dictate to God — then what reason do we have to believe he will hold to and uphold/defend our laws as they were intended? If Carson feels the liberty to simply ‘re-interpret’ God’s Word, what is to stop him from ‘re-interpreting’ any of our laws, least of all the Constitution? The founders told us they included oaths in our legal system so that a person would feel obligated to God to uphold their duty to the People and the law faithfully. But if Carson doesn’t even fear God enough to obey God’s Laws, if Carson believes he is empowered to just re-write them to suit his desires, then what is to stop him from doing the same with man’s laws?
Finally, before you think I am making much to do about nothing, remember: Carson has already said he sees no problem with taking away your Second Amendment rights. If a person will remove your right to self-defense, history shows that taking your right to life is just a short hop away.