Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.

My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.

I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.

It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.

I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.

Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."

***Every Christian that I know who believes in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual, don’t claim that they “cannot do wrong.” ***

Reread this and other topics. There are self described Christians here who believe that.

***If it isn’t clearly shown in Scripture, then yes, us “protties” will be in conflict with you. But ultimately, we recognize that God will be our final judge as to whom is indwelt and following the Spirit.***

There are many things that Protestants believe, in conflict with Scripture and each other. We agree that God is our final judge. We may disagree as to what and whom He judges. There are many here who claim that they will not be judged since they are saved and have already moved past judgement by Him.

We also disagree with many here who claim Gnostic beliefs, while denying that heretical label.

2. I wish someone else were saying the following . . . but it tends to appear . . . that the major outrage that the RC edifice side has in terms of fierce, satirical etc. styles and posts . . . is that . . . the RC edifice side has had a lot of trouble raising up reps of sufficient starkly vivid fierce fiesty cleverness to routinely counter that from the Protty side. So, the best thing they can do is to label all such as SADISTIC ABUSE. Very tidy. Very powerful. Very silly hogwash.

Those of us who do not consider our tantrums to be gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit, who think that seeking God is more than consulting one's affections and one's Bible, and who prefer focusing on God and His will to attracting attention to ourselves also tend to think that thoughtful examination of the issues beats name-calling and abuse, and reason is more useful than satire.

When people persist in behavior which does not accomplish what they profess to desire, then they probably desire something else or they can't properly evaluate the results of their actions, or there are forces driving them of which they are only partially aware and have an inadequate understanding.

Consulting affections and believing uncritically the propositions they encourage us to make leads to sloppy thought. For example, when she was very little, my daughter described the doctor who caused her pain as "stupid." That's understandable in a 4 year old. In an adult, it's remarkable.

When adults of whatever persuasion hold fierceness and feisty-ness above the listed fruits of the Spirit, when they persist in behavior which they have been advised is painful and offensive and which, while attracting support from those with whom they agree seems, at best, to confuse those whom they claim to be seeking to benefit in some way, it is not unreasonable to wonder what is going on or to doubt the professions of those indulging in the behaviors.

When a group of adults, of varying religious persuasions, seem to think that they will change hearts by abusing them, well, IMHO we're in the realm of pathology. When there are obvious incidents of perseveration and malleable memory, then we're in the area of deeper pathology. When some kinds of misinterpretation, seemingly willful, lead first to disparaging the person making the claims and then to cries of injury and protest and expressions of contempt, those data are not neutral but tilt toward confirmation of the conjecture.

And when HIGHLY imprecise and prejudicial remarks are made to the effect that noticing and characterizing behavior is being "judgmental" and that PDs are one step below axe murderers, then there is more confirmation of the observations and resultant conjectures.

Appeals are that patience and careful work are likely to be the only approaches that will lead to getting close enough to one another to make effective debate possible. When those appeals are rejected in favor of continuing the strife with the old methods of overgeneralizing, tendentious characterization, and insult, and when that ineffective approach is followed by tirades of abuse and seemingly mantic prophecy, the case is strengthened.

Dominus Iesus is readily available on the Internet. Those who read it looking for something to justify their feeling of being aggrieved will be able to tell themselves they found what they sought.

Those however, who read it to learn what the Catholic Church believes will find that the Church not only is entirely open to the possibility of wiry black ladies inspired by the Holy Spirit of God and speaking SOME (not all) truth, but also praises God for beginning so great a work in her.

Rorschachs are everywhere, and half of what people see and read they could see and read with their eyes closed, if they had, or even desired, any insight.

May God sanctify your suffering and use it to gain further access to your heart and finally to unite your heart more closely to His.

Here’s one well documented review of early history that shows the “rise of the machine” known as what I call the RCC - http://www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/hop/view.cgi?book=1&chapter=3

Chapter 5 of this book documents by name several Italian bishops who did not accept key erroneous RCC doctrines. Here’s an example:

To come to the sixth century, we find Laurentius, Bishop of Milan, holding that the penitence of the heart, without the absolution of a priest, suffices for pardon; and in the end of the same century (A.D. 590) we find the bishops of Italy and of the Grisons, to the number of nine, rejecting the communion of the Pope, as a heretic, so little then was the infallibility believed in, or the Roman supremacy acknowledged. [8] In the seventh century we find Mansuetus, Bishop of Milan, declaring that the whole faith of the Church is contained in the Apostle’s Creed; from which it is evident that he did not regard as necessary to salvation the additions which Rome had then begun to make, and the many she has since appended to the apostolic doctrine. The Ambrosian Liturgy, which, as we have said, continues to be used in the diocese of Milan, is a monument to the comparative purity of the faith and worship of the early Churches of Lombardy.

From chapter 11:

Transubstantiation, as we have already shown, was invented by the monk Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century; it came into England in the train of William the Conqueror and his Anglo-Norman priests; it was zealously preached by Lanfranc, a Benedictine monk and Abbot of St. Stephen of Caen in Normandy, [1] who was raised to the See of Canterbury under William; and from the time of Lanfranc to the days of Wicliffe this tenet was received by the Anglo-Norman clergy of England. [2] It was hardly to be expected that they would very narrowly or critically examine the foundations of a doctrine which contributed so greatly to their power; and as regards the laity of those days, it was enough for them if they had the word of the Church that this doctrine was true.

I failed to include a reply to the question of Mary.

From a different source:

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION — Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception. (”Catechism” 490-492).

In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”. Mary knew that she needed a savior.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic (a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church doctrine). For centuries this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes, Fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church. (Note 13)

On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. After defining the dogma, the Pope said that if any person dares to “think otherwise than as has been defined by us” they thereby shipwreck their faith, are cut off from the Church, and stand condemned because of it. The Pope went on to say that if any person says, or writes, or in any other way outwardly expresses “the errors he thinks in his heart,” then they thereby “subject themselves to the penalties established by law”. (Note 25 gives a link to this papal bull. You can read it for yourself.)

Note 13. William Webster, “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History,” pages 72-77.

Note 25. “Ineffabilis Deus” (“Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception”). Encyclical of Pope Pius IX issued December 8, 1854. Near the end of this papal bull there is a section entitled “The Definition”. The statements that I described are in the last paragraph of that section. You can read this encyclical online. If the following links don’t work, then do an Internet search for “Ineffabilis Deus”.

http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi09id.htm
http://www.geocities.com/papalencyclicals/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

ASSUMPTION — At the end of her life, Mary was taken up (”assumed”) body and soul into Heaven. (”Catechism” 966, 974)

There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary. The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn’t John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it? When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it. With Elijah it was recorded in some detail. (See Genesis 6:24 and 2 Kings 2:1-18.)

The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine. (Note 15)

Note 15. William Webster, pages 81-85.

And regarding the pope, for good measure:

The Early Fathers, and the theologians and canon lawyers of the Middle Ages, never taught that the bishops or the Pope were infallible. This is demonstrated by the fact that in 680 A.D. the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned a pope as a heretic. It was not until the fourteenth century that the theory of infallibility began to emerge. With the development of this theory came a change in the interpretation of some biblical passages. (Note 21)

The history of the early Church shows that the Bishop of Rome was considered to be just another bishop. For example, Pope Gregory (590-604 A.D.) explicitly stated that all of the bishops were equal. He specifically repudiated the idea that any one bishop could be the supreme ruler of the Church. (Note 22)

Note 21. William Webster, pages 34-55.
Note 22. William Webster, pages 56-63.

From chapter 11:

To me, leaving aside the inevitable and unprovable suggestion that the reason for sticking with the doctrine was the lust for power (rolls eyes - Lanfranc a Nietzschean! Who knew? ), this is about the development of Doctrine.

Transubstantiation in all its Thomistic glory could scarcely have been developed before the recovery of Aristotle to the west. It's a matter of how we talk about "what things are" as much as that of theology in the more confined sense.

If I've quit smoking and I use an ashtray to hold down papers on my desk (I'm sure there's a desk here under all this stuff ...) is it an ashtray or a paperweight?. Where I ~~grew up~~ spent my childhood we would link a chain to an old radiator and tie rope to the chain and a buoy to the rope and moor our small boats to this rig. So, that thing sinking into the sandy bottom, is it radiator or an anchor? Or am I wrong, and if so why, to say, "It's just a chunk of iron." That's the kind of question which underlies the attempt at a systematic and coherent articulation of Eucharistic doctrine which Radbertus -> Aquinas -> Trent etc. provide. To those of us for whom such questions are not idle wastes of time, it's worth noting that not so long ago Heidegger wrote a small book called What is a Thing? It's a good question.

Here are some excerpts I just found from Ambrose, who lived a little while before Radbertus:

Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.

The problem is stated: You say it's the body of Christ, but it sure looks like bread to me. So what's up? And the assertion is made that the "nature" is changed.

Then we have some examples of lesser changes of nature (rods into snakies) concluding in:

Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.

Then he appeals to the Incarnation as the supreme example of God going around "order of nature":

It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.

The passage continues

The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name,after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.

Now I would readily concede that this is not full-blown transubstantiation. It is rather a clear expression of a change in the bread and wine. That's key - the "real presence" somehow "in" what was bread and wine. One can point to the locus of this presence, I think he asserts. And I say that only to distinguish clearly between "Real presence in the believer" and real presence in, well that stuff that sure looks like bread and wine.

To us, as believers, that assertion is good news. But to a theologian, it's still a problem: "Just what exactly do you mean by all that?"

So the "invention" (prejudicial word) of Transubstantiation is NOT a new assertion that the elements formerly known as "the bread and wine" are now the presence of Christ in His (risen) body and blood, it's a refinement of what that assertion means.

I am not trying in any way here to defend the idea that Christ is really present in what was bread and wine. I am only addressing the suggestion that Transubstantiation was an innovation.

the word "Hebrew/Hebraisti" is all over the place as the language that Jesus spok

In your own bubble world mind. I have shown you that Hebraïstí in biblical Greek refers to Chaldee which is Aramaic.

Greeks called the languge spoken by the Jews in the 1st century Hebraisti because it was spoken by Hebrews. That doesn't mean it was Hebrew. We know it wasn't hebrew but Chaldee or Aramaic. The word "Aramaic" did not exist in Greek.

The Greeks refer to the OT Hebrew (Yehoudiyth in Hebrew, as opposed to Aramiyth for Aramaic, Aram's language) as Ioudaïstí, which is not the same as Hebraïstí (which is Greek for Chaldee, or Aramaic).

Straight from the Bible in the original languages! But I realize that for some, the original languages don't count.

But English-language bibles "solve" this problem by offering just the kind of bible you need. The NIV substitutes "Aramaic" for every NT KJV reference to "Hebrew" (language). NAB has four references to Aramaic (only in the OT), and KJV has NO "Aramaic" in the OT or the NT!

It's a true buffet of choices which particualr bible will to accept as the "word of God," expertly dressed and choregraphed by men, and tailor-made to their particular preconceived preference.

I have shown you that Hebraïstí in biblical Greek refers to Chaldee which is Aramaic.

No -- you have merely claimed such, and the word "refers" does not mean "translates".

Greeks called the languge spoken by the Jews in the 1st century Hebraisti because it was spoken by Hebrews.

So then they called the Greek language spoken by Jews "Hebraisti" as well??? No wonder they were confused.

The word "Aramaic" did not exist in Greek.

Wow -- so then how do you know that it existed at all if the Greeks did not have a word for it??? What did the Greeks call that language issuing forth from the lips of the Syrians of Mesopotamia. Wasn't it called "Syriac" also later referred to as "Aramaic"??? but always distinguishable from "Hebraisti".

The NIV substitutes "Aramaic" for every NT KJV reference to "Hebrew" (language). NAB has four references to Aramaic (only in the OT), and KJV has NO "Aramaic" in the OT or the NT!

You said it right: "substitutes" -- they "substituted" rather than do what they were supposed to do: "translate". That must be why many call it the NIV Substitution rather than the NIV Translation because it is not a faithful translation of the original Hebrew and Greek words.

The written word doesn't change from person to person

Oh please get real! There is no variety like the biblical veriaty. There are literally thousands of different manuscripts that don't agree. Unfortunately the churches do not teach that. Everyone is given a copy of a Bible and told this is the "word of God" just as the apostles wrote it...baloney.

The closest to any original apostolic writings are shreds ("fragments"), copies of copies of copies of the originals, containing several verses at a time, not of the same period, copied by different authors. The oldest one is dated about 105 AD,

Papyrus 52

and it's a copy of a copy of John's Gospel and contains but a few verses.

Then you have different text-types which don't agree; then you have missing or erased sections; then you have additions that were not present in earlier copies; then you have highly harmonized and polished versions; then you have copies or copies of copies of copies that have scribal errors; then you have erroneous translations; then you have unreliable translations, and dozens of editions that do not agree or say the same thing, and so on.

We have no clue what was written in the originals (which are not extant as far as we know). The oldest complete bible dates to the 4th century. The rest of the manuscripts come in fragments, a few verses here and a few there.

Based on that, we cannot claim certainty or veracity of anything written by the Apostles (even whether it was written by the Apostles because all the Gospels are written anonymously and the names were added later).

What you have in your hands that you call "the Bible" is a man-made book, translated by men, edited by men, rearranged by men, concocted from everything and anything that suited the authors. And you put all your trust in a man-made book and call it the "unchanging word of God?" Amazing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.