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."

You of all Reformed on this Forum wold know better than any other that most of the heresies that sprang up in the first millennium came from my side of the Church and that it was the fraternal Latin Church that helped us stay the course and return to our Orthodoxy.

Absolutely correct. I would also say that the Orthodox church continued to reject either in part or in full many of the creeds and councils of the western church. Often when I bring up these creeds and councils the response I get from the Orthodox is that these were "minor councils".

My point has been, and continues to be, that the Orthodox represents a wrong view of scripture. The western (Latin) church, had two views after the Council of Orange. They held the Augustine (right) view and they held the Orthodox (wrong) view thank in part to Pope So-n-so in 600AD who allowed John Cassian's (Pelagius' pupil) view into the Church because of a favor. Tsk, tsk.

The break between the Reformers and the Latin Church was simply a break between these two views. The Orthodox had left 500 years before. What you see today is the Latin Church moving towards the wrong view of the Orthodox. It's rather astonding that you would admit the Orthodox held the heretical views and then want the western church to move towards you.

But it comes to me as strange that you would complain of "tinkering" when such a term best describes Protestant and Baptist assemblies, where there is an infinite degree of variation of theology and belief among groups, and where everyone interprets to his or her satisfaction.

I have gone into a number of fundamental Protestant church of all denominations and heard the same basic doctrine, that Christ died for your sins and that He arose. I might disagree with some of the biblical interpretation but it doesn't undercut the primary message of the gospel.

God has granted us the scriptures; scriptures that the Church from the earliest days have deemed inspired but which you have gone on record as doubting. You won't find that in fundamental churches where we believe in the scriptures. So given my choice of accepting a group of old men telling me what I should believe or a group that tells me to read the word of God and form my own opinion, I'll choose the latter thank you. After all, the scriptures don't tell me Mary is the Queen of heaven, all of heaven tremble at her might and we are to venerate her. Old men who don't have anything else to do tell us that.

Perhaps thecollective wisdom of the Church and God's loving care will help us overocme these human definition and once again share our Eucharist, but these dogmas sure made it much more difficult.

If the Eucharist was so central to your beliefs, then there is really no reasons the Orthodox and Catholics can't patch things up tomorrow. The Eucharist is a smoke screen by which Catholic and Orthodox pretend to believe the same thing.

But there arises the most definite of questions: what is right and what is wrong? How is the truth to be judged? What makes FK right in a particular instance and Calvin or Luther or Augustine or Cyprian wrong? The indwelling HS?

The HS leads all believers at varying paces, and all believers reflect the HS's leadership to varying degrees. The ultimate test for anyone or any group of men, is to what degree the teaching follows scripture. And, the way scriptures are interpreted is also governed by the HS per above.

I am not right, and you are wrong, because the HS leads me and does not lead you. The HS leads us both because we are both Christians. There are simply varying results, within time, according to God's plan. It is a virtual certainty that both of us are wrong in some, or even several, of our interpretations. That leaves room for both of us to grow in our faiths. The same applied to all the men we are talking about during their lives.

That is a tremendous error on the part of the Reformers which has given rise to the thousands of different denominations, as well as declaring fair game for any individual to develop his/her own theology and hang up a church shingle if he/she chooses.

There is no error. You can't tell me that if you could snatch any two Popes from history and throw them in the same room they would agree on everything important. There's no way. If they agreed on everything then they were static in the Lord. There could have been no growth. I don't think God cares so much about how many different names hang on the outside of houses of worship. I think He cares much more about what is being proclaimed inside.

More, better; okay. Some of both perhaps?

Sure, good enough. :)

The OT outlines the failure of God to get the Jews to pay attention and prepare themselves for the Messiah. The mission to the Gentiles was a fallback.

That's very Kostalian. :) But how could an omniscient God pursue a course He knows that is doomed to failure on His part? Of course He would not. The failure of the Jews was always part of His plan, which fit neatly and perfectly with His plan to then bring in the Gentiles, as a group. God did not change His mind, He always intended for Gentiles to be saved. In fact, many Gentiles were saved in the OT. For example:

Matt 12:41 : 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.

And He foretold that He would save Gentiles:

Rom 9:23-25 : 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," ...

Therefore, the mission to the Gentiles could NOT have been a fallback. It all happened exactly according to plan.

The Jews are God’s Chosen People and they as a nation have not accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah. This alone should provide sufficient evidence that God has created us with free will.

Not in the sense that I think you mean it. God is simply not a failure. :) Does it make no sense at all that God used the failure of the Jews to usher in the inclusion of the Gentiles, and that it was all planned? It flows perfectly to me. I mean, we DO have the luxury of 20-20 hindsight. This part is supposed to be easy. :)

Origen is not a Church "Father." That is another Protestant lie... Origen left the Church when he embraced Gnostic heresy and taught the pre-existence of the souls ... Yup, in his second half, Origne sure turned weird.

But you do realize that Origen had a direct hand in the production of that Alexandrian Test type that the Greek Orthodox now embrace, as well as the "LXX" Septuagint that derives from Origen's Hexapla.

Here is more from Wikipedia:

"In Origen the Christian Church had its first theologian in the highest sense of the term. Attaining the pinnacle of human speculation, his teaching was not merely theoretical, but was also imbued with an intense ethical power. To the multitude to whom his instruction was beyond grasp, he left mediating images and symbols, as well as the final goal of attainment. In Origen Christianity blended with the pagan philosophy in which lived the desire for truth and the longing after God. When he died, however, he left no pupil who could succeed him, nor was the church of his period able to become his heir, and thus, his knowledge was buried. Three centuries later his very name was stricken from the books of the Church; yet in the monasteries of the Greeks his influence still lived on, and the spiritual father of Greek monasticism was that same Origen at whose name the monks had shuddered.

"Origen's influence on the later Church: For quite some time, Origen was counted as one of the most important church fathers and his works were widely used in the Church. His exegetical method was standard of the School of Alexandria and the Origenists were an important party in the 4th century debates on Arianism. "Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen, e.g., compiled in their first monastery the Philokalia, a collection of Origen's work, though both of them did neither adopt Origenism nor use the Alexandrian allegoric exegesis.

"Much later, Origen got into theological trouble with the Church because of some extreme views adopted by his followers, the Origenists, whose views were attributed to Origen. In the course of this controversy, some of his other teachings came up, which were not accepted by the general church consensus. Among these were the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity. These teachings, and some of his followers' more extreme views, were declared anathema by a local council in Constantinople 545, and then an ecumenical council (Fifth Ecumenical Council) pronounced "15 anathemas"[11] against Origen in 553. "The anathema against him in his person, declaring him (among others) a heretic, reads as follows:

"If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.[12]

"As a result of this condemnation, the writings of Origen supporting his teachings in these areas were destroyed. They were either outright destroyed, or they were translated with the appropriate adjustments to eliminate conflict with Orthodox Christianity (the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" referred to in the council of 553, which at the time included both of what are now called the Catholic and Orthodox Churches)."

Well they didn't destroy all of those things that issued forth from his hand, and mind, and writings, and textual alterations, and disciples, did they??? And now you are telling us that the Greek Orthodox Church has made that Alexandrian Bible, derived from Origen's textual alterations, the official bible of the Greek Orthodox Church. Is that what has happened???

“The word Son of Man (ben adam) means simply the son of Adam, a descendent of Adam, a human being, of Adam’s seed”

“Daniel 7:13 it is used as a title for a divine person “The Son of man”.

“How do you know that? Hebrew did not distinguish between lower case and upper case letters”

There is only one place that bar enash (son of mankind) is used in the scripture for Son of Man and that is Daniel 7:13. In all other places “son of man” is a translation of ben adam. “Bar” is the word used for son in Daniel 3:35 for “son of God”, (bar elahh). That is why it is a title and not just a descriptive term, at least, it’s a good conjecture.

[Mark to Irish:] Maybe that is something that perpetuates the misunderstanding of this works-based salvation that we are accused of. We are not works based, but we are commanded to do.

Ah, but when we look at it carefully, I think you really DO have a works-based model. IMHO, Kosta has been the most open and honest about it, calling it such. (However, in no way has he ever promoted anything like the full Pelagian view.) Here is my current understanding of the Apostolic view, and please correct me if I am wrong:

If a good Christian decides to use his free will to perform good works then he will be saved. However, if a good Christian uses his free will and decides not to do good works, then he is damned. God will examine all the good Christians and judge them based on the merit of their good works, whether in quantity or quality, or by some other measure. Whatever God's threshold is, those who have done "enough" will see Heaven, and those who haven't done enough, regardless of faith, will be sent to the down escalator.

If this is basically correct, then I really see this as a works-based salvation model. I acknowledge that you believe that grace is indispensable for salvation, however, if you believe that works and faith are separate entities, then works is a BASE, by itself, for your salvation. So for you, it would be both grace-based AND works-based.

We obviously don't see it that way at all. We see works as the CERTAIN fruit of any true faith. Now, James clearly says that faith without works is dead. We think he was referring to a false faith that never truly was. I think the Apostolic view is that he referred to a true faith in which the person made a bad decision to not do enough works. He did not use his free will to fulfill the BASE requirements for salvation.

If I have been fair enough, I hope you can see why we use terms like "works-based salvation" with you all. I think most Reformers around here know that this is not the same as full Pelagianism. Your side has made it clear that you believe that without grace no one is saved. We disagree on whether works are actually a part of faith itself, or if it is something separate that must be decided upon by a true believer. We don't think true believers have anything to decide because it is already a part of them:

2 Cor 5:17 : Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Thank you so very much for your graciously composed essay-post!

2 Cor 5:17 : Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Very well said. Beautiful Scripture!

As I have mentioned before, about half of my family is Catholic. And the entire family is Christian.

And I have noticed among my Catholic relatives the phenomenon of uncertainty. It seems to result from a sense of separate-from-God responsibility for doing good works and a lingering doubt that anything they could do would be good enough.

The uncertainty was particularly evident when my oldest brother, a Catholic, weighed anchor from this mortal life. The survivors who were Catholic were more troubled by his passing.

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one. - John 10:25-30

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also. - John 14:1-3

Love God. Believe Him. Trust Him.

Rejoice in the Lord alway: [and] again I say, Rejoice. - Philippians 4:4

Marantha, Jesus!

WM:It is those Protestants you demean that are fighting the fight. All I see from the RC's and EO is accommodation with the enemy.

KO:I served twenty years in the military through three wars. You are going to tell me that I "accommodate" the enemy? Shame on you.

I appreciate and respect your service.

I currently have relatives and friends whose sons are in the service. One of those fine young men goes on 6 month deployments and is not allowed to say where or what he is doing. You can only guess at the risks he faces.

How you can perceive I'm denigrating any of our military is by skipping the entire post and seeing where I forgot to put the C indicating the church. It must be that the point really hit home. What have we seen from your churches regarding the WOT? The EOC hasn't said much, but they never do and they seem to be in agreement with the RCC. What have we seen from the RCC?

Did the Pope kiss the Koran before or after the war started?

Did the RCC take the position that this might not be a just war?

Did the RCC declare that muslims worship the same God as Christians?

Did the EOC express any outrage at these things?

Or maybe we decided to side with their enemies, and get involved in their local dispute, instead of minding our own business.

This is so silly it's hard to even respond to. Flying planes into the Twin Towers, bombing our ships, bombing our embassies killing our citizens changes this from any local dispute. If you can't see this, it's time to clean your glasses.

Are you going to call Gen Wesley Clark and tell him he is "accommodating" the enemy too because he is opposed to our senseless war in Iraq?

Yes!

You are shutting people up for speaking their mind because you disagree with their opinion.

How exactly is this happening? You seem to be able to speak just fine. It may not make any sense except on a DU thread, but nobody is stopping you from saying it.

Unfortunately, multidimensional weltanschauun is alien to so many one-dimentional individuals whose see only one side of the moon and therefore have nothing to compare it to.

Is this why American Exceptionalism is put down? Is this why those Protestant ancestors who created this country are mocked. Is it to hard to look at history objectively and acknowledge that the "Presbyterian Revolution" brought freedom to the world that never existed before?

Don't tell me shame on you. Look in the mirror and thank GOD that He choose to place us in a country that has the ability to do good in the world.

BD: There is only one place that bar enash (son of mankind) is used in the scripture for Son of Man and that is Daniel 7:13 . In all other places “son of man” is a translation of ben adam.

Re: Dan 7:13

Bar enash is Aramaic for ben adam, son of man, (hu)man. It is true that it can mean son of mankind as well. Given the context, this son of mankind is the future Jewish King to whom God will give dominion over all nations* (verse 14), so he will be their first son . Read in context, it "de-christianizes" the previous verse .

*nations can also mean tribes, and could be limited only to Israelites.

“Bar” is the word used for son in Daniel 3:35 [should be 3:25] for “son of God”, (bar elahh) . That is why it is a title and not just a descriptive term, at least, it’s a good conjecture.

Re: Dan 3:25 [3:92 LXX]

Indeed it is a conjecture, but I am not sure based on what. Bar elah is also Aramaic for ben Elohiym (sons of God, angels, messengers of God). The unaccented and unparsed Septuagint (raw text), however, is much longer and this verse is in LXX Daniel 3: 92 rather than 25, and reads similar (or like) αγγελου θεου (angel of God).

Other (more chirstianized) versions of the Septuagingt read "like the son of God" obviously translating literally from Aramaic because it likes it to Christ. We have similar examples of different LXX versions especially in Isaiah (i.e. Osa 9:6-8), where one version is definitely christianized and the other is not.

Curiously, Protestants pick and choose from these variants, often ignoring that the Hebrew bible doesn't match what is said in Greek, as long as one is more chirstianized.

The English translation of Tanakh says "like [that of] an angel," leaving out of God altogether.

The "Hebrew" Bible reads demah bar elah (like the son of God), which simply means like angel , the same name given to angels and kings through the Old Testament in Hebrew, namely ben Elohiym .

(NOTE: both Hebrew and Aramaic [Chaldean] have another word for angel, namely malak, that is, mal'ak respectively, meaning messenger)

You do realize, I hope, that chapters 1 through 7 of Daniel were written in Chaldean (Aramaic) and not in Hebrew. You also do realize that the early Church used the longer (so called "deuterocanonical" LXX) of Daniel , because it bridges an important time span necessary for apocalyptic Christianity.

At the end of the 1st century AD, rejecting anything Christian, the Jamnia rabbis rejected the longer version of Daniel [curiously, their standard of acceptance was that anything that wasn't written in "Hebrew" was unacceptable; yet parts of Daniel and Ezra are written in Chaldean and are accepted! The same is true of many Dead Sea Scrolls].

Modern English bibles follow the Jamnia version but some "christianize" it, while others translate it in the spirit of the Old testament usage:

He said, "Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods !" [NAB]*

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God . [KJV]

*Other sources list NAB (in the longer version) as saying "son of God"!

Clearly, such variations in length and translations are significant for theological constructs, but such variations also demonstrate that what we have in our hands titled the "Holy Bible" is not the pristine word of God everyone pretends it to be, but rather a product of various authors, altered for different agendas, written in different languages, under different influences and historical realities, and most of all translated in a variety of ways from an abundance of "variants."

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.