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."

Thank you so very much for all of your insights and for those engaging excerpts and the beautiful Scripture!

The posters might also find this resource helpful:

American Colonist's Library - a treasury of Primary Documents

The influence of the Reformation is very apparent in many of the founder's sources.

As to the mind of early America, the New England Primary is quite telling. The Calvinist influence is obvious. From the forward:

If such proposed practices violate the Constitution, it is fair to ask just what sort of education the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. It does not necessarily follow, of course, that the intentions of these men were perfect and must bind the nation for ever. But there are procedures for changing the Constitution, so unless and until the relevant sections are changed, the intent of the original writers is still the supreme law of the United States.

So what was the intent of the writers for a suitably secular, First-Amendment-conforming, public education?

One way to answer this question is to look at the textbooks actually used in schools in the early days of our nation. In this sense, the New England Primer provides an excellent "case study".

The New England Primer (pronounced prim' er, short "i") was by far the most commonly used textbook in the United States for over 100 years. The first edition was printed in 1690 and it was still in use in 1900. It was used in both public and private schools. It was intended to be used to help teach children to read: it includes a rhyme to teach the alphabet, vocabulary words, and many short poems and other practice reading selections. While the idea of having separate grade levels was not introduced until the 1800's, this book was used for what would today be considered first grade. It also includes some religious references.

Most if not all of the writers of the Constitution would have used this book in school. They were all surely aware of it. It continued to be used, with no apparent challenge, long after the Constitution was ratified. If it violated what they had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, surely someone would have said something about it. So it is fair to say that the people who wrote the First Amendment must have considered the treatment of religion in this book acceptable. I therefore offer it here as an example of a book which fully conforms with our Constitution. I urge you to scan through it and see if you can find the religious references.

The New England Primer (pronounced prim' er, short "i") was by far the most commonly used textbook in the United States for over 100 years. The first edition was printed in 1690 and it was still in use in 1900. It was used in both public and private schools.

Thanks for that interesting piece of history. Looks like John Dewey and the NEA didn't do Christians any favors when they rewrote the textbooks for American schools. 8~)

From the Boettner link here's another facinating fact of our shared past...

N. S. McFetridge has thrown light upon another major development of the Revolutionary period. For the sake of accuracy and completeness we shall take the privilege of quoting him rather extensively. "Another important factor in the independent movement," says he, "was what is known as the 'Mecklenburg Declaration,' proclaimed by the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, May 20, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration (of Independence) of Congress. It was the fresh, hearty greeting of the Scotch-Irish to their struggling brethren in the North, and their bold challenge to the power of England. They had been keenly watching the progress of the contest between the colonies and the Crown, and when they heard of the address presented by the Congress to the King, declaring the colonies in actual rebellion, they deemed it time for patriots to speak.
Accordingly, they called a representative body together in Charlotte, N. C., which by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void. In their Declaration were such resolutions as these: 'We do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us with the mother-country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown' .... 'We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under control of no power other than that of our God and the general government of Congress; to the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes and our most sacred honor.' ... That assembly was composed of twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, just one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church, including the president and secretary; and one was a Presbyterian clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the secretary, Ephraim Brevard, a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church and a graduate of Princeton College. Bancroft says of it that it was, 'in effect, a declaration as well as a complete system of government.' (U.S. Hist. VIII, 40). It was sent by special messenger to the Congress in Philadelphia, and was published in the Cape Fear Mercury, and was widely distributed throughout the land. Of course it was speedily transmitted to England, where it became the cause of intense excitement.
"The identity of sentiment and similarity of expression in this Declaration and the great Declaration written by Jefferson could not escape the eye of the historian; hence Tucker, in his Life of Jefferson, says: 'Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other.' But it is certain that Brevard could not have 'borrowed' from Jefferson, for he wrote more than a year before Jefferson; hence Jefferson, according to his biographer, must have 'borrowed' from Brevard. But it was a happy plagiarism, for which the world will freely forgive him. In correcting his first draft of the Declaration it can be seen, in at least a few places, that Jefferson has erased the original words and inserted those which are first found in the Mecklenberg Declaration. No one can doubt that Jefferson had Brevard's resolutions before him when he was writing his immortal Declaration."
This striking similarity between the principles set forth in the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church and those set forth in the Constitution of the United States has caused much comment. "When the fathers of our Republic sat down to frame a system of representative and popular government," says Dr. E. W. Smith, "their task was not so difficult as some have imagined. They had a model to work by."
"If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, 'John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.'"

“The Biblical truth behind capitalism resides in the acknowledgment that God gives men their place on earth, numbers their days, establishes their boundaries, and that each man is thus required to glorify God in thought, word and deed in this life.”

The biblical truth behind capitalism is stewardship. He has a purpose for all and has given talents to all to accomplish that purpose and commanded we multiply those talents, whether its children for propagation or giftedness like Bezaleel and Aholiab. He has given certain guidelines like:

Lev. 19:36, “Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

James 4:13-15, “Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.”

He has given guidelines for servant-master relationships.

He has admonished to lay up capital for the future:

Prov. 6:6-8, “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.”

Eph. 4:28, “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.”

1 Thess. 4:11-12, “And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.”

2 Cor. 12:14, “Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.”

They bought and sold property as did Abraham, Jeremiah and Barabas. They were merchants with property as were Peter, Andrew, James, John and Lydia and Philemon.

It was not the systems of capitalism or socialism/communism (the early church) that were the problem, but the selfishness of man’s fallen nature either in unbridled ambition, greed, self indulgence, presumption or laziness.

“Do you believe that God planned for the founding fathers of this country to advocate breaking up black families in slave trade and bless america?”

I believe, as Paul did, that Romans 8:28-39,

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

That includes freedom, good health, financial security, success, good looks, fame, intact family, peace; none of those things can separate us from the love of God. He tailors the right conditions for our salvation, even to the death of his son. He uses the gifts of illness, addictions, financial ruin, injury, ignomy to bring us to him. So to answer your question, God uses even slavery to bring his children to him, for circumstances do not determine our royal lineage, only faith in him. What does it profit a man if he has all of the freedom in the world and loses his soul?

Does he bless America is a question only he knows the answer. A look at the spiritual condition of America would lead one to say the blessing is turning into a curse.

Phil. 4:11, “Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.”

1 Cor. 7:21-22, “Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.”

Eph. 6:5, “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;”

I am also looking at this [in addition to verse 7] with my emphases:

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]

Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.

The Old Covenant was not "perfect" in the sense that it did not provide for perfect salvation through Jesus Christ. But then, it was never intended to do that, so it WAS perfect for its intended purpose. The New Covenant was "better" because it did include Jesus paying for all of our sins. Now man could have an unbroken relationship with God:

Heb 9:15 : For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance — now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

God did not institute the Old Covenant, then sit back to find out what happened, and then say "OOOPS, I had better make a New Covenant". That would be an extremely weak God, no better than any man going through trial and error to get what he wants.

So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?! Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.

The Old Covenant prepared the way for the New Covenant. The Old Covenant proved to the world that salvation may not be had by works (Eph. 2:8-9). The New Covenant proved that the ONLY way to be saved was by the blood of Christ. Christ came and did fulfill the Law of Moses. Since then we are not under Law but under grace, and now that can be understood by anyone. Both Covenants served their respective intended purposes perfectly.

You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?

No, I have no conclusive proof. There are definitely holes in the theory. However, it was interesting to read the introduction to Hebrews in my brand new ESV Bible. Here is an excerpt:

".... But the epistle does not tell us [the author's] name, leaving a tantalizing mystery. In the Eastern church by the time of Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215) and Origen (A.D. 185-253) the epistle was attributed to Paul, although both of these theologians recognized the stylistic differences between Hebrews and the Pauline epistles. In the West, Tertullian (c. A.D. 155-220) proposed Barnabas, a Levite of the Jewish Dispersion who was noted for his encouragement of others (Acts 4:36). Other early suggestions were Luke and Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95).

From the fifth to the sixteenth centuries Paul's authorship was accepted in East and West. During the Reformation Luther proposed Apollos, a Jewish Christian from Alexandria who was skilled in speech and powerful in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24). Suggestions in the modern period have included Priscilla (but cf. 11:32, where the author refers to himself with a masculine gender participle), Epaphras (Col. 1:7), and Silas (Acts 15:22, 32, 40; 1 Pet. 5:12).

While it is difficult to rule out many of these candidates, it is equally hard to make a convincing case for any one of them. From the standpoints of early tradition, Paul has the strongest claim, but as Calvin observed, Hebrews differs from Paul in style, teaching method, and in the author's inclusion of himself among the disciples of the apostles (2:3) -- a statement at odds with Paul's characteristic claim to have received his appointment and revelation of the gospel directly from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 11, 12)

Perhaps I have been unknowingly corrupted by the tradition of old. :) But in any event, none of this alters my original statement, that Paul never criticized God, whether he wrote Hebrews or not. I just thought it was interesting.

Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:

"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]

The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!

Of course the New Covenant was intended for Gentiles. In the same book Paul tells us who the house of Israel includes:

Rom 9:6-13 : 6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."

10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad — in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls — she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

All of Romans 9 lays this out. There is also this:

Rom 2:28-29 : 28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

Again, either God is weak and makes mistakes like the rest of us, or He planned everything to turn out just the way it did. As a Gentile, if you think God didn't really want you in the first place, do you see yourself as a second class citizen next to Christians who have Jewish heritage?

The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!

That's the problem. We see the whole Bible as one coherent message. Sure, it emphasizes different things at different times, but it does not contradict itself as a whole, whether I can personally explain every little apparent contradiction or not. All have a resolution. If the Bible really was damaged goods, then I would have no idea what to believe in, and I probably would have to just pick some group of men to follow first, in front of scripture. I would be forced to believe that these men were without flaw as a group, and they could cover the flaws of God's word. As I understand the Orthodox view, the Church cannot error, but the Bible certainly can.

I appreciate your thoughts, but you never answered the questions I posed to you.

“Do you believe that God planned all of the events in the thief on the cross’ life that led up to his audience with Jesus there?”

“Do you believe that the thief now believes that the audience was worth his getting caught and punished?”

The question you posed was,

“Do you believe that God planned for the founding fathers of this country to advocate breaking up black families in slave trade and bless america?”

My answer had nothing to do with whether Washington, Jefferson and Adams should models of how one should live. That was not the question. The question was about God’s plan for slaves and I answered, “He uses the gifts of illness, addictions, financial ruin, injury, ignomy to bring us to him. So to answer your question, God uses even slavery to bring his children to him, for circumstances do not determine our royal lineage, only faith in him. What does it profit a man if he has all of the freedom in the world and loses his soul?”.

God uses just the right circumstances, personalized, to draw his own unto himself, including slavery. That is how many were taken out of slavery to Satan into the freedom of the Lord. Would you have them left in their condemned state? It is not a method that we think civilized people should use to treat others, but it was used by God to spiritually liberate many. Look at Joseph, Gen. 50:20, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” God had foretold the slavery in Egypt to Abraham and then sold Joseph into slavery to make it happen. He foretold the sacrifice of his son to Isaiah some 750 years before it happened in order to liberate us from the slavery to sin.

I realize that it was not a Vatican operation, but when it takes place in their own backyard and when the people involved are making regular trips back and forth from

My gut feeling is that the Vatican knew something but was either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. Why is the Vatican the villain for ignoring it duirng the war, and the US is not for doing nothing about it after the war, as was the case with Franco's shelteirng of Ante Pavelich?

Needless to say the Serbian Holocaust remains a sad chapter in the history of WWII, a chapter quickly swept under the rug, not finding its way into any history books that I ever read

Yes, that is amazing and puzzling. Which is what makes Kolokotronis and other Orthodox posters here wonder why is it the Protestant West determined to bury or destroy Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Look up the massacre in Kragujevac (Kraguyevats), where Germans in 1941 executed between 2,300 (according to one German officer's report) and 5,000 Serbian civilians, including all the students and teachers of the city's high school on October 20, 1941. This horrific and unprecedented massacre in any particular city in WWII remains virtually unrecorded and unknown in the west.

Our failure to support the Serbs against the Muslim terrorist KLA, to support Israel against the Palestinian Muslims, to call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist, to allow Muslim oil money to buy our foreign and domestic policies is going to cost us dearly -- unfortunately

I agree, but if you say the evangelicals were truly opposed to all this, where is the evidence of pressure exerted on either the Clinton or Bush Administration to change? After all, there are some 40 million Evangelicals in this country and they have a voice every administration can not simply ignore.

You see, this is a pattern that goes much further back than the current issues, even when the Muslims were not as prominent a factor in the world and our security.

For, the actions speak louder than the words when it comes to ignoring Ante Pavelich enjoying his retirement in Franco's Spain, or ignoring the continuous illegal Turkish occupation of eastern Cyprus, or siding with jihadists in Bosnia's unconstitutional independence and the resulting civil war, or supporting the KLA which was at one time officially called a terrorist organization by the US.

And, for your information, this Administration is ready to support and recognize Kosovo's independence, now slated for proclamation in seven days.

This anti-Orthodox western bias, actually distaste to recognize the Orthodox as Christians or to show any compasison for them, is almost historic. No amount of sacrifice the Orthodox endure is good enough to be placed in western school books. And with any Greco-Turkish conflict, the US always sided with the Turks.

I am grateful to many a western and probably many a Protestant individual, who recognizes that Serbs and Greeks are Christians, and for their support. But they are lone voices in the wilderness.

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.