Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
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."
LOL. Only the indwelling Holy Spirit. Does that count?
Sure, provided the Holy Spirit is truly indwelling someone. Just because someone "feels" the Holy Spirit within him or her doesn't mean it's the Holy Spirit. LOL!
And how do men know they have the gift of the Holy Spirit within them? By reading the Bible and having their eyes opened and their minds renewed by God to the glorious truth therein...
But everyone reads some sort of a bible and claims to have the eyes and the ears and the gifts. It's what they DO with them that says a lot more. It always comes down to works, not random verse generation.
The Orthodox Church holds scriputres to be true but not in the literal sense, and certainly not wihtout possible human omissioins and errors. The Church teaches that the message of the scriptures is preserved pristine, however.
Kosta defers to the Church, and its collective wisdom and knowledge, but Kosta doesn't always agree. :)
Yes it does for you guys.
You claim your works are actually an integral part of your salvation. We do not. Any works that we do are a reflection of an inner change that has already occurred.
Let me give you an example. Jeffrey Dalmer, terrible perverted serial killer, in prison shortly before he was killed claimed he believed The Gospel and had Faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. He had very little time to do any kind of works. Is he a Christian and did he go to heaven? If he truly believed I say yes.
Is there a possibility for anyone to be saved and not to be purified? Is it possible that anything impure will enter heaven? When does this purification occur? During our lifetime? Do you seriously believe there are "pure" souls on earth?
Purification begins with repentance. It's what we do in the name of God, our of love for God, how we change our life and our outlook, and spend the rest of the life learning how to imitate Jesus. If we die before we learn to do a good imitation (chuckle), that's okay. The important thing is to honestly try even if you honestly fail. The intent is what counts.
Does He lead His people?
Does He correct His people?
Does He punish His people?
Does He protect His people now?
Does He teach His people?
How can it be "genuine" when the outcome was never in question? It's like allowing someone to tickle your feet to see if they can get you to laugh, and you you can absolutely resist laughing? It's a pretense. It's not a real challenge or a lesson, let alone a path to virtue!
The temptation in the desert had more than one point to it, Kosta. One point was for Jesus to grow in His humanity, which He did by passing with flying colors. Another point was to prove that Jesus understood FULLY all the temptations that we face from satan all the time:
Heb 2:18 : Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Heb 4:15 : For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin.
This also shows the PERSONAL relationship that God wants with us. He truly, in no uncertain terms, understands from first hand experience exactly what it is like to be us. He is openly showing us how we can actually relate to Him and He to us on a meaningful level. He is NOT some pantheistic, unknowable, god whose worship of amounts to just doing what you're told by other humans. That's not a relationship, and it's certainly not personal.
And a third point of the temptation in the desert was to teach us what to do when we face temptation. QUOTE SCRIPTURE. And of course Jesus only quoted OT scripture. Do you have a view on why Jesus would select that as His only strategy?
You deny that Christ died. Christians believe that He is fully human and He suffered and died in His humanity.
When you confuse the human spirit with the Space Suit of the human spirit(i.e.flesh).. You became good ground for many errors..
So, Christ is simply a spirit who covered Himself with flesh and did not become flesh, fully divine and fully humna, unconfused but inseparable, in one Person?
I asked you if you are Christian and you failed to answer. Now I know why.
Nope I said Christ flesh died but not his Spirit.. He did suffer as out spirits do here also.. but we will nor die either.. It has to do with what you mean by die.. Which also has to do with what is life... What is Life.. Kosta?.. Do you know?.. Define life and you can define death.. Science has no idea what life is, even now.. I have/wear flesh but the flesh is not me.. My spirit will get a new body or conduit.. As the gospel tells us.. As Jesus resurrected so can we..
[ So, Christ is simply a spirit who covered Himself with flesh and did not become flesh, fully divine and fully human, unconfused but inseparable, in one Person? ]
Christ had a human body just as we do but we are not basically flesh either.. Flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit..
[ I asked you if you are Christian and you failed to answer. Now I know why. ]
I am not a christian.. What is a chistian, Kosta?.. Come on be bold.. What is a christian?.. I am a sheep.. Not a snarky comment.. I am a metaphorical sheep.. That definition was good enough for Jesus its good enough for me.. I am a sheep called out of the sheep pen(s) I got myself stuck in(John ch 10).. Thank God.. Now I am a member of "THE" flock.. But there are still many sheep in the pen(s).. afraid to come out.. Come on OUT Kosta, what do I have to come in there and drag you out?..
I can only assume that they thought of the concept in a contemporary way that the scriptures described it. Like this:
Rom 8:14-18 : 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. KJV
There is nothing here about humans being able to rescind or opt out. That is a man-made invention which makes the Spirit's witness a LIE, BTW. Do you suppose that if the Spirit testifies of a man one day, that He should be ready to amend His testimony based on the free will of that man to throw away his adoption, and/or then regain it again the next day? Does that really sound reasonable to you? Does that really sound like what this scripture is saying to you?
Amen, FK. What a straightforward verse of God's merciful decree. The Holy Spirit is self-authenticating.
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth in you?" -- 1 Corinthians 3:16
OK, so it that what the average life of a Catholic is like? Do you do as many works as you can, hoping that they are good enough to get you into Heaven, all the while in fear and trembling? Or, does the Church or the Spirit tell you that you are doing enough works? If so, then how do either tell you that?
Jesus came and died and was resurrected for us; He left His Church for us because what God was supplying the Jews with was insufficient for them.
So God created the Roman Catholic Church because His efforts with the Jews were coming up short? Yikes, so much for the phrase "God save the Church". It looks like God needed the Church to save Him. :) You are adding your hierarchy to the scriptures where it is totally unsupported by text.
Ah, but we've just made a giant leap forward because you now admit the Holy Spirit does indwell God's children.
Nothing speculative or questionable. The Holy Spirit indwells some people. Good. That's progress.
But everyone reads some sort of a bible and claims to have the eyes and the ears and the gifts. It's what they DO with them that says a lot more.
Again, I'm happy to see you in agreement with us Bible-believers when you admit that some people actually do have new eyes from God and new ears from God.
And we further agree that "what we do with them says a lot more." Exactly. What we do with those gifts says...who we are. They identify us. The gifts don't win us God's favor. They are the result of God's favor. And what we do with those gifts attests to God's benevolence in giving us those new eyes and new ears in the first place.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." - Eph. 2:8)
Then you would assume wrong. A divorce from adoptive parents, while unusual, can still occur at the request of the adoptive child for any reason, or none given, once they (depends on jurisdiction) approach or surpass the age of majority.
Oh my goodness! I had no idea you were thinking along those lines. In any manner close to the analogy we are talking about parental rights terminate for the human parent when the child reaches 18 (barring some emancipation kind of action). Therefore, the analogy falls apart by default if you want to throw that in. The reason for that is that under our law once a child is 18 he is deemed by society to be independent of his parents, and theoretically able to support himself by achieving gainful employment, etc. As an adult, is that your relationship with God now, that you are independent of Him and can make it on your own? I surely hope not, so you can see how this falls apart if you assume the child has reached majority.
In the correct analogy, the child is a minor dependent, just like we are with God. In that case the child cannot undo an adoption without a showing of cause. But I mean, if you really think of yourself as an adult adopted child of God who can make his own decisions and do whatever he wants, then I wish you the best of luck with that. :) I hope you make good enough decisions and do enough works, etc.
Oh, stfassisi, never wager your salvation.
"The lot is cast in the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." -- Proverbs 16:33
I would lay down my life for you to rebuke John Calvin , Dear Sister
That's a generous offer. Happily, that choice isn't before us.
I seriously doubt it. If the Holy Spirit would forgive a deserving individual, I think that any doubt or feeling of damnation would be lifted as well.
No no no, you can't give me that. :) Who is the Catholic layman taught to trust above all others? It is the Church through its Bishops and priests. The layman is taught that the Holy Spirit only discerns to the Magisterium on all matters of faith and morals. The layman is locked out. You seem to be describing some sort of conscientious objector status that would allow the layman to know he is OK even if his priest says he wasn't. I see no evidence of that ever happening. How could it? Are those wacky Catholic nuns who are ordaining themselves as priests seen as conscientious objectors in good standing? No way. There is no room for that. There is only room for what the clergy and hierarchy say, as far as the average layman goes.
So, you can't tell me that a layman is supposed to figure out that for the first time in his life the Holy Spirit is leading him on a matter of faith and morals wholly apart from what his own priest just said to him. That's not what the power structure says.
In all frankness, I've seen too many testimonies from parents of abused children who allowed circumstances to arise that I never would have considered allowing my children in for a minute. The difference? They KNEW they could trust their priests. If the Holy Spirit would have clued in the hypothetical guy above, then certainly He would have done so for those parents. But it doesn't work like that. The average Catholic layman is taught to trust the clergy without question. Proof is that it took more than 30 years to flush out the well known scandal.
If you truly believe in Christ, then you will either refrain from committing great sins, or will repent of your sins in the prescribed fashion. God has promised and I am convinced will keep it. What have you promised?
God promised that I need to confess my sins to one of your priests to have them forgiven? I must have missed that verse. Neither does the Bible ever say that true believers will never sin. Neither does the Bible say that one must repent of his sins in a ping-pong fashion, continuously earning and losing his salvation. All of this is extra-scriptural tradition.
And it's interesting that you asked me what I promised. Frankly, I don't have anything that God would take in exchange for my salvation. Even my best stuff is filthy rags. I just don't have the goods to make up for my sins. Perhaps you have sinned less and will achieve more such that it would be an equitable trade-off in God's mind. I would guess that tradition supports that idea, so I just wish you the best in those efforts. :)
If free will didn’t matter, why did Jesus spend so much time telling us what to do?
Sanctification and perseverance.
If the Holy Spirit indwelling is enough, why do we even have Scripture?
Scripture is in part to show us what to do with the rest of our lives after salvation. Accepting Christ is not an end, it is a beginning indeed! :) God could have snatched us all away at the point of belief if He wanted to, but He obviously had different plans. Those include sanctification and spreading His word to others as His instruments. Because of scripture and Holy Spirit's leading I am a completely different person now than I was at the moment I accepted Christ. (I'm talking aside from the age difference.) This was God's design and I thank Him every day for it! :)
We believe that the Holy Spirit leads and leads us only towards perfection. We do not believe that the Holy Spirit frogmarches us. Therefore that is why we say that the Reformed God is the author of sin, and the Catholic belief says that we are the authors of sin.
Then you do not understand the Reformed God. Man does not have to have ULTIMATE controlling power to be responsible for his own sin. I think the Catholic view is that UNLESS man has the ultimate controlling power over events, then the only one left to blame is God. We certainly don't look at it that way, but I can understand why that view would be needed to solidify the position that man has controlling power over his own destiny and God waits and watches to see what happens.
What seems a little funny is that you're OK on putting responsibility on people for their own sins, but you give God a total pass on His responsibility for His own creation BASED ON SCRIPTURE. That is, you say that God created all men, and then you say that scripture says that God loves all men, and that all men are God's children. Yet, under the Catholic view what did God do? He took a vacation and let man run loose to do whatever he wanted. If some decided to do enough works to be saved then good for them, but God doesn't interfere. Some of God's children will be saved and most will be lost.
Doesn't this show an irresponsible God, one who is unfit as a parent? You will tell me "No". The Catholic view is that God loves His children SO MUCH that He will sit by and let them play in traffic until they get run over because that was their choice. I don't think I'd want that kind of love in my family. :)
The sovereignty of God is not in question with the Catholics. There is huge difference between sovereignty and robotic control. God has given us free will. How does that lessen His sovereignty?
Outstanding question. I shall endeavor to reciprocate with a brilliant answer. :) Within God's all powerful sovereignty He COULD have turned over the decision to men as to who would be saved and who would be lost. He COULD have just left it up to each man's free will. BUT, if He did that, then by definition it would mean that He didn't CARE who individually was in and who was out. IF He actually cared, then in His sovereignty He could do something about it. But for you guys, He just sits back and waits for the results to come in, and then writes down the names as His elect.
THAT is not the God I have a personal relationship with. My God loves ME and cares about ME and gave His life for ME. I'm not some random number to Him that He "hopes" will make good decisions and do enough good deeds. I am His son. And as my Father, He isn't going to let me play in traffic when it means certain death. He protects ME because He loves ME. It's personal. It's family.
FK: ***I would do serious jail time for at least reckless endangerment and child neglect/abuse if I treated my children the same way God treats His children under the Apostolic view. ***
He has given us free will with a description of the consequences of our actions. No excuses, not even frogmarching will do.
Then I suppose that in the Biblical parent-child analogy you see yourselves as fully grown and emancipated adult children, out on your own, and not fully dependent on God (the way a small child is). You are just free to go wherever you want and make whatever decisions you want, and you will eat the consequences. This view is consistent with what I know of the Apostolic Church since it revolves so heavily around how much independence and power is held by men.
I could not disagree with this view more. We are often accused of being the arrogant ones because we do not submit to your men. Yet, you believe that you and they are better compared to adult children of God who are old and wise enough to know what's best for you (AND EVERYONE ELSE! :). Well, I for one am but a very small child who is FULLY dependent on God. I do NOT know what is best for me and so I turn that over to God for His guidance. I am not smart or wise enough to make the right decisions on my own, using my free will. I just hope that you will try to rely on God for at least some things and that your Church will allow you to have a child-like faith. That is the kind of faith that is dependent on God. The grown-up, Apostolic faith is apparently a faith of a different sort.
It's not a wager,Dear Sister.
That's how absolutely confidant I am that Jesus Christ is fully present(Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) in the Eucharist every time I attend Mass.
I am using "personality" to show that God is "of or relating to a person". That person is identifiable and knowable to a certain extent. That person is also rational. This is all to distinguish from the "impersonal" God that has been proffered to me. That God is unknowable and irrational. He could do anything at any time for no reason whatsoever and apparently followers of that faith would not even notice, much more change their beliefs. To me, that relationship with God is the same relationship I now have with "the government". Totally impersonal and irrational. On a purely personal basis, is your relationship with God like it is with "the government"? (And going through other men is what we do with the government :)
***Matt 16:15-17 : 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
FK: Nothing about free will here, or having something “proved” to him.***
[Re: Matt 16:15-17] Revealing something to someone with free will means that they have the ability to react to it. Revelation has nothing whatsoever to do with free will or robotic frogmarching. It is simply that one knows something that one didn’t know before.
What are you saying? Is it that God revealed the truth to Peter, and then Peter used his free will to verbalize it???!!! Therefore we should focus here on Peter's ability to recognize it???!!! I'm lost. My answer was in response to you saying:
How many people saw Christ in the flesh, saw miracles, heard Him teach and still didn’t believe? Just more evidence for the free will of men.
I refuted that with showing that free will did not concern coming to believe. While you didn't address that, you appear to agree with me by shifting the subject to something new. However, in your last sentence that "something" that one now knows through revelation would be the truth of Christ. So, I would agree (I think) with you that this knowing has nothing to do with free will.
It seems to me that dialog, rather than yelling at each other, requires the ability and willingness to stipulate, for the sake of understanding the argument, the the other guy might be right. I am grateful that I can present an example of "irresistible grace" which explains, maybe even better than some Protestants can explain it, how their doctrine is not necessarily like God turning the saved into little robots.
Dear Brother, when it comes to the Eucharist presence of our Lord we don't give the devil an inch by even suggesting we could be wrong.
The loss of faith in the Eucharist(and I am not saying you have) is the devil's greatest victory here on earth.
The devil and his minions know they cannot achieve victory over those who have the faith of the Saints in His Eucharistic presence
"What do I know?" is a very good starting point. I've said before that from a purely innerleckshual POV the Eucharist is a great problem because it calls on so many basic questions, even before we get to the Xty and revelation part. And once we get there, my brain gets even more fried than it already is.
I'm not sure how usefully to respond to the paraclete question except to say that we think (a)the paradigmatic prayer is addressed to the Father, through the Son in (and with, and by, and most of the other prepositions hanging around) the Spirit; and (b)the "Great Thanksgiving" ought to conform closely to the paradigmatic prayer. So it is addressed to God the Father, and asks, well, many things, but among them is that the Holy Spirit make the "gifts" holy.
And we don't "task" the Spirit, we ask the Father to do so, (and sometimes the Son, but less often). It's important, I think, to note the precatory, rather than commanding, language. We trust in God's promise, but we don't come to Him with contract in hand saying, "Hey. It says right here ...."
And again, on the whole flesh v. spirit issue, it ain't so clear neither.
If we do hard-line Thomism, the "body" is the body of Christ as it currently is. So that means it is the "substance" (and PLEASE remember that does NOT mean "The stuff that it's made of"; it means the "quiddity", the "what it IS, bro," of a thing) of resurrected body, which Paul SEEMS to say is a (alert: stand by for mind destruction) "spiritual body".
Oh good. That makes it SEW much clearer.
Not.
It seems to me the witness is that Christ is "really" present "there" (somehow). Lateran IV "baptizes" a way to say that, a language for the mystery, but it SHO don't explain it.
And I THINK the main difference, on the ground, between us and most Protestants is enshrined in the word "there". (That MAY be because I have a phenomenological sense of "real", and I may be in error in that -- as well as in a zillion other things.)
But I think many if not most Protestants would go with (a)The Spiritual is the "Real" that matters -- that other "real" stuff vanishes like the flower that fades; and (b) therefore Christ is really enough present in the faithful in the observation of the "ordinance". (What caliber is that there ord'nance?)
So in my exploratory conjecture, the difference is indicated less in "real" than in "there".
I trust I make myself obscure.
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.