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."
Of course, it is so obvious. How could I miss it. Whenever I write a letter, I always open with “William Shakespeare, writer.”
“Of course, it is so obvious. How could I miss it. Whenever I write a letter, I always open with “William Shakespeare, writer.””
IT, its likely Kosta is right. Tell me though, why does the authorship of 1 Peter make a difference to you?
They are different faces of the same God. Trinitarian theology and so on. God did not appear to men in the OT as Jesus did in the New. Jehovah tended to lights and voices out of the sky and burning bushes and the threat of death to any man who saw Him directly. That is quite a different appearance than what Jesus gave us.
If they are different faces of the same God, then you should agree that the OT God was also personal, even if you do not recognize it. A being is either personal or impersonal. Slot machines are impersonal. Some people thing God is like that, acting randomly. But some of us think the opposite, that God is personal and acts with purpose.
FK: *** How many chances did He give the Jews? Seventy times seven, etc.? :) He disciplined them out of His profound and very personal love for them. The OT God is very personal. ***
He was a distant and angry taskmaster. That approach failed.
Even if that is your personal view, you still agree that it is the same God, right? IOW, I hope you're not saying that personality suddenly "attached" to God at some point. On a side note, do you have a view on how God overcame His failure in the OT? Did He just "wise up", or did someone help Him to understand His error in your view?
FK: ***There was a time before creation.***
What time would this be? God existed before the ages according to Paul. If God created time, as He created everything else, then He exists out of time.
That God exists out of time just means that He is not subject to the rules of time that we experience. Time is just a measure of existence. Some people consider it to be its own dimension, as it were, and I agree with that. My only point is that if we say that God created, then He existed before He created, in human terms. Whatever you want to call that existence before creation, that is the time I am talking about. There was love in the Trinity before there was creation, and love is an action that can be measured with time.
FK: ***If you are “one” then you are saying you can snatch yourself out of God’s hands. The scripture forbids this. ***
Scripture most definitely says that man can reject God. The whole OT is the Jewish nation variously rejecting God. When Jesus revealed that His followers must eat His body and drink His blood, many of them walked, saying that it was too hard.
With all due respect, so what? :) Of course men reject God. In fact, most do. Jesus said that He would not lose THOSE FEW that were given to Him by the Father. That is totally different. You are saying that Jesus DOES lose some who were given to Him by the Father. That simply goes against what scripture teaches.
And being a "follower" who is swept up into a movement (see Obama supporters) does not necessarily make one a true believer (ask an Obama supporter to name one of his accomplishments). We saw that with the rich young man. His "faith" was false and shallow. He did not have true faith. He was not given to Christ by the Father. IOW, those who walked away from Jesus were not actually true followers in the first place. They were posers.
Judas rejected Him; Peter rejected Him three times and yet Peter’s repentance brought him back to Jesus. Peter, the prodigal son, returned. Judas, in despair, didn’t. The Jews who walked away from Him, didn’t return either.
It sounds like you are confusing a temporary lapse with a full rejection of God by someone who claimed true faith, but never had it. If God allows true believers to renounce their faiths permanently, then God is a liar and we can trust Him for nothing.
FK: ***Your Catechism says that God conveyed what He wanted to convey in the Bible. How meaningless the Bible is since it doesn’t include the countless number of exceptions that your tradition adds.***
Are you saying that God didn’t convey what He wanted to in the Bible? Did those nasty Catholics keep some of God’s word back from Him?
No, your hierarchy hasn't accomplished anything in fact along these lines. I meant that logically the Catholic view would have to be that God intended to convey very little in scripture, since your tradition contradicts it so much. God DID convey what He wanted, and some are able to see it.
“On a side note, do you have a view on how God overcame His failure in the OT?”
Yup, its called the Incarnation. Remember about a year ago I suggested you read “On the Incarnation” by +Athanasius the Great? Its all there, FK. It will answer most of your other points in 4083 also.
Are you speaking against missionaries, Kosta?
Good answers, irish.
QQQQQQQQQQ (tenQ)(say it real fast :>)
You’re welcome. (Fast enough?)
:>)
Of course, it says. The author was intending his audience to believe it was Apostle Peter writing.
Unfortinately, historical evidence shows that 1 Peter was written towards the end of the century, when Peter was already dead (65-67 AD).
There were simply no systematic persecutions of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime. They appear some 25 years after his death.
They have no business in Christian countries.
***The author was intending his audience to believe it was Apostle Peter writing. ***
The Bible lies, according to Kosta50!!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to Kosta50, someone PRETENDING to be Peter wrote Peter’s epistle. The Church was FOOLED by the author of Peter, so therefore the CHURCH has no Spiritual discernment!!!
Curiosities and outrages abound on our rel forum.
. . . as in life.
Are we back to the strictly mechanical Reformed view of the elect?
I don't know. What is that? The Reformed believe that God sends all of His children to minister to all people. Is that so bad?
The Reformed predestined will believe regardless of your action or inaction. They are predestined. What, then, is the use of your preaching?
You are forgetting that it is God's INTENTION to use His elect to reach others of His elect. So, in some cases my action is indeed required because that is what God planned. The cause of my action is wholly God, but it is still necessary for God's plan to be fulfilled. That is the use of my preaching.
FK: ***We are commanded to witness to everyone.***
For what purpose? The elect will be ambushed by the Holy Spirit; the non elect will be taunted. Is this Christianity?
No, that doesn't sound like Christianity. I can't speak for Catholicism, but I'm glad I don't know of anyone who thinks like you say. When we preach to the saved-to-be, the purpose is obvious. When we preach to the non-elect, we also benefit from the experience, and the non-elect probably benefits from the interaction as well. It is NEVER a waste to preach the Gospel.
FK: ***I believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall.***
No. Your experience tells you that it will fall. It is knowledge. No wonder we have such interesting debates - we don’t even have common terminology.
You're right that we don't have common terminology. I really DO believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall. So, I have no idea what you're talking about.
See? The Reformed appear have redefined “belief” and “knowledge” each to mean the other.
How do you define your faith in your Church? Do you believe that your uninspired men are correct, or do you know it?
"They have no business in Christian countries."
None whatsoever.
There were no systematic persecutions of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime. Unless Peter, a quarter of a century after his death, was writing 1 Peter from heaven, he is not the author, just as he is not the author of 2 Peter.
For the sake of Christian unity—and indeed survival—1 Peter serves to reconcile the rift that existed (despite Acts sugarcoating the issue) between the followers of Peter and Paul.
I must remind you that the oldest complete Christian Bible, Codex Sinaiticus, contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Heremas as canon. Was the Church fooled? Did it lack spiritual discernment to include them?
The books of the Hebrews and the Revelation (which is never read to this day in the Orthodox churches, and was not officially included into the Constantinopolean canon until after the 9th century) were included into the New Testament as a bargaining agreement between the East and the West.
The East didn't want the book of revelation but wanted the book of Hebrews, and the West wanted the opposite; so they compromised and decided to include both! Some "spiritual discernment."
But, hey, you are free to believe whatever you wish. Pink unicorns on Jupiter are always and option, as are Grimm's fairytales. Then there is always the head-in-the-sand approach when one wants to be in the dark and pretend the sun doesn't shine and the world is only what is in their head.
As for the Bible, the famous verse says that "all scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching..." It doesn't say that one needs to establish the identity of the author; just the spiritual authenticity of the content. It also doesn't say what consitutes or how is scripture determined; nor does it list the books of the canon.
In fact, save for some fo the Espitles of Paul, the books of the Bible remain unsigned. The identities of their authors are presumed, and were added at a later date.
In ancient times, the names of scrolls (books) were titled according to the first sentence written. Thus the Hebrew title for the book of Genesis is In the Beginning. The Books of Moses remain unsigned, anonymous. Isaiah was most likely written by three individuals (based on the writing style), and three different periods.
The books of the Gospels were named after the Apostles (kata ... according to) sometime towards the end of the second century. The oldest fragments dating to the earlier parts of the second century, do not have kata or the names of the presumed authors.
Whoever wrote the Epistles of Peter, the Church eventually deemed "inspired" and included them in the canon, just as it decided after 300 years that the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas somehow "ceased" being "inspired!"
After all, the author of the book of Hebrews is also unknown and is considered "inspired" (as mentioned above) as profitable and good for teaching. So the identity of the author is not crucial because it is the content of the text and not the author that makes it "inspired."
“The Bible lies, according to Kosta50!!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to Kosta50, someone PRETENDING to be Peter wrote Peter’s epistle. The Church was FOOLED by the author of Peter, so therefore the CHURCH has no Spiritual discernment!!!”
As I asked before, why does this make any difference to you? If these two epistles, part of the canon of the NT were not written by +Peter, will you run off and become a Mohammedan or start worshiping stumps or whatever it is we Orthodox are accused of?
As for the Bible “lying”, well that seems a bit harsh but as both Kosta and I have said, its pretty well established that +Peter didn’t write those letters so I suppose you could say that the Bible is “lying”. The Bible also says that bats are birds. Is that lying? The NT canon we use doesn’t include Barnabus and the Shepherd. Is the Bible lying now or was it lying before the late 4th century? When the East included Hebrews but the West didn’t, was the West lying about the canon?
Bibliolatry, IT, like all heresies, brings with it a whole host of problems for Christians.
All? He was addressing the Apostles. And the NT reminds us that not all are Apostles.
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Intended for the apostles only! here are a lot of other interesting details I outlined in this but that's for another thread.
You are forgetting that it is God's INTENTION to use His elect to reach others of His elect. So, in some cases my action is indeed required because that is what God planned. The cause of my action is wholly God, but it is still necessary for God's plan to be fulfilled. That is the use of my preaching
But you are not called to preach unless you are an apostle. Your preaching doesn't give anyone faith; neither does the Bible. Is it not God who gives faith? Was it not God, according to your theology, who decided that at one point, long before you existed, you will have faith regardless of what takes place?
Preaching, praying, bible reading had nothing to do with it. It was set in stone.
Again, I remind you that not all are apostles and that the Great Commission was not given to all.
When we preach to the non-elect, we also benefit from the experience, and the non-elect probably benefits from the interaction as well.
What benefit? Is your faith and your assurance not sufficient? What else do you need?
FK: ***I believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall.***
Mark: No. Your experience tells you that it will fall. It is knowledge. No wonder we have such interesting debates - we don’t even have common terminology.
FK: You're right that we don't have common terminology. I really DO believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall. So, I have no idea what you're talking about.
But this "belief" is based on factual experience; not some "indwelling spirit." Look, even Christ used miracles to make people believe. It is only after it became impossible to duplicate the miracles mentioned in the early NT that faith, believing without seeing, became the norm in the writings towards the end of the 1st century.
Mark: See? The Reformed appear have redefined “belief” and “knowledge” each to mean the other
You know, Prof. Kalomiros, an Orthodox theologian of the 1970's, wrote in his address "You see, the devil managed to make men believe that God does not really love us, that He really only loves Himself, and that He accepts us only if we behave as He wants us to behave; that He hates us if we do not behave as He ordered us to behave, and is offended by our insubordination to such a degree that we must pay for it by eternal tortures, created by Him for that purpose."
Do you see the reformed theology in this? I do. It reeks of Calvinism, where hate becomes love, where a tyrant becomes a "benevolent" Father, even a "Daddy."
But then Kalomiros says: "But what was the instrument of the devil’s slandering of God? What means did he use in order to convince humanity, in order to pervert human thought?
He used "theology." He first introduced a slight alteration in theology which, once it was accepted, he managed to increase more and more to the degree that Christianity became completely unrecognizable...Did you ever try to pinpoint what is the principal characteristic of Western [Protestant] theology? Well, its principal characteristic is that it considers God as the real cause of all evil."
So your observation is right on target, Mark. By changing and redefining words to fit that theology one creates new "beliefs," where hate becomes love and evil becomes a creature of God (something that was confirmed on in these posts by the reformed on more than one occasion). The really sad thing is that they are not even aware that they have been hijacked.
That's exactly the point, Kolo. The Bible doesn't lie, of course. The autorship of 1 and 2 Peter does not in an of itself make those books "inspired." Their content and the message do.
As I said, Isaiah was written by three different individuals and in three different time periods. That does not make the Book of Isaiah a "lie."
But when the Bible becomes "God," anything other than pristine becomes a "lie" and a threat to this cult. Just as Galilleo's telescopic demonstration of crater-pocketted lunar surface was judged an "illusion created by the devil" by the Vatican observers because the celestial bodies that were in "heaven" could only be perfect because nothing that is imperfect can be in heaven!
Never mind the that the Bible says the "heaven" is just above the clouds...up there...Is that a "lie" too? Or is this a simple belief held at that time just as bats were believed to be birds? One more example that not all that is in the Bible is the "word of God." God would not write lies.
And the celestial spheres were therefore by "necessity" deemed perfect spheres and any deviations were "illusions" created by the Evil One in order to "deceive" us into believing the science.
Some have not progressed much since those days.
Keep it up, please.
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.