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."

I think God is MORE than, not less than, "Personal". From this I conclude that it is okay to use "personal language" about Him as long as we're all clear that it's analogical. For example, When I get angry I have physiological events and, generally, my thinking and self-control are diminished. Also, I can get angry without their being a good reason for me to be angry.

If we think those things are of the essence of wrath, we cannot attribute wrath to God, duh. But if we think of wrath as a determination and choice to set right what is wrong (or something like that) then We can say that god is wrathful.

Yes, absolutely. God being personal has nothing to do whatever with His having a human personality with all of its faults. God being personal means that He is more than a static supercomputer. God says that He will have mercy upon whom He will. That means choices and preferences, as opposed to data being fed into a machine.

For Us [God] IS LOVE and DOES LOVING -- LOVES. And there is SOME useful similarity between what [God] does and what we do that we can use the word "LOVE" meaningfully to denote both. It's not that we have NO idea, it's that we have a highly inadequate idea, as in a glass darkly.

100% agreement from me. All of this could have come right from my keyboard. :)

I don't think, even if Jesus did - but I am of course open to correction, that a great fish toted Jonah around in his belly and then vomited him out on a beach.

AH, you're doing so well so far, I'm tempted to spot you that one. :) The way I approach those types of things is not to ask "how", but to ask "why not"? I.e., God can create all that has ever existed, but He couldn't fix it so that a person could live in the belly of a whale for a few days? What's up with that? :)

I would say the same for the happenings at Exodus. If we don't buy the parting of the seas, then why should we buy the first Passover? Are they really so different in terms of believability? I just see a lot of danger in saying "yes" over here, but "no" over there.

I DO think that God loves even the Ninevites (and also much cattle) and if he can love Ninevites, why he might even Love Calvinists! Maybe.

That's a BIG maybe, but I appreciate the sentiment. :)

There is simply no evidence to back up biblical claims that Exodus happened or that the Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. Exodus 12:40 says that the Hebrews lived in Egypt for 430 years.

Well, "IF" your conclusion is that the Exodus probably never happened, then I would assume you would say that dinosaurs didn't exist until science verified their existence a couple of hundred years ago? It appears that your approach is that nothing is IN the Bible until it is proved IN. My approach is that nothing is OUT until it is proved OUT.

Archaeological evidence found in the Sinai suggests that the Egyptians had military and other installations in the peninsula at the time of the alleged Exodus. The Egyptians had no difficulties cross the Red Sea. The Egyptians present in the Sinai would have laid waste to Israelites during their alleged 40 year presence there. There is no evidence of any long-term siege or mention of a campaign against the Israelites either from from Israeli or Egyptian sources.

That depends on the strength of the God you believe in. :) I read and appreciate all of the evidence you present against the Exodus, but I do not find it persuasive. It boils down to "you would think that ...". I don't say that means we have to throw it out, since I have used that argument before myself. However, I give the presumption to God's word instead of 21st century scientists.

All you offer is the Bible.

Yes. Among that which was created, that's what I trust the most. :)

By saying that Christ necessarily believed a lie you are sing the scare-tactic that may discourage many for all the wrong reasons. Christ could not have believed a lie, because what the Gospels teach is incompatible with God killing the first-born, both human and cattle! That would make God, who is Life, the God of death!

I don't understand. Your position is that the OT and NT cannot both be true. Wouldn't that make at least one of them a lie by simple logic?

It is also ridiculous, for the lack of a better word, that an all-knowing God needed the blood of lambs as "markers" for Him to know which household was Jewish in order to spare them his wrath!

It certainly IS ridiculous to think that God "needed" that. But that wasn't the point, was it? Those who trusted that it would work were saved, those who didn't have that faith suffered the consequences. THAT is a theme we see throughout the Bible.

FK: "I think I understand that the Orthodox position is that God is wholly impersonal."

Your assessment of Orthodoxy remains mistakenly and positively dead wrong, FK. Kolo has spent much of his time providing you with Orthodox sources and teachings.

What are you talking about? Or, then what have we been arguing about? :) I asserted that God is personal and you took me to task immediately. And that wasn't just one exchange, we've been going back and forth about this for a while now. I was actually surprised that Kolo backed you up. That's what made me assume it was an Orthodox position and not just your own. If God is mostly unknowable mystery, and He doesn't have personal relationships with His children (as you recently said and argued that Jesus did not), then it follows that you do not see God as personal. You are not alone. Many philosophers/theologians also took this approach all the way unto this day.

You are really changing horses with that one. :)

Orthodox Catechism teaches that we have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and through Him only. Otherwise, God is ineffable, a supreme Mystery.

Oh come on, Kosta. :) Since when have YOU EVER followed anything called the Orthodox Catechism. :) We both know what you have been arguing. I really DO read all of your posts. :) Again, another of our current discussions has you saying the Jesus did NOT have personal relationships with His own disciples! :)

Here is a passage from one of my study books: The God Who is There, by Francis Schaeffer

Just so we are all on the same sheet of music, Francis Schaeffer was a zealot of Evangelical and Reformed variety. He was a Presbyterian pastor and theologian pursuing a so-called presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, a rather militant partisan agenda aimed at completely discrediting anything that is in any way opposed to Reformed postulates. He was the pioneer of the Christian Right. He and Hagee could probably be readily interchanged.

So, you are giving me the work of a Reformed "storm trooper" for consideration. There is no chance there that Schaeffer might have twisted and cherry-picked things just a wee bit, is there?

Be it as it may, even if Heidegger has some postulates that are similar to those of Orthoodxy (I seriously doubt it), it is because even Reformed theology has some as well! Even Buddhism, FK. Many religions contain the seeds (Greek: "sporoi") of truth. Being a Westerner (1889-1976), his philosophy could only have borrowed from ancient religions. Orthodoxy and Heideggerian philosophy are neither parallel, nor comparable nor equal. Orthodoxy precedes Heidegger by 2,000 years. And if there are any similarities between them, it is only because Heidergger took them from Orthodoxy (which I doubt), and Orthodoxy cannot be blamed for that! :)

Nothing Orthoodx leads one to consider Heidegger, nor does Heidegger in any way add to, fulfill, enhance or improve Orthodoxy. Heidegger was a Nazi. That, in and of itself, makes him alien to anything Orthodox. If anything, being Protestant would be much more conducive to such extremism than being Orthodox.

Your whole premise of knowable God is based on an a priori acceptance of the Bible as literally true. Your definition of "personal" differs form what I understand personal to be. Anything we assign to God is deficient and, by definition, incomplete—imperfect. Everything we assign to God is, by necessity, anthropomorphism. Look at the universe and ask yourself if you can even imagine the logic which made it! Just as we by necessity apply anthropomorphism to our pets, we are forced to do the same with God, because natures are not exchangeable. Most of our "understanding" of God is projecting human feelings and ideas onto that which is not human.

With Christ, such projection is unnecessary. We see a human being, we can relate to his pain and suffering, his doubts, his fears, passions in general. But we also know that he is God and that he is our image of God, an icon. Otherwise, "God" is a burning bush, a voice form the heaven, or a voice from within, a dream, a delusion or even our own insanity.

The Bible reminds us that God's thoughts and ways are not ours—just as our thoughts and ways are not those of our pets, or better yet, ants and flatworms. Bad things happen to good people, FK. Good things happen to bad people. When faced with such dilemmas, we simply resign ourselves to not knowing God and his ways. But when we try to push our views of God on others, then we claim that we know God personally and with certainty.

Orthodoxy is clear that God is Mystery revealed to us in fullness through Jesus Christ. That's the beginning and the end of Orthodox "heideggerianism." What's revealed in the Old Testament is not Christ. For, if Christ's revelation were clear and unambiguous in the Old Testament there would have been no need for the New Testament. There is no way for us to know Christ trough the Old Testament. We can only "see dimly" in some instances the foreshadowing of Christ in it.

But in order for us to know Christ, it is necessary to see him as one of us, as a human being. It is only through his humanity that we can have a personal relationship with him on a human level. We don't know divine Christ, the Word. He is ineffable God. But Jesus is the same Christ in his human nature and we can relate to him without anthropomorphisms.

Orthodoxy does not teach that invisible, ineffable, eternal Spirit we call God is in any way, shape or form comprehensible to us. It does teach that we know of him through human words and concepts in the anthropomorphism of the OT, which is precisely why most of the Old Testament was understood and interpreted by the Apostolic and Church Fathers as allegory (St. Barnabas talking the extreme position that everything in it is allegorical, Marcion [c 110 AD] taking everything in it literally, while Origen [c 180 AD] took the middle position saying that some things in the OT are literal while most are allegorical). No such allegorical interpretation is necessary in the Gospels.

FK, no one believed that something called dinosaurs existed until there was evidence of their existence! That is precisely my point. No one can seriously take pink unicorns on Jupiter until there is credible evidence of their existence.

It appears that your approach is that nothing is IN the Bible until it is proved IN.

In absence of credible evidence, doubt is justified. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Credible evidence is crucial, FK. We see evidence of all sorts of things; it is the cause-and-effect relationship that is crucial. Primitive man saw lightening and heard thunder and attributed it to God's anger. Others interpreted rumbling of a volcano to be of divine origin. Others saw natural disasters and disease as "evidence" of wrath. It took logical and systematic approach otherwise known as science to show that these frivolous interpretations were anything but true. In fact, they were superstition. We must guard against our natural tendency to create superstitious beliefs, FK. Trouble is, FK, we also see many of these superstitious beliefs expressed in the Bible itself.

My approach is that nothing is OUT until it is proved OUT.

To me, your approach is the same as an a priori acceptance of pink unicorns on Jupiter.

However, I give the presumption to God's word instead of 21st century scientists.

Presumption is the word, FK. Yet that presumption turned out to be false on many an occasion. It doesn't mean it proves God wrong; it only puts in question what men wrote about God, claiming God spoke to them and through them! Take the Koran and the Five Books of Moses; the presumption is that they were dictated to the authors by none other than God, word-by-word. Of course, such presumption is based on nothing short of blind acceptance that it is indeed so. The initial starting point in any religion is a presumptive a priori acceptance of God revealing himself to man as absolute truth, yet offering nothing absolute as proof.

Yes. Among that which was created, that's what I trust the most

I understand and respect that as an honest admission of one's own bias, choice, preference, comfort level, what not. I do not accept that as "evidence" of the veracity of such beliefs.

I don't understand. Your position is that the OT and NT cannot both be true. Wouldn't that make at least one of them a lie by simple logic?

Simple logic also suggest that the Old Testament might contain some truth or less truth than te New Testament, not that all of it is untrue.

Those who trusted that God would save them would have been saved with or without physical markers, FK! The Egyptians were not given Moses' instructions to mark their homes; but if they did they God would have known they were false markers. We don't know if some Egyptians would have believed or not. The Exodus is a typical "us vs them" story, where all Egyptians are enemies of God and all Hebrews are his children. There is not a single Egyptian soul that is worth saving! Is that what Christian God teaches us? Obviosuly Christ thaught differently.

Contrary to the popular opinion, any reference to the OT diminished as Chritsianity progressed in the first century and as the religion became more and more non-Jewish. This is evident even in later Pauline epistles, in Corinthians, Philemon and Philippians, as well as in John's deuterocanonicals and the Revelation. The early Church had difficulties reconciling the OT with the Gospels, for obvious reasons.

That's why allegorical interpretation was a rule. It was not until the end of the 2nd century that a coherent and unified theology was formulated by allegorical comparisons between the OT and the NT by +Irenaeus at the dawn of the 3rd century (c. 200 AD).

I asserted that God is personal and you took me to task immediately. And that wasn't just one exchange, we've been going back and forth about this for a while now. I was actually surprised that Kolo backed you up. That's what made me assume it was an Orthodox position and not just your own

Why would that surprise you? Orthodoxy believes God to be both a personal and impersonal. He is "personal" in as much as we can relate to Christ in his human nature without imagining burning bushes and pillars of fire, but he is not our "personal" God. He is everyone's God.

If God is mostly unknowable mystery, and He doesn't have personal relationships with His children (as you recently said and argued that Jesus did not), then it follows that you do not see God as personal.

What abut the Reformed God who has preordained everyone according to his will to either go to heaven or hell? How personal is that? If God is impartial ("no respecter of persons" is what the Bible says!), then how can he also be personal? It is rather we who adopt God as our personal pet and make him into whatever we want him to be. I got news for you, FK: the world is the way it is whether we understand or like it. It's not your world; it's everybody's world. The same with God; God is everyone's God, not yours, or mine.

You are not alone. Many philosophers/theologians also took this approach all the way unto this day.

Good for them. Only the self-centered would imagine that God exists for them and not for others.

You are really changing horses with that one

I don't think so.

Since when have YOU EVER followed anything called the Orthodox Catechism.

I do all the time, FK. I defer to the Church no matter what my opinion is. I do not presume to have the collective wisdom and knowledge of the Church.

We both know what you have been arguing. I really DO read all of your posts

My arguments are just that, my arguments.

Again, another of our current discussions has you saying the Jesus did NOT have personal relationships with His own disciples!

No he didn't. He was their master; they were his disciples. It was a strict teacher-student relationship. Jesus always reminds them that they do not know or understand him, that he is not like them. Every one of the instances in the NT where he address them it was for a purpose of teaching them. He never treated any of them as his peers.

You, on the other hand, fantasize about them socializing together. Where in the Bible does it says God socialized with anyone? But you will find "personal" relationship eve with the OT God who does not much more than rebuke and threaten (not to mention destroy and kill). There is no intimacy in any of that. Even when Christ washes his disciples' feet, it is a duty and obedience, not personal favor or an expression of affection.

Jesus even had a fairly dysfunctional home life when you think about it; his own family thought he was not althogehter right in his head; and he even denies them as his family. No special smoochy affection in that household, FK, nothing as we would think in terms of "personal" or "intimate." God is our Lord and we are not his peers or friends or cousins, not in the way we think of it.

That is a big problem in western Christianity: the absolute drop-on-your-knees-face-to-the-ground reverence you see in Orthodoxy is lacking. Oh no, in the west we have "Daddy," we accept the Eucharist in the hand, etc. God is our Lord and Master, not our peer or buddy or fellow.

FK: "I don't know how I can even try to give you what you really WANT if you won't tell me what it is."

I am trying to show you that there is no proof that will satisfy our reason.

Yes, that is what I was trying to flesh out. There is no proof that will satisfy your personal reason, and perhaps the reason of the men of your Church. That, of course, does not apply to so called Bible-believing Christians, as Harley so ably demonstrated in his response, quoting from Romans.

Yet, we believe...believe it or not I believe in spite of everything I say. It's like trying to sand down titanium with a cotton ball! It is a humbling experience to realize that no amount of reasoning will touch the faith, and it is equally humbling to realize that this did not come from anything I read, learned or heard or done. We have no clue why we believe.

Wouldn't that mean that there is nothing behind your faith by simple definition? :) I'm sure you would (correctly) say that your faith is superior to that of the Heaven's Gate cult, but why should anyone believe you? You appear to be unable to obey God when He says through Peter: "1 Peter 3:15 : 15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ..."

It is not born our of reason and therefore it is not rational, FK.

So you are defining that UNLESS a thing comes from man alone, it is irrational? If God is irrational, then do you think that man generates his own reason apart from God? I mean, how can God give something He Himself does not have to give?

For reason neither builds nor destroys faith. And if we can't prove why we believe we can't prove anything about it.

Well, I for one KNOW that my faith is stronger because it is in conformity with the reality of our world and existence. The Christian faith matches what we know .... IS.

FK: "Rationalization is the enemy of reason."

Well, in absence of real knowledge we tend to rationalize to, as I said, "come up with plausible explanations for something we don't understand."

The Bible says that God gives knowledge, as I quoted earlier. I suppose the Bible is either right or wrong.

Thus, when ancients saw thunder they rationalized it to be God's wrath. When they felt earth shake, they figured God was "shaking" the earth. When they saw a man who couldn't walk or had boils they rationalized he was stricken with a "plague" because he must have done something bad and God punished him. When some tribes heard a volcano rumble, guess what...you get my point.

So you would say that based on your 21st century mind, that God doesn't execute wrath through storms or earthquakes? And you further know that God does not afflict with boils and sores? Of course some overdo it by declaring above their own knowledge. For example, someone saying he KNOWS that 9/11 was God's wrath against the US. But that isn't the point. The point is believing that God DOES what the Bible says He does, OR, believing that if there is ANOTHER explanation consistent with modern science, that the scientific explanation MUST be true and the Biblical explanation MUST be false.

The problem with faith is that we can't just accept it. We must make it "reasonable" according to our standards of logic.

All false faiths ultimately "make no sense". Why should Christianity be like them?

Why must everything be logical to us?

Of course not EVERYTHING of God appears logical to us. But ENOUGH of His revelation is logical that we can know He is a rational Being. ENOUGH of His revelation proves to us that He is a personal Being.

Contrary to what you say, gravity is not logical. We have no clue why gravity exists! How can that be logical?

If you don't think gravity is logical then I can't imagine what you would say IS logical. :) We know that God created all matter with gravimetric properties. Today, we have a pretty good idea how many of those properties work. Would it be more logical if all matter just floated around in space, and if so, why? :) The point is, IF God wanted us to live on the earth (for now), then gravity makes perfect sense.

Yes, that is what I was trying to flesh out. There is no proof that will satisfy your personal reason

That's not true.

Wouldn't that mean that there is nothing behind your faith by simple definition?

Perhaps it is a delusion. That is one possibility of several.

You appear to be unable to obey God when He says through Peter: "1 Peter 3:15..."

You have not shown me that it is God speaking through someone pretending to be Peter. You are telling me that it is. How convincing is that? Not very, FK.

If God gives you faith, as your side also believes, then you don't know why you believe any more than you know why you were born where you were born and why your eyes may be brown or blue or gree. You can only say "because God gave it to me," which is the same as saying "I don't know."

So you are defining that UNLESS a thing comes from man alone, it is irrational?

We can onyl tink and cocneptualize and express within our human limits. That applies to scencie and theology equally. We depend on words and concepts that make up thoses words and by all acocunts they are insufficient because we don't jave eough words to try to describe God.

Our understanding is limted to several factors, one of which is the envornoment and our own intellect. Wiht our intellect, we are forced to interpret everything and all.

Well, I for one KNOW that my faith is stronger because it is in conformity with the reality of our world and existence

You may know but you can't prove it. The reality of the world is a matter of our perception, so the only thing you can say is that your faith is in conformity with your percepton of the world, or it is not.

If you don't think gravity is logical then I can't imagine what you would say IS logical

Logical is that which has a known cause and effect.

We know that God created all matter with gravimetric properties

We do? What verse is that?

Would it be more logical if all matter just floated around in space, and if so, why?

Actually all matter is floating around in space...ever faster and ever expanding...and we don't know why.

Of course, you will say "because God made it so." I suppose God made boils and dementia and demons that "cause" it. And he made deadly snakes and poisonous frogs and probably pink unicorns on Jupiter; makes just as much sense as anything esle, FK. Once every dilemma is "resolved" with "God made it so..." we are positviely in the Dark Ages.

God is not fair; I don’t think that He could even be said to be just. He is merciful. When you are merciful, you are absolutely unfair and unjust. Jesus is mercy incarnate; He is merciful and instructs us to be merciful as well.

Yes, if I am interpreting you correctly I agree with this. By man's standards, God isn't fair. But since God defines what fair is, He is always in truth "fair".

But many of the Reformers have missed Heb 10:26, which describes the conditions in which we should fear God - For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

To me, this verse describes true apostasy after having true faith. By itself, it is a true statement, but there are plenty of other verses in the Bible (all the assurance verses and many of the perseverance verses) that say this will not happen. The weight of scripture says that God, who began a good work in us, will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. True apostasy from true belief would mean that God stopped His work.

Kosta: You can't have it both ways, FK. We can't be living under a delusion of freedom if everything we do is God's will. Worse, we can't be condemned for something that was preordained before we even existed.

FK: As I said in another post, this is an example of the Apostolic definition of freedom, that is, freedom APART from God. Real freedom for good is found WITHIN God.

Kosta: You didn't answer my questions, FK. You used this opportunity to attack the "Apostolic" definition of freedom, as being apart from God.

I went all the way back to your source post (4831), and I didn't see any questions. :) I addressed the issue by saying that my opinion is that the Orthodox view of "freedom" is artificial, and does not match the reality that we experience by God's design. If you have questions, I will try my best to answer them.

Evil is an expression of our freedom to choose apart from God. But the Reformed actually believe that we cannot do even evil without God's guiding hand!

The first sentence is correct. The second is wrong because God does not "guide" anyone into evil. He leaves them alone, knowing the evil they will do.

If God preordained everything then there is no freedom to do anything and everything we do is God's will; God is acting through all of us, be it good or evil!

No, God acts THROUGH us when we do good. God DOESN'T act ON us when a certain evil is a part of His plan. Huge difference.

Now, at this minute I feel perfectly free to be typing these words to you right now. And, you will feel perfectly free to read them "right now". :) How is "real freedom" different because we have opposing views on God's sovereignty, GIVEN THAT we both experience the exact same thing? My freedom feels no less real than yours. We disagree on what God's POV is. That doesn't affect our reality via experience.

I don't mean to minimize the import of our difference. It just sounds like your side's position is that God isn't God UNLESS He makes everything up as He goes along, OR, He doesn't care what happens and metaphorically stands on the sidelines and watches. I don't understand why it is so important to your side that God be "out of it".

Then how can we be condemned?

The Bible says we are condemned for what we do. The Bible does not say God has a duty to prevent us from doing what we want to do. So, when we sin because we want to, we are responsible for it. If God did not want a particular sin to happen, that would have interfered with His plan, then He would have prevented it. I presume He does this with frequency we cannot possibly imagine, especially with His children. However, sometimes He allows things to happen. In any case, we are always still responsible.

WELL WORTH repeating, imho:

FK: "I don't know how I can even try to give you what you really WANT if you won't tell me what it is." I am trying to show you that there is no proof that will satisfy our reason.

Well, I for one KNOW that my faith is stronger because it is in conformity with the reality of our world and existence. The Christian faith matches what we know .... IS.

FK: "Rationalization is the enemy of reason."

The Bible says that God gives knowledge, as I quoted earlier. I suppose the Bible is either right or wrong.

All false faiths ultimately "make no sense". Why should Christianity be like them?

Thanks. Well put.

“If Randall ever runs into a real Catholic....”

I’ve run into such real Catholics...one Father “Duke” Schnider who ran an emersive Teen Seminar program that was designed to introduce both Catholic, Protestant, and non religious back-ground teens to the person of Jesus Christ. He de-emphasized the role of Mary as co-redemptrix but did not disrespect her roll as Jesus mother. There was such love and energy that flowed from him when I took the seminar and for a few years afterward he would often let me visit after hours to sit and talk to him.

The Syracuse parish had authority over the Binghamton area and they had been monitoring his work as there was a fear that his outlook and practise had certain “charismatic” features that were looked down upon. Many folks were actually saved thru his work and there was an uptick of interest in young folks joining the church locally, the protestant kids were also richly blessed and many unchurched “rough” kids experienced an infusion of Godly love for the first time.

My point in telling this story...I have met non Catholic leaders who were Christian, who had the same grasp of Christ as a person,God, and saviour. For both Father and these other men, they seemed to have transcended beyond the simple religious vehicles by which they practised their belief in God, projecting thru their lives the very image of Christ himself.

To me, it’s not a matter of “real Catholic, or real Baptist” but REAL CHRISTIAN! There is a difference!

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.