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."
That is unknown. God has as many "wildcards" to play as He wants. I don't "declare" it one way or the other, and I am unaware of any other Reformer around here who does.
The infants who did absolutely nothing evil, the infants who cannot repent (for their future sins!), the Reformed God will send to hell because they are "evil" infants!
Just to be clear, I should mention that theologically speaking, original sin IS, by itself, enough to convict. If memory serves, Augustine said as much, however, I don't have the quote to back that up. In any event, that idea alone condemns NO ONE. God alone, in His sovereignty, predestines all of those who are to be His, regardless of anything else.
Of course, the Bible also supports the idea of original sin:
Ps 51:5-6 : 5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. 6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
Eph 2:3 : All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.
Do all of us NEED a savior from conception or not? I say YES.
So, here we have another fine example of the Reformed insanity: if Hitler died as an infant, he would go to hell for sure because God would see him as evil. But if Hitler repented in his bunker before he died, God would accept him, and all his evil deeds would be forgiven?
You just told me you agree with the second thing above, so there is no issue there. And despite your accusation, Reformed theology says nothing about what would have happened if baby Hitler died. That is nonsense. No one is judged on what he WOULD HAVE DONE if he didn't die as a baby. What are you talking about? Whatever it is, it is not Reformed theology.
But, we have a complicating matter here: if Hitler repented, and then shot himself, does that wipe out the forgiveness he received for his sins and restores his guilt, or is he now only guilty of suicide?
It's not complicated at all. If Christ really died for our sins, and if Hitler really (totally hypothetically) repented and asked Christ into his heart, then no subsequent sin bars him from Heaven. In God's eyes, he would not be guilty of anything since Christ already paid the price.
Tell me, FK, are there different "tiers" in hell (just in reverse fashion from those in heaven), i.e. for those who "just" committed grave sins, such as suicide ("grave," it kills you, get it, LOL!), and another (I suppose hotter tier) for those mass murders and rapists?
That's a good question. My best "guess" would be "yes", as it would seem fitting. The only scripture I can think of is:
Rev 20:12-15 : 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Since everyone here winds up in hell, it "could" be that this describes different levels in hell. It is by no means a slam dunk, but that would make sense to me.
FK: "The alternative is a weak God who is not in control and just lets whatever happens, happen."
For how many generations did this strong [Reformed] God sit back and did nothing before he decided to drown the whole earth because this sovereign [Reformed] God did absolutely nothing to prevent man from extreme wickedness? (cf Gen 6:6)
What does that have to do with anything? We all know that God allows sin to happen. Whenever He feels like getting dramatically into the middle of it, He does. That's not an issue of weakness or strength. He is sovereign and does whatever He wants. The underlying point is that God is ALWAYS in control.
Kosta: No, FK. Your theology teaches that God created man in order for him to commit sin and change his nature so all generations can be evil!
FK: LOL! No, that isn't what we teach, that's what you want to hear
Oh, pardon me. Is it not the Reformed teaching that God predestined them to sin? Was it not the will of the Reformed God that they sin? Was it not the purpose of the reformed God's creation of Adam and Eve that they sin? Did they have a choice (according to the Reformed theology)? Yet, somehow despite all that, it was they who willed their own sin! LOL indeed!
I suppose the Apostolic God just got caught with His pants down when Adam and Eve decided to sin
No, He knew that they would sin, but it wasn't His decision, desire or doing. It is essential for true love that man come to God freely and not be forced, even if that freedom carries the peril (for man) to wonder away from God. Those who come to God do so in pure heart. They are not forced or preprogrammed, or tricked, or hypnotized, or brainwashed.
Kosta: You don't even pray on your own, but because God predestined you to pray.
My DESIRE is not to do anything without God, i.e., on my own
How do you know that is your desire when you and all the Reformed claim that God changed your heart (without your consent), and the Holy Spirit hijacked your mind and soul?
Yeah, but what do Catholics really believe, is original sin, by itself, enough to condemn a man? This part of the Catechism does not appear to say so, but my understanding was that Catholics believe that men need a savior from conception. Is the official Roman Catholic position that no one needs a savior until the first mortal sin after reaching the age of reason? That would be news to me. Good Catholic Freepers have told me otherwise.
The Orthodox believe in the original sin. The East never taught the Augustinian teaching of total depravity and innate "guilt" as a consequence of that sin or, for that matter, that unbaptized babies go to hell. [unfortunately, Blessed Augustine never completely shook his Menachean beliefs]
If you believe that all men are born "basically good", then I will just have to wish you the best of luck with that
Man is born innocent, not good. There is a difference. The consequence of the original sin is like drug addiction passed on from the mother to a child. The child will crave the drug but that craving is none of his doing. He bears no guilt or responsibility for that sin.
And, just as a drug-addicted infant is not dead and can be cured by a physician, so can we be cured of our fallen state with God's help, provided we ask for His help, and cling on to Him.
When I look at the real world I don't see that at all
Although many say "Lord, Lord" most don't follow in His footsteps. They preach His words but they don't do live by them. Faith is life. It's how we live that we show our faith. Unfortunately, in the Protestant world, it's okay to live a carnal life and cling on to faith, as Luther reminded us with his example.
Your side relies on man's inner goodness, and we rely on God
Your sides relies on private interpretation of God. Our side relies on God's mysteries (sacraments) of His Church. If we believed man was essentially good, the Apostolic Church would have no reason to exist. The Church exists for sinners, not saints.
It is precisely because we believe that continue to sin that we seek help and forgiveness in our struggle against repeating the same sins.
If I believed I did nothing bad, and had nothing to confess, why should I ask for forgiveness? It is your side that considers all believers as "saints." It is your side that thinks once he accepts Christs man is good!
Paul teaches total depravity clearly, which I surmise is a great reason why Apostolics don't like Paul.
I got news for you: the Church loves Paul; I don't. The Church is Pauline, not Petrine. I find that unfortunate but that's how it is. The Orthodox liturgical readings consist of Pauline Epistles and the Gospels. That pretty much says it all. Yet we do not teach Paul, but Christ. We do not stand (if there are pews) when Paul's letters are read. We stand only when the Gospels are read.
We interpret Paul in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around. When Paul says "God [sic] raised Christ", the Church says "Christ rose." If Paul says Christ is an "image of God" the Church says "Christ is God." With Protestants, Paul and Christ are one and the same thing. We don't worship Paul. Your side does.
I never said I do, do you?
I for one believe all the Bible..front to back , cover to cover...
Good for you. Some people believe the Koran cover to cover...what does that prove?
we no longer kill animals to atone for sin because CHRIST made the ultimate, perfect sacrifice for our sins.
Do you believe bats are bird (the Bible says they are)? Do you believe the earth is sitting on four pillars (the Bible says it does)? Do you believe all Levitican laws (they are, after all supposed to be God's laws)?
FK to Stfassisi-””He wouldn't. I have no idea why you would ask or what connection you are attempting to draw with Reformed theology. There is none.””
In Post #4981 You said “”All men are evil when they are born””
This is why Reformed theology makes no sense again ,FK,because if the baby that died was born evil than how does it not end up in hell? Does reformed theology teach that there is evil in heaven?
You told Kosta that Hitler could have been saved if he repented before his death,but the innocent child you call evil could not consciously make such a decision.
Do you look at a new born baby and say to yourself...
“look at that evil child”? This sounds ridiculous ,but this is in fact what reformed theology teaches
Dear FK, we are NOT born evil,we are born wounded,thus the need for Baptism
I honestly think that preaching we are born evil could lead someone to justify abortion by thinking they are killing something evil.
Did that thought ever cross your mind,Dear brother?
Catholic Baptism is sealed with the Spirit at the age of reason. That would suggest that children until that time are innocent. The Orthodox baptize with water and seal with the Spirit at the same time, but I have never heard any Orthodox authority say that children are "sinful."
This is a good discussion. STF, let me ask you: if we do not consider Mary for a moment, do Latins believe that this mortal sin is ABSOLUTELY inevitable, OR, do you believe it is theoretically possible for someone simply to choose never to sin? That is, is it theoretically possible for a man to live by the Law perfectly from birth?
Indeed. The spirits "locked" up in the evil body. It has been my impression that the Reformed theology has a lot in common with Manichaeism. Their love for Manichean vestiges of Blessed Augustine's early work only seem to reinforce that impression.
No, original sin does not condemn alone. It is what in modern language we’d call genetic condition, predisposing men past the age of reason commit actual sin through the operation of their free will.
When actual sin is avoided, that is possible through the divine grace, which is here because of the work of the Savior. Baptism removes original sin and opens the channel of sanctifying grace available to the baptized through the other sacraments of the Church.
Does the reformed teach that mortal sin must be achieved in order to be a Christian?
Catholicism/Orthodoxy does not teach this!
Catholicism/Orthodoxy teaches to avoid sin and not to embrace sin.
Sin is what separates us from Christ,Dear FK
Catholic's/Orthodox are taught to TRY and avoid sin!Period!
I have failed miserably in my lifetime,but I would never condone sin as being something we should teach others to be a Christian practice.
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
Very well put, Alex. It summs up the whole doctrine.
When actual sin is avoided, that is possible through the divine grace, which is here because of the work of the Savior. Baptism removes original sin and opens the channel of sanctifying grace available to the baptized through the other sacraments of the Church.
Worth repeating.
Excellent analogy, MD. I see it this way as well.
Very interesting, I had no idea. Thanks for the background. (You too, Kosta.)
Schaeffer certainly does teach the need for presuppositions, but it's hardly militant. The presuppositional approach starts with "everyone knows that .....". Even in Schaeffer's writing heyday (60's-70's) he knew full well that we couldn't say that anymore. SO, he wrote about what to do about it. He taught that we must recognize that many Godly things we take for granted, other people don't, anymore, and THEREFORE, our approach to them in witnessing must be mindful of that fact.
Just to review and make sure we're talking about the same thing, you are saying that today's Christian has the exact same level of justification for praying to the Christian God as the primitive man did for praying to the volcano god?
No, FK, it's not the fact. The fact is that the men who wrote the books of the Bible tell us what they believed God told them, and we believe that it is true.
I don't understand. On the one hand you say you believe what the men of the Bible wrote in their books. Yet, you deny (over and over) what the men wrote in their books with your view of the Bible. This is very confusing. :)
If what you say were a fact, then everyone would be on the same sheet of music. No one is arguing whether gravity exists because gravity is a fact that affects us all.
Absolutely not. If God's plain truth was available to everyone then you would be correct. However, the Bible tells us that God's plain truth will be nonsense to those without God's saving grace. If God ordained that we needed Godly eyes and ears to accept gravity, then most people would not believe in that either.
Actually, from the study I'm doing, high level philosophy wouldn't assume that my wife is real at all! :) That's a presupposition too.
Am not a hyper-Calvinist or any other type by any means . . . but
there is truth to this:
Absolutely not. If God’s plain truth was available to everyone then you would be correct. However, the Bible tells us that God’s plain truth will be nonsense to those without God’s saving grace. If God ordained that we needed Godly eyes and ears to accept gravity, then most people would not believe in that either.
That could be. I actually call myself a "Geezer X-er" since I was born a couple of years after the cutoff for Boomers. :)
If you are using the word "person" and "personal" as human, then God is not personal at all, except through Christ.
Try this from Schaeffer:
Rightly understood, Christianity as a system has the answers to the basic needs of modern man. In this it differs from the new theology, which has no adequate basis upon which to give answers which will stand up to the test of rationality and the whole of life as we must live it.
The first basic need is caused by the lack of certainty regarding the reality of individual personality. Every man is in tension until he finds a satisfactory answer to the problem of who he himself is.
The biblical Christian answer takes us back first to the very beginning of everything and states that personality is intrinsic in what is; not in the pantheistic sense of the universe being the extension of the essence of God (or what is), but that a God who is personal on the high order of Trinity created all else. Within the Trinity, before the creation of anything, there was real love and real communication. Following on from this statement, the Bible states that this God who is personal created man in His own image. A personal God created all things freely in a nondeterminate fashion, and man is created in a special situation - what I would call a special circle of creation. He is the image of this kind of God, and so personality is intrinsic to his makeup. God is personal, and man is also personal.
What he is saying is that if God is some kind of unknowable machine then we will never have the answers to life's greatest questions. To us, God would be a Being of randomness and chance. We could not reasonably count on Him for anything. But if instead God was personal, well, then that is a different matter entirely. Schaeffer notes that many many people on earth believe that God is impersonal.
In fact I do, in the manner you use the word: every time I communicate with another human being I am communicating with a person, which makes my communication "personal."
You are right and I should have been more clear. I should stick to quoting Schaeffer on this subject. :)
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.