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."
“The languages of the divine liturgy are liturgical languages based on Greek, specifically developed for the liturgical service. As far as I know, they are all capable of expresisng the same concepts, word by word, as the Greek original. The problems with translations started when Luther decided to go “native” and invent literary German on the fly.”
I don’t know Church Arabic or Church Slavonic but I have observed that the Faith people learn at liturgies and devotions conducted in those languages is identical to that I have learned in Greek.
I know, some posts beat sitcoms! :)
Ah, as I suspected. :) Your position, then, is that we cannot have God's word from Him. The only way to God's word, for Apostolics, is to get it through the fallible men of your Church. That IS job security. :) We believe that God loved us so much that He gave us His word FROM Him. God's word filtered through a hierarchy of men over time would certainly lead to error (as we have seen), so we believe God did not take that chance.
The Book of Enoch is not scripture. We are talking about quoting from a non-scriptural source in the New Testament as a prophesy. Can we also quote prophesies from the Koran then?
If the Bible quoted a prophecy from the Koran then I would believe it because it would be God's word. But since it doesn't, I don't believe in those prophecies.
Christian canon is not fixed. Different sects have different canon. Did God lead all of them to canonize different books?
That is unknown. What we do know is that God's Church, the Church of all believers, pretty much uniformly accepts (at least) the 66 books.
FK: "Scripture is the word God wanted us to have."
Us, who? Again, that word is not uniform throughout Christianity.
"Us" refers to God's children, for whom God made the Bible. That is, all believers, which is God's Church. The Bible was created for those Jesus prayed for, as opposed to those He did not pray for.
FK: "I believe the [prophecies] that are in the Bible BECAUSE they're in the Bible. It is irrelevant if any other prophecies come true or not."
So, then, you suggest there is a source of truth other than God? I would imagine you'd recognize that all truth is from God.
I don't suggest that at all. If it's in the Bible, THEN, the source is God. I could prophesy today that the Rams will win the Super Bowl next year. If that actually happens, it does NOT mean that it came from God just because it came true. We know that it came from God if it is in the Bible.
FK: That is a good summation of Apostolic thought.
Which Apostle?
By "Apostolic thought" I just mean generally the thinking of the Latin and Orthodox Churches. (But you know that. :)
FK: "The [Apostolic] Church determines the faith, and then fills in all the holes with what the men of the Church want."
So, you admit there are "holes" in the faith? That's progress.
Because no one ever achieves divine knowledge of the scriptures, by definition then, to us there are mysteries in the Bible. One example would be the precise mechanics of eschatology. The Bible certainly discusses the issue, but it is one upon which good Christians can disagree, even those of the same faith. But eschatology is not something we NEED to know. For what we need the Bible is clear.
How do you know it's not what the HS wants rather than the "men of the Church?" What proof do you have that it is the "men of the Church" and not the Holy Spirit who determine the faith?
I know because the men of the Church contradict what the Bible says in various cases. It seems fairly implausible to me that God would create an error-filled Bible (that winds up in men's hands) for the purpose of flawed men coming in later to repair it. That act would lessen God and heighten man. I never get that message from the scriptures, that God's intention is to aggrandize men at the expense of Himself.
Further, it makes perfect sense to me that men would claim that God wanted it this way, since it DOES aggrandize men. That is human nature and I understand it. It is much more difficult for us to accept that it is actually God who is in control and steering the ship. That is what the Bible describes as the text stands. Only when the text is "repaired" by men do we see the new result that God wanted men to be in control all along.
But under your theology, man thwarts God's will every day. It's not a matter of fear, for you it actually HAPPENS. :) That describes a very weak man-made God. The Reformed God is strong and always accomplishes His will. As Dr. E. so often posts:
Isa 46:9-10 : 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: ... KJV
--------------------------
Only such a God would demand sacrifice and complete obedience and allow no freedom. His people would be the puppets on the string, and He would be their puppeteer. Such is the Reformed God.
The Reformed God made the WHOLE sacrifice, and He did it ONCE for all time. And, the Reformed God certainly does allow us freedom. The TRUTH sets us free. With that freedom we are free to do works that are pleasing to God. We did not have that freedom before belief. Man certainly does not like the idea of being anyone's puppet. Man wants to be in control.
So, the solution God found was to retain actual control Himself, while letting us experience making our own decisions. If intellectually you think that still makes us puppets, then I am just fine to be God's puppet, knowing that His love is in control of my life. (My experience is the same either way.) I don't want God to leave me on my own to go through this life. I need Him to be in charge. I am not my own, I was bought at a price.
God Bless you.
I feel the same way. I thank God every day that He is my master.
I wouldn't say it worked like that. My faith grew gradually. It started with a Bible study group where I heard the Gospel verbally. From there I started reading scriptures, which confirmed what I had been told. Eventually, at some point, I "had" faith and asked Jesus into my life. None of this would have ever happened had God not first given me a new heart that was able to receive the Truth.
The way you describe this, the Bible gave you faith!
Then I did a poor job. :) Only God gives faith. The Bible explains, confirms and expands on what that faith is.
Let me get this straight: what exactly did you believe when you started reading the Bible?
I had a basic verbal presentation of the Gospel message of salvation. I wanted to learn more so I started reading. That message was confirmed, and I learned other things too. With my new heart I was open to receiving what scripture said until I finally knew that I NEEDED Christ for sure.
What if you started reading the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible? Would you have ended up joining a Mormon assembly? If not, why not?
For one thing it wouldn't have matched what I was told at a Christian Bible study. My parents were Christian in name only, but nevertheless it was what it was and everyone I knew who had any faith was either Christian or Jewish. So, it probably wouldn't have occurred to me to study the Mormon faith.
Secondly, the new heart that God gave me would not have responded to the Mormon faith, if that was the time God had chosen for me to come to faith. It is 20/20 hindsight now, but that's how it turned out by God's sovereign design. (I knew none of this at the time of course.) However, if God's plan was for me to accept Christ at, say, 30, then as a teenager I would have surely been susceptible to joining other faiths. It could have happened, and certainly HAS happened with other people who wind up as Christians.
The only way you could tell if something was genuine or not is for you to know what is scripture and what is not. Where would that knowledge come from, and how did reading the Bible add to such a powerful knowledge?
At that Bible study I met mature Christians (young adults) for the first time in my life. I could tell immediately that they were different from me. I saw what they accepted as scripture and had no trouble accepting that the Bible was THE Book. Issues such as the Apocrypha were immaterial at that point. I had a never-opened Bible from my infant baptism and it seemed to fit in fine with what other people were using so I thought I was good to go. I didn't give particular Bible versions a second thought until I started studying seriously with one of the ministers at my church, a few years after I was married.
“The word used in Greek is not cousin.”
Which “Greek” is that? Do you know the difference?
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved) and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding wealth of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus (for by grace are ye saved through faith) and that exceeding wealth is not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works lest any man should boast.
The word used in Luke 1:36 is a koine Greek word sugennes. It means that Mary and Elizabeth were somehow related; that relationship could have been by blood or by ethnicity or whatever. It indicates kinship of unspecified type. The idea that Mary was a first cousin to Elizabeth is a 3rd century, extra-biblical fabircation by Hyppolitus.
So, you get your faith from the Bible? No wonder Protestants just about worship it.
My position is that everyone is subject to error, especially those who interpret privately. This is in agreement with Paul's statement to keep the tradition through words and epistles.
If the Bible quoted a prophecy from the Koran then I would believe it because it would be God's word
Then you are saying that the Book of Enoch is God's word? Why is it not in the canon?
That is unknown. What we do know is that God's Church, the Church of all believers, pretty much uniformly accepts (at least) the 66 books.
God's Church has 1.2 billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox using 19 or 20 additional books. That doesn't add up to 66.
We know that it came from God if it is in the Bible
And how do we know that?
It seems fairly implausible to me that God would create an error-filled Bible (that winds up in men's hands) for the purpose of flawed men coming in later to repair it
And how do you know it's not part of God's "plan?" If it is happening, isn't it God's will according to the Reformed theology? You sure don't believe Adam's fall was accidental or a mistake. But it happened.
It is much more difficult for us to accept that it is actually God who is in control and steering the ship
No, FK, it is much easier for men not to take responsiblity for their acts and say they are who threy are, what they are and where they are because God put them there. It's much easier for them to believe that they can fornicate 1,000 times a day (paraphrasing Luther) and that's okay as long as you cover yourself with Christ.
If God controlled you 100%,than you would have to be sinless from the point God controlled you, or the controlling God would own your sin as the puppet master.
Your sin is your own,FK, like it or not ,and you need do do penance for it as well.
Pope PAUL VI explains this well
” Every sin in fact causes a perturbation in the universal order established by God in His ineffable wisdom and infinite charity, and the destruction of immense values with respect to the sinner himself and to the human community. Christians throughout history have always regarded sin not only as a transgression of divine law but also—though not always in a direct and evident way—as contempt for or disregard of the friendship between God and man, (6) just as they have regarded it as a real and unfathomable offense against God and indeed an ungrateful rejection of the love of God shown us through Jesus Christ, who called his disciples friends and not servants. (7)
3. It is therefore necessary for the full remission and—as it is called—reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against his wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God, from which there will shine forth throughout the world the sanctity and the splendor of his glory. The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences.”
6. Cf. Isaiah 1:2-3. Also cf. Deut. 8:11 and 32:15 and ff.; Ps. 105:21 and 118 and other places; Wis. 7:14; Isaiah 17:10 and 44:21; Jer. 33:8; Ez. 20:27. Cf. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum on Divine Revelation, no. 2: “Hac itaque...eamque suscipiat” (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 818). Cf. also ibid., n. 21 (loc. cit., p. 827-828).
7. Cf. John 15:14-15. Cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes on the Church in the Modern World, n. 22 (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 1042) and the Decree Ad Gentes Divinitus on the Missionary Activity of the Church, n. 13 (A.A.S. 58, 1966, p. 962).
I think our problem is not that we do not know Greek, but that that we do not know English as well as the KJB translators knew English.
The word “cousin” can in fact be used to mean a more general relationship. According to the Oxford International Dictionary before me, it can mean:
*Any collateral relative;
*(One’s next of kin;
*A title used formally of one monarch to another monarch;
*A person or thing having affinity of nature to another;
*A person of kindred race or nation;
*A prostitute;
*A dolt;
*A cousin once, twice, etc. removed (a) the child, grandchild, etc. of a cousin; (b) the cousin of a parent, grandparent, etc. . . .
*Kindred; related
*And more.
* * * * * * *
I think we need to study more English than Greek. The word “cousin” means, precisely as the koine Greek word, suggennes.
Our ignorance of the vastness of English is not a basis for criticism of the KJB translators.
They chose a great word, “cousin.”
Trouble is, language is not dead. It changes. Word meanings change. It is not what the word used to mean, but what it means today that matters.
People do not stop at every word in the Bible and check what it used to mean, but interpret it as it currently means. And that's where weird interpretatins begin to pop up.
The English word "cousin" originated c. 1250 AD, as ME cosin which means son of one's mother's sister, a ligature from Latin roots con+sobrinus.
I would venture to say that it's more probable it meant the same thing 400 years later, when KJV was published, then today, 758 year after its formation.
Our ignorance of the vastness of English is not a basis for criticism of the KJB translators
Perhaps the English-speakers ought to study the vastness of history in order to be able to put the vastness of the English language (which is not English in most cases, but foreign imports, often with distorted meanings) in order to match the meaning it had within the historical context of what the word meant at some particular time.
Dumping a list of everything the word meant over its entire historical existence does not provide for the correct interpretation, as you seem to suggest, by cherry-picking the meaning that appeals to the reader or reader's agenda or preconceived notions the most. (sort of like the way Protestants interpret the Bible)
I have checked several dictionaries, including Webster's, and they all place the meaning of cousin being a child of one's uncle or aunt as the most current and most common meaning.
What will an average Bible-reader, who knows nothing of koine Greek, history, and Middle Eastern cultures, most likely conclude when he or she reads that Elizabeth was Mary's "cousin?" Will the reader say "oh, they must mean kinfolk?" Of course not. The reader will interpret the word according to its current most common meaning, which is wrong.
So, while it may have been interpreted correctly in the 17th century England (which I doubt), we no longer speak that way and are not likely to interpret words according to their archaic meanings.
This is one reason why the outdated, archaic KJV is the worst possible biblical source for contemporary use. The other reason KJV ought not ot be used is simply because it's based on flawed sources.
“Dumping a list of everything the word meant over its entire historical existence does not provide for the correct interpretation, as you seem to suggest, by cherry-picking the meaning that appeals to the reader or reader’s agenda or preconceived notions the most. (sort of like the way Protestants interpret the Bible)”
Not one of those was listed as archaic, and infact, I’ve read often in 20th century books the more general use of the word “cousin.” That’s why it struck me to pull out the bulky big Oxford. “Cousin” is correct in the passage.
STA: If God controlled you 100%,than you would have to be sinless from the point God controlled you, or the controlling God would own your sin as the puppet master
Indeed, dear brother, if they could only be so lucky as to be completely controlled by God! As you say, they would be without sin—unless, of course, God is the source of our sin too!
This Protestant notion that they are hijacked by the Holy Spirit is a feel-good, man-made delusion. It "justifies" men in their own eyes.
Encouragement to many to invest into comprehensive English dictionaries like the Noah Webster 1828, the Miriam Webster 1913 International, or the Oxford International (unabridged is best, though expensive). You will find your Bible study enhanced by devoting some time to deepen your grasp of English etymology.
Don’t be afraid of archaic words either, because many of them come back around in to usage. Get a Jing James Bible and one or more the dictionaries named above.
Actually, I discovered that the Miriam Webster Collegiate 10th and 11th Editions are actually very good Bible Study tools.
I am amazed how many words that are listed as archaic are again appearing with their original usages in news magazines.
Indeed. Sin distorts the entire creation. It is unfathomable that God built a good world and then decided to shake everything just so he can put it back together as a manifestation of His own glory! Yet our Protestant friends believe just that.
"Christians throughout history have always regarded sin not only as a transgression of divine law but also—though not always in a direct and evident way—as contempt for or disregard of the friendship between God and man "
Indeed. In the Orthodox tradition, the confession begins with "I confess to God, before you, venerable father (priest, as our witness), that I have sinned out of ingratitude to God...
We don't see sin in legal terms; you seed, you get a ticket, you pay the fine and you are free. I don't think anything describes sin better than ingratitude.
Ingratitude to the loved ones requires much more than penance. It hurts, it burns, it brings tears to our eyes; it makes one wish he were dead.
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.