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."
Actually, I use the Blue Letter Bible.
The definition is from some other source I am not familiar with (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon?) Does that square?
What makes Strong (a 19th century Protestant Englishman) alone the sole authority?
While in full control, for example, on one level God was grieved (or regretted or was sorry, etc.) to watch His Son die on a cross, while on another level it pleased Him that His beloved children were saved.
So, the Reformed God is a multi-leveled complex being, constantly changing and possibly having multiple personalities? On what "level" did God grieve for His Son? Human level? That all sound very pagan to me, no offense, please.
"Ponder" or "deliberate" means "think about". When is God ever not doing that? What is God thinking about, pray tell! Or do you not think that He had already thought everything ther was to think, and know everything there is to know?
Strong's says nothing about making any mistake.
You still didn't explain why was God "grieved" that mankind on His watch turned out to be wicked if He was in full control, FK. And if this was what He willed, then why was He "grieved?"
I thought that all sides agreed that man's sin had a profound affect on the whole of "the world".
Yes it does, as sinful man destroys what God gave us.
But even if you don't agree, all of God's creation is still His to do with as He pleases
Yes it is, and what can Love do?
I have no idea at all if the Flood actually covered the tippy-top of Mt. Everest. Since I can't imagine anything living up there it wouldn't seem like there was a need to
I guess it wouldn't be "up there" if the water level was "up there." :)
The religion of the Jews at the time of Abraham was very much pagan.
Jesus spoke many times of Abraham, and never in mythic terms: Matt 8:11
Abraham was one of the OT righteous. Just another example that God can reveal Himself to pagans as well.
Jesus said here that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:12)
Any work? For any reason? No He said ti was good to do work to save man's life on a Sabbath. The intent is what changes the rules.
God is multifaceted AND consistent. This is what the whole of scripture reveals. It is God's revelation
Yet the Church teaches that God is simple and indivisible. Just another exmaple that we don't share the same Christian faith.
For one to say that God is only love in the human sense is to deny that He is also just and that He has wrath, for example.
God is just because He offers forgiveness of our sins and salvation to all through Christ crucified; God's "wrath" is His love experienced by those who hate Him. It's still love! :)
OK, STF. Thanks, those are helpful.
You find that impossible? Yet you have no problem with the part of the OT where God sends "deceiving spirits" to mislead people into believing wrong things?!?
Apples and oranges, the latter were not His children and He did not love them. The former were His beloved disciples. Jesus would not spiritually mislead His disciples as you suggest that He did.
You have no problem believing that God gives some people the eyes and the ears to see and hear the truth, but by the same token, by withholding the spiritual sight and hearing, to deny or even mislead others?
That's easy, He has no duty to provide those things. He creates His creatures and then does what He wants with them.
Jesus has to work within Judaism. Had He questioned Judaism any further than He already did, He would have been rejected even by the closest of followers.
I guess it's a good thing that Jesus knew His limits and didn't try to be more than He was. :)
Gen. 17:12 speaks of an eigth-day old child that was bought. Do you believe it is morally right to buy children?
God defines what is morally right, not me. Besides, isn't the purchase of a child essentially what happens when Americans adopt overseas (at least in many cases)? The child is almost always better off here, so I don't necessarily throw rocks at that at all.
Protestants and Baptists "justified" slavery because it is considered morally right in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. When did it cease being morally just and why don't the so-called Bible-believing Christians campaign for it today?
I don't think we want to get into a "the members of which faith have committed the most atrocities across time?" argument. I have ammo too! :) Modern day slavery as practiced since the founding of America was not Biblical and so it was unjust. Our society finally recognized that and banned it. No one is calling for it again, however, there is nothing wrong with an economic relationship in which labor is traded for something else, such as land. That is Biblical. Again, extremely few people understand today WHAT Biblical slavery was.
I mean, the implications of your answer are shocking, but I do understand that Bible-believing Christians must bend everything in such a way as to avoid any perception of doubt of what's in the Bible.
Bible-believing Christians believe in the Bible. Other sorts of Christians do not believe in the Bible (I guess).
Seriously, didn't the Apostles believe that He would be back within their lifetime? Sure they did because they misinterpreted what He said.
But Jesus did not lead them into the pit of a lie and leave them there, as you have been saying, because He also told them that NO ONE would know when He was coming back. That leaves the matter open. Jesus was teaching that worrying about the "when" was pointless. The thing to worry about was being READY.
One of our parishioners was telling the priest during the social hour hat his sins would make a thick book and it would take him six months to confess them all. To which the priest (sorry Mark [and STF]!) responded "That sounds rather Catholic to me. As far as I am concerned, it is much more important that the believer comes to me to confess in contrite heart than to list each and every sin he could think of."
So in Orthodoxy, the content of the confession is really beside the point? That would match your theme of "intent" being the thing that really matters. That would seem like a symbolism over substance argument. The sin itself doesn't matter so much as long as there are good intentions.
All you have to do is believe! :)
That's one cute unicorn. Too bad global warming will be the end of him. He was safer on Jupiter. :)
The only problem is proving that it was by design and not by random chance...Get my point?
Possibly, but that would all depend on what the standards of proof are that would be accepted. If I had to guess, I think you would say that there can be no proof of design and it all well could be by chance?
And the answer is simple, if they were of the elect then "yes", and if not then "no".
And if they were true believers, then why was it necessary for them to receive the Holy Spirit?
God ordains that believers after He left be given the Holy Spirit. For one thing He replaces the seal of circumcision. Old Covenant, New Covenant.
But the Bible contradicts (oh, it's that word again!) itself on when the Holy Spirit was received. Mark (12:36) says that David received the HS. Luke (1:15) says John the Forerunner (Baptist) was filled with the HS in the womb. According to Luke (1:45), also, his mother, Elisabeth was also filled with the HS.
Christ says the Holy Spirit is sent of God. Presumably, that means He is sent whenever that happens (as opposed to a formula applying to all of humanity) and that by implication when Jesus uses the future tense He is referring to those who do not as yet have Him. What's the contradiction? The Spirit is sent to whomever God wants, whenever God wants that to happen.
Yet, John (7:39) says "The Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." That verse leaves very little room for any exceptions. So, the Gospels do not agree on this issue.
Nonsense. HS was not yet come for all believers in general. THAT would only happen after Christ was glorified.
Whatever the case may be it is undeniable that, after the resurrection, the disciples become Apostles without fear, which is quite the opposite of how they acted before. So, definitely a life-changing events took place for them to become transformed from followers who scooted like scared little bunnies when the chips fell down, to fearless and zealous announcers of the Gospel. I don't think there is a skeptic in this world who can deny this.
YES to all of this! :)
The purpose of crucifixion was to incur maximum suffering. The last thing the Romans wanted was someone dying early on the cross. The only reason they broke the legs was to hasten their deaths because it happened to be the Sabbath. The fact that Jesus was dead was not planned by the Romans.
That's right, it was PLANNED by God. :) That's what I said. God was in 100% control of EVERY aspect of the situation.
Christ teaches us to love our enemies, yet He hates His?
And what about Judah? Was he not deceived? And if he was, by whom? And if you tell me Satan, I ask you was Satan acting contrary to God's will?
That's easy, He has no duty to provide those things. He creates His creatures and then does what He wants with them.
That's what Zeus-like God would say, but that's not what Christ teaches.
I guess it's a good thing that Jesus knew His limits and didn't try to be more than He was
Well, it was part of His "plan," wasn't it? He could have just changed everyone's hearts and forgo crucifixion. Instead, chose to humble Himself and become man, He allowed Himself to be caught, tortured and executed, and He chose to die.
God defines what is morally right, not me. Besides, isn't the purchase of a child essentially what happens when Americans adopt overseas (at least in many cases)? The child is almost always better off here, so I don't necessarily throw rocks at that at all.
Adoption brings inheritance rights; slavery doesn't. Slaves are like pieces of furniture. But, I would expect the so-called Bible-believing Christians to bend and twist in order to justify what's in the Bible, even if ti is morally repugnant.
I don't really care if you do or don't. Your ammo doesn't concern us Orthodox one little bit.
Modern day slavery as practiced since the founding of America was not Biblical and so it was unjust
It was "justified" with the Bible by its Protestant founders, and by all those in favor of it ever since.
No one is calling for it again, however, there is nothing wrong with an economic relationship in which labor is traded for something else, such as land. That is Biblical. Again, extremely few people understand today WHAT Biblical slavery was.
Well, I am glad you do. However, a slave was property no matter in where or when slavery existed. They came along with furniture. Slave families were broken and horse traded like cattle. Owning human beings is morally wrong even though the Bible says otherwise!
FK: But Jesus did not lead them into the pit of a lie and leave them there, as you have been saying, because He also told them that NO ONE would know when He was coming back. That leaves the matter open. Jesus was teaching that worrying about the "when" was pointless. The thing to worry about was being READY.
Ambiguity leads to false conclusions. You are making Jesus into a lawyer! :) He didn't tell them when but he said it would be within their lifetime. Or so they remembered Him saying that.
The fact is that the disciples didn't understand half of the stuff He was telling them. That seems to be the case throughout the Bible. People believe imperfectly, even thought they may hear the truth they may not fully grasp it.
Should you confess every little thought and every little gesture will that make a difference? If I confess that I got angry at a driver who cut me off, and then at another one who nearly hit me, and at a driver who was text-messaging while driving and weaving in and out of the lanes, is that important, or should I say that I was angry at the way people drive?
The sin in all these cases is that I don't know why they were driving the way they did, and I judged them for something I presumed (negligence, carelessness, even "stupidity"). So, yes, the intent is more important. I need to be aware that others have lives too and that they may be dealing with emergencies that take their attention away form the world, rather than judge them and call them names.
Even for major sins, such as adultery, every little detail that qualifies as a sinful act is not necessary to describe. The fact that one has committed adultery is. So, yes, the intent is more important. It is far more important not only to admit a sin but to know, believe and confess that such a sin shall never be repeated.
David committed just about all the worst sins you can imagine (adultery, killing the husband of the woman he committed adultery with), yet he was forgiven because he repented of the intent to repeat it. When any desire to repeat it has died, that's when you know that sin has been forgiven. The intent is no longer there.
Possibly, but that would all depend on what the standards of proof are that would be accepted. If I had to guess, I think you would say that there can be no proof of design and it all well could be by chance?
Random is something that is only theoretically possible. Like I said before, we know that all this exists. Why or how it came into being is a matter of human fancy, but not necessarily the truth.
Your pet(s) may have a "theory" as to why you leave the house every morning, but chances are they are completely off the mark. But for their purpose, a given "theory" does just fine even if it has nothing to do with real reasons why you leave the house every morning.
Hey, Kosta. Went on a cruise in Alaska, and while there visited a Russian Orthodox church in Sitka. Is your belief system and worship style anything like theirs? Just curious.
Regional chruches have also local customs and traditions but the essential parts of the liturgy remain unchanged, as does the manner of worship.
I will be happy to address any aprticular questions you may have.
Orthodox churches didn't have pews until they came to America, and then you will find them mostly in Grek and Antiochan churches. We stand in prayer because we are raised in baptism and out of respect to God whose presence is real in the Eucharist. We are in His house.
The sick and the elderly can sit, as there are usually chairs along the walls for that purpose. I have seen 90-year-old Japanese Orthodox stand through the whole 90-minute liturgy.
Early churches had a subdivision between the congregation and sanctuary. Eventually, in the East this separation was completed with icons, images of real people, including Christ, His Mother, St. John the Forerunner (Baptist) and a patron saint, and two angels (Michael adn Gabriel). I suppose the use of angles is based on the tradition of the Ark of Covenant.
The wall of icons is known as the icon stand (iconostasis in Greek). The altar is behind it. I guess it does make it into a separate "room."
The central, beautfil, great or royal doors are only for the ordained ministers (bishops, priests and deacons) performing the service; all non-ordained members of the church enter and leave the sanctuary through the small doors on the side.
There is usually a choir to the right side facing the altar, which is very important because our liturgy is antiphonal and represents a dialogue.
Is this what your worship is like? Again, not being obnoxious, just trying to understand
Yes, that'w what it's like and has been for as far back as we can trace it, around the first century based on the liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem, the Lord's half-brother.
Everything in the the Divine Liturgy and the Church has its reason. A lot fo what you see is external expression of faith, most of it coming from Judaism.
I did the sermon and my son-in-law lead the music. Philippians 4:10 and on was the subject
Who determined it should be Philippians and why?
How long did you stay in that Orthodox church? Was there someone to explain to you what was going on? Was there a choir? No instruments, right?
Clarification: I visited the church, because it is part of the tourist attraction in Sitka. It was just a look-see. No service was going on.
The place where the priest stood was a completely different room. There were two doors that opened inward.
As for the sermon, I chose what I was going to do, and had a copy with me (aren’t memory sticks wonderful?). If you look at my blog, you will see several sermons I have done in the last year or so. I do believe that the Philippians 4:10 one is there.
This site has pictures (old ones) of the church.
Of course He had. :) What you are implying is that He actually wrote it! But He didn't. The authors wrote it. They wrote what was revealed to them, but we all believe in imperfect manner.
My understanding was that your view of God's entire participation in the writing of the Bible amounted to: "Hey, John, it might be a good idea to go over there and write whatever you want about what you have seen and heard. The leaders of Kosta's Church will decide if it's any good a few hundred years from now." :) If that is not correct, then what sort of revelation are you referring to?
FK: If, however, the scriptures are ACTUALLY HOLY, then it would be a much different story. In the latter case there would be no issue of what the authors perceived and got right or wrong. Holy is Holy.
Holy is holy because it's from God. Our faith is holy too, but we don't believe or worship in a perfect manner. It's not God's truth that is imperfect; it's our perception that is.
That would appear to confirm a belief that the scriptures are not from God, but are only from men. That's what I thought you thought.
FK: Since you are clear that you think that the OT strongly conflicts with the NT it appears you equate "incomplete" with untruth.
No, incomplete is just that. A story you read can be true but incomplete. If you hear there is a forest fire, but you are not told where, that doesn't make the story untrue. :)
But Kosta, that is not the approach you take. Especially regarding the OT, you say that when there is a story of a forest fire that it is patently FALSE and a lie and that it never happened. You say there was never a forest fire and that the story was made up as myth in order to make some point. That makes the story untrue, and it also makes Jesus complicit in the untruth since He referred to these stories matter-of-factly, as though they were literally true.
But Holy can be misunderstood, or incompletely grasped.
One cannot claim a story is being misunderstood when one claims that it is manifestly FALSE. :) Part of the very nature of God is given to us plainly in the OT and you reject it entirely. That's not a misunderstanding.
Exactly! Thank You for saying this,dear Brother.
Luther's devilish "sin boldly" statement makes a mockery of God and His forgiveness.
Nothing, it is just the most widely used such reference in the world. I merely said that according to him your interpretations were not required, and that since they were not required I wondered why you would choose the single interpretation MOST offensive to the integrity of the Bible itself.
So, the Reformed God is a multi-leveled complex being, constantly changing and possibly having multiple personalities?
From our point of view He is certainly multifaceted and complex. However, He does not constantly change or have multiple personalities. It might only seem that way to those who do not accept Him as He has revealed Himself to us throughout the scriptures.
On what "level" did God grieve for His Son? Human level? That all sound very pagan to me, no offense, please.
No problem. The "levels" I am talking about are only in human perception. God is obviously far above human perception. But think about it, how do YOU answer the question "Did God want Jesus to die on the cross?" Yes or no.
What is God thinking about, pray tell! Or do you not think that He had already thought everything there was to think, and know everything there is to know?
Well, of course God's infiniteness is difficult for us to comprehend. The distinction I am drawing is between a static God who is just "frozen" since everything everywhere and everywhen is already done for Him, and a LIVING God who is active and doing things within time.
You still didn't explain why was God "grieved" that mankind on His watch turned out to be wicked if He was in full control, FK. And if this was what He willed, then why was He "grieved?"
God created us knowing that it would turn out to be a "package" deal, the good with the bad. This really isn't that complicated. Here is a good and short explanation from CARM specifically on Gen. 6:6:
The above verse is not a problem for Classical Christian Theism nor is it a proof text for Open Theism. The verse simply tells us that the Lord was grieved and had sorrow in His heart for making man. Why? Because mankind had fallen into great sin and this grieved the Lord. Does it mean that God didn't know that mankind would fall and become sinful? Of course not. Cannot God know that they would become sinners and also be grieved when it happens? Of course. Let me illustrate.
I have children. I love them and provide for them. But, they have grieved me in their various sins -- as any child will do to his parents. I knew they would grieve me when they were born because I know they are sinners by nature. This doesn't mean I was surprised and didn't know they would rebel when it happened. Quite the contrary, and knowing they would sin doesn't mean I won't be grieved when their rebellion and sin is finally manifested.
The open theist would have us believe that God was grieved because He was surprised or didn't know the depths of sin to which the world would fall. But surely, even in Open Theism, God knew that people would sin. So, this verse can't be claimed to demonstrate that God didn't know the future choices of people.
This seems pretty reasonable to me.
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.