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."
We believe the Pentecost happened. Certainly the disciples experienced a life-changing event that made them into Apostles. Luke was no eyewitness. Whether there were trumpets or whether this is just the culturally influenced way of narrating things is another matter.
Being filled with the Holy Spirit can be interpreted in many ways. We see it as our spiritual life in Christ, motivated and sustained by His love; not some alien presence inside of us.
Actually I don't agree with the first part at all. Apparently, blessed Luke wasn't aware of the Great Commission (I guess he was getting his information from sources other than Matthew), because we do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. We baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, as the Lord is quoted.
Communication problem? You bet!
So are historical events. What I mean by the irrelevance of the history is that Christ's proclamations are true yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are timeless. They are irrelevant of the geographic location, culture or politics, and, yes, history too. Even factual history.
When the Gospels tell us that we cannot serve God and Mammon (wordily goods), that is the eternally current and true message we need to take home with us.
Inconvenient elements of the story can be dropped without penalty
Certainly that is true of anything. "Be merciful" can be ignored.
Paul didn't invent the Holy Spirit. He invented the term "indwelling Holy Spirit." I could be wrong but my cursory search didn't reveal that phrase before him. The Gospels speak of being "filled" with the Holy Spirit which is different because in the OT sense, the HS is a power of God, a blessing, and not a Divine Person.
God's presence in our hearts is not an alien presence inside of us. When we love someone, we love that person in spirit (in our "hearts") and that person's "presence " is said to be spiritual and not physical.
We are not invaded. When we fall in love with God, He is on our minds and in our consciousness; we are aware of His existence. When we do things with God in our hearts, we act according to what Christ taught us, we remind ourselves of what He said not to do. We do it out of love.
He is our motivator and mover, and when we sin His awareness in our minds helps us come to grips with our error, so we can repent for our ingratitude and ask for forgiveness.
It's not a matter of convenience and I am not dropping the OT God, just the perception the Jewish people had, and some Christian groups have, of Him. Our perception of the OT God is that He is (by necessity) Christ-like and that if He appears not as the Christ of the Gospels then it is not a correct perception of God. It's not a matter of convenience but of what standard we use. In our case, we use Christ. I think that would be the definition of a Christian.
Jesus' movement separated from John the Baptist early on. John's followers to this day maintain that he was the true messiah. The Gospels try to correct this impression without making John an enemy of Christ. After all, John was one of those few people filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.
Blessed John wasn't necessarily wrong, so there is no reason for Christ to condemn him. But, unlike Jesus, John preached angrily and violently. Jesus' message was fundamentally opposite of John's.
A warrior-king who would defeat Rome would not preach peace, loving your enemy, and forgiveness. That is how we perceive things to this day. That's how the Jews perceived thing then too.
Yet, when you think about it, it is the meek Jesus of Nazareth that did defeat Rome: not only did He defeat Rome, but He became the God of the Roman Empire and established His Church in Rome! It just didn't happen as the Jewish people wished it would, and it didn't happen when they wanted it to happen, but in due time, on God's time.
****It just didn’t happen as the Jewish people wished it would, and it didn’t happen when they wanted it to happen, but in due time, on God’s time.*****
You keep talking like that, and we’ll make a Calvinist out of you yet. :>)
But that moral is determined by men, NOT by God. Therefore, the hope that you have must be in those men that you follow, that they were true believers and knew what they were talking about
Provided the authors of the Bible wrote what they wanted, yes. But we believe that God revealed Himself to them and they, as best as they could, interpreted them within the context of their time and personal disposition. So, yes, they all contain some kernels of truth, whether they be moral truths, facts, or elements necessary for context.
When it comes to Gospels, the morals given to us in them are believed to be the eyewitness accounts of the Lord revealing those moral truths.
Our morality is based on the Gospels. If the rest of the Bible expresses the same morality, then it is accepted as that of Christ, our Lord and God, and such truths would be in harmony with the Father and the Holy Spirit regardless of time, geography or culture.
If I had to summarize Christian morality, I would say it is based on love and mercy
The doctrine was being developed as even the Apostles didn't have it all straight when they were left to tend for the Church. Evidence of corruption comes from St. Paul's Epistles as they all address deviant practices and beliefs of early Christians.
The message of the Bible is timeless, because God is timeless. Truth is truth no matter when, where or how it is revealed. The Bible reveals the Truth through Christ our Lord. Christians always believed that the only way we can reach Truth bis through Chirst, and tha He is the Truth, the Way and the Life.
When He says "love your neighbor as yourself" that is transcendentally true and historically irrelevant.
Pastristic writings are commentaries on the truth revealed by the Gospels and seen through them in other parts of the Bible. None of the Patristic writings try to establish if the walls of Jericho really did come tumbling down and why, and in what year.
Truly, all that is left is blind faith. Why should I follow Orthodoxy?
We believe that Christ is our Lord and our God, as St. Mark said it. We believe that based on the Gospels. If you want to call that blind faith, so be it.
Orthodoxy is what the teaching of Christ and the Catholic Church is all about. We rightly praise God (that's what "ortho doxa" means), as we know Him from the Gospels. We know God through Him. That's why we are Christians, FK! :)
Like Luther and Calvin? :) Surely, ever since the Pentecost there have been forces that tried to fashion their own version of Christianity. That's why there are Apostolic Fathers, Church Fathers and Patristcis who wrote to preserve the catholic and orthodox faith given to us by Christ, lest we stray. The history of Christianity is nothing but evidence that men try to fashion Christianity in their own image.
We? Who is "we?" A re you saying Calvinists are made? Somehow I believe that. :)
At any rate, I think hell will freeze over first...
Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Brrrrr, is it getting cold in here?
There is nothing in the Bible that says that. This is something the Protestants/Baptists imply by their (human) definition of what "inspired" means.
It goes back to what the original words MEAN. Words either have meaning or they do not. "God-breathed" and "inspired" do not mean mere blind nudges. At least the Latin Church seems to understand that. It is YOUR (human) definition of what "inspired" means that has no backing.
Besides, I have already told you this before, any other religion claims that God wrote their holy books too. You have dismissed that without any proof because there isn't any.
I'm not sure what you're saying I have dismissed. I HAVE said that I don't much care what other faiths claim. The truth of MY faith is not at all dependent on whether other faiths, which are false, make some of the same claims. By your reasoning all I would have to do to destroy Orthodoxy would be to adopt the same claims, but add that it is fine to have sex with small children. Your faith would be diminished somehow because of my new invented faith. That's what you're saying. :)
It's not everyone's "job" to know the scriptures, FK. Nowhere does the Bible say it is. That is the Protestant/Baptist superstition known as the sola scriptura.
What??? Jesus said the scriptures testify about Him. Jesus says He wants us to love Him. We must KNOW who we love. The scriptures tell us who Christ IS. How can this be so difficult?
How can you know the "God's word" if there is no agreement on what that knowledge entails? There are thousands of denominations that interpret "God's word" differently, the "core beliefs" notwithstanding, and even there (such as the Holy Trinity) it is not universal among so-called "Christians."
There is solid agreement about God's word among Bible-believing Christians from many different denominations. We may disagree on some interpretations here or there, but nothing that prevents solid agreement on those core issues. Again, you are taking the all or nothing approach, leaving you with nothing. We do not take that approach and celebrate the significant amount that we have in common. People can call themselves whatever they want. I know a Bible-believing Christian when I meet one.
Each and every Christian or "Christian" sect uses precisely the same "God's word" you and I are using, to support their sectarian beliefs, and each assumes being absolutely right.
So what? Is Orthodoxy lessened in your mind because there are hundreds of millions of us out here that disagree with you? Does that require you to "throw out" the Bible because we interpret it differently? It certainly doesn't for us. Your side can interpret it any way it wants. That doesn't change anything for us.
It certainly didn't require blind belief since there were hundreds of witnesses to the FACT of the resurrection. Eyewitness testimony counted back then, just as it does today. They were telling TRUE stories BACKED with facts.
Is that an "explanation?" Or is it a profound mystery that requires blind belief? Or that with His Blood He paid for our sins? Or that by being dunked into the water we are mysteriously "born-again" and the "elect" of God?
The Apostles never taught that dunking had anything to do with salvation or being of the elect. That was added later by the men of your Church. More power for them, etc.. :)
And don't tell me that being told that all your past, present and future sins have been forgiven because you call on the name of the Lord, and that your salvation is assured no matter what you do for the rest of your life is not a "feel-good" notion that appeals to our human nature!
I think it IS, but we do not believe what you have said above, so it doesn't apply to us. Somehow, I do not see your future holding a bare bones basic understanding of Reformed theology. :)
I think that is incorrect, FK. We want our dogs to obey by recognizing the command. We can euphemistically say that the dog "understands" but that is the fallacy of anthropomorphizing our pets as well.
No, I think a dog can understand "if I do this then I get a yummy treat or a pat on the head which I like". That's not too complicated for them, and it IS understanding. Dogs don't obey commands for no reason, at least at first. And just from personal experience our dog treats every individual family member differently, based on his perceived station for us. I am the "king", etc. That HAS to involve some understanding.
It was no attack; it was a description. Reformed theology requires evil. Proof?
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WCF, III.I).
From this quote I see no sense at all of God requiring evil. I see God making choices. Whatsoever came to pass was His choice, not because He was forced or compelled to by need. The "freely" is the giveaway.
God has always existed. God created everything. If the Reformed God created everything and ordained everything, then He created and ordained evil. The second part of the paragraph:
The second part of the paragraph talks about second causes, which negates your above assertion. God did ordain that evil will happen, but He did not create it as if it was a "thing" to be created. He set the circumstances to get the desired results, not based on need.
Predestination to heaven does NOT imply predestination to hell, especially since it is never ever written down in Scripture anywhere.
If one holds to simple logic of course it does (the WCF says that logical deductions from scripture are fine). If SOME are predestined to Heaven, and only THOSE go to Heaven, then it means that SOME are NOT so predestined and there is only one other destination.
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/ELECT/ says that: ................. "It [the NT] most certainly does not say that anyone is predestined to hell or even imply it. It says that these elect are called to special holiness and service. A John the Baptist or Mother Teresa, say."
Of course it implies it, if one can understand what an implication is. There is NO OTHER PLACE TO GO. :) The elect are saved, the non-elect are not saved. Real simple. And whoever wrote this is dead wrong about who the elect are in the first place. Letters were written TO THE ELECT in the NT, not to individual stand outs like he mentions, but to a general group of people (a church) among whom there were likely to be many elect. This author is way off.
FK: ***There simply can be no argument that the Bible clearly distinguishes between the elect and all men.***
The definitions are at odds with Scripture.
On this point, what definitions are at odds with which scriptures? The Bible is clear that there is such a group as the elect, and it is also clear that this group does NOT encompass all men. Dispute that if you can.
***If your dog does not wish to understand or is incapable, do you whip out your .44 magnum and blow his head off? ----- Not yet, for it does not please me.***
I hope that you are joking here.
:)
John 10: 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep 7 that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Jesus comes for all men. The flock that He has are the believers - His mission (which he has passed on to us) is to go and get all men and bring them into His flock.
No, no, no!!! :) That interpretation MAKES JESUS A LIAR!! Jesus SAYS that He will lead the other sheep and they WILL hear His voice, and there WILL be one flock. If the other sheep are all men, then Jesus is a liar because we KNOW this has never happened and never will happen according to the Bible.
Sure, one perfectly good Biblical use of the concept of "saved" is the "eternal glory" use. Nothing controversial there. I have identified four uses of that concept from the Bible on this thread (foundations, cross, belief, and glory).
We can turn away from God at any time through sin and in doing so be lost. Those who stay faithful until the end (and that means repentant even though they will be sinful) will be saved. Those who fall away will not.
Those who "fall away" PERMANENTLY were never "there" to fall away from in the first place. The Bible says none of the elect fall away permanently. Christ loses ZERO of His sheep.
Protestantism/Baptism makes a fundamental error here in assuming that the moment you accept Christ you cannot fall away, and that you have a "free ride" from there on. That's not what the Bible tells us.
As WM posted, if God is good for His word, and we think He is, then a true believer cannot fall away permanently. That's just the way God made it. In addition, Paul teaches against any notion of "free ride", and we are the ones quoting it to you. What does it take for us to convince you that we don't believe that? WE ARE QUOTING THE BIBLE TO YOU! :)
This is also where Luther's pecca fortiter error comes in: you cannot be faithful and continue to sin boldly. Those who give in to sin boldly have forsaken Christ.
This is also where your misunderstanding of what Luther was saying comes in. Luther never taught what you are saying above.
The Bible teaches throughout the same theme: repent and your sins shall be forgiven, relegated to divine oblivion. Christ's sacrifice is powerful indeed, as you say, but He shed His blood only for some even though God would desire all men to be saved. That's because some will repent, and some won't. So, while His sacrifice certainly is good enough for the whole world, only some of the world will repent and be forgiven.
That sounds positively Reformed. Well said my good man. :)
The reformed theology says that we must repent because God predestined us to repent. What Orthodox theology says is that we repent because Christ made it possible to (i.e. we can) repent.
My original comment and your response both mentioned the regenerate man not wanting to sin like he used to, instead his general disposition would be one of wanting to please God. I thought THAT'S what you were talking about. And your above is fair enough. We say Christ went way beyond the possible and actually DID it.
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.