Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.

My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.

I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.

It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.

I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.

Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."

Slippery rubber dictionaries have no influence on the truth of my beliefs.

Jesus IS The Living Word.

There is a level of congrunce that The Living Word has wth the ink on wood pulp.

However, our capacity to plumb the depths of the ink on wood pulp is not likely to be greatly better than our capacity to—in this time/space dimension—or any other, really—plumb the depths of The Living Word walking hand in hand with us tangibly or otherwise.

There is a sense—a lot of senses, probably—in which the set of stimuli that constitute the ink on wood pulp are The Living Word . . . The overlap is fairly wholesale . . . but far from identical.

And, given our incapacities to even perceive, much less comprehend the totality of the ink on wood pulp &/or The Living Word Christ Jesus . . . it’s rather silly obsfucation or . . . lack of awareness . . . or . . . deliberate dodgey manipulation of the facts to insist that appreciation for various essences of The Living Word ‘residing’ in the ink on wood pulp constitutes idolatry.

I have observed idolatry of the ink on onion skin. Participated in it in my youth. Observed it in others. And, I have loved ones who deliberately stack things on Bibles as a testimony against such . . . as I know folks who insure that the Bible is always on top of any pile—not as reverence for the ink on onion skin per se—but as reverence for The Author.

But, hey, if the RC edifice wishes to construe the fact that Prottys consider The Living Word to have great overlap with the ink on onion skin in some significant respects, ways, factors . . . if the RC edifice wishes to consider that awareness as worship . . . they MIGHT only need to be concerned with God’s perspective . . . as He judges them by the standard they judge with . . . especially vis a vis the magicsterical, Maryolatry etc.

My sense is that God sees enormous difference in respect for The Author and egregiously over the line veneration etc. of Mary, the RC edifice, the magicsterical . . . etc.

What, you didn't have time to write me a LONG response?

Whenever man - traveling his worldline - projects his own mind onto God he ends up anthropomorphizing God into a caricature, an imagining, a small “god” his puny, mortal mind can comprehend.

10-4 as far as it goes. I'd say reason is tainted and crippled, but not so damaged that it cannot be healed and cannot perceive SOME basic things about God. A lot (not all, just a lot) of the caricaturing is because people stopped thinking too soon.

It has served man well since the days of Aristotle.[and earlier] But even in observing the physical realm, the law does not hold. Whether one sees a particle or a wave depends on what he is looking for.

In the natural sciences that is a not a sign that the excluded middle doesn't hold but that the notion that something is either a particle or a wave needs to be re-thought. The apparent failure of the law just calls the premises that lead to that failure up for re-examination. And so we develop terms like "quantum" (literally "how much?" or "that much" )which implicitly acknowledge that the problem is not yet solved

And yet there are beliefs which say that Jesus Christ must be either man or God. He can’t be both because of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Other beliefs say that because of the Law of Identity, the Father, Son and Spirit are separate Gods. And there are many other such examples that have led to various doctrines and traditions of men and disputes among the members of the body of Christ.

Ah. we have a VERY different innerleckshual approach, and reach different conclusions. Heres how I consider the process which led to the Chalcedonian And Nicene definitions of two natures in one person, and three persons in one ousia (after the transubstantiation thread I ain't saying "substance" again without looking over my shoulder and checking my firearm):

It's a lot like what i just said about "quantum". Looka this: (1)If we say THREE Gods, well that's polytheism which reject because the Bible tells us so AND because it just doesn't make sense. (2)But if we say EITHER that IHS is not God OR that IHS is kind of mooshed in with the Father and the Holy Spirit that leads to other contradictions of what seems to be in Scripture AND, again, of thought. For example: "God so loved the world that he gave, well, one of the first things He made that all who believe in, well, something or other might be saved ... ." It just doesn't have the same zing, does it? Gos up in heaven saying, "Okay, I need a volunteer for a suicide mission. Which of you creatures will step forward"? And patripassionism just doesn't hold up against the seemingly incomprehensible but seemingly unavoidable assertion of the impasssability of God.

SO in both cases the Church comes up with a "quantum": We don't know what it is, but the only way you can talk about it without leading yourself down the wrong path is "Two natures (not confused), one hypostasis" and that goes for "three persons, one God." It's kind of a negative approach: "We don't really get what these things mean, but It has to be like this."

So again, I don't think "quanta" or the great Dogmata are signs that reason is broken, but rather signs that Prayer, Scripture, Study, dialogue, all with frequent if not constant appeals to the Holy Spirit lead humanity, with reason on board, to the truth.

But it IS the body of Christ, we think.
See, there’s a wedge right there. LOL!
The body of Christ consists of all those chosen from the foundation of the world for redemption by the blood of the Lamb, regardless of when the person was, is or will be in the flesh.

Um, that's what I said? sort of almost? Bearing in mind what I've written elsewhere recently about people who are members of the body but not "full" members?

I see none of the quotes you put up as contradicting the assertion.

Also, is "exclusive" always, inevitably, by definition a bad thing? I don't think it's the RC exclusivity that's the problem. I think you don't agree with the standards, that you think they exclude for the wrong reasons.

I just say that because "exclusivity" is a buzzword and buzzwords are hints that we need to slow down and see what we really mean. To say "exclusivity of the 'club'" is, I think, really unfair -- a cheap shot. Are all organizations with standards "clubs"? Is it "exclusive" of doctors not to give me penicillin on the "clubby" grounds that I happen to be allergic to it? Is it exclusive not to compel people to receive the sacraments? Isn't it a tad rough to say, "I don't want to receive but you're wrong not to let me."

Am I exclusive because I don't have sex with the thousands of gorgeous babes who are constantly throwing themselves at me on the clubby grounds that I married the boss-lady and unto her only shall I cleave?

(Or am I just tragically deluded? Yeah, I think probably that.)

And this is where the dreadful name of "gnostic", whether rightly or wrongly, comes into the picture. And certainly there's a profound difference about ecclesiology, which means at least one of us is in error if not downright heretical.

From our POV, +Paul "touched back" NOT with the whole Church but with the leaders, "those who were of repute", in private conference, and laid before them what he had been preaching, lest somehow [he] should be running or had run in vain.]

Now people can talk about "edifice" all they like, but mockery and perseveration don't add a thing to the discussion. They rather hinder charity and clear thinking.

As we look back on the story in Galatians and Acts, we have no question that Paul (a) was confident he had a calling, and (b) was right to be so confident. But he, as I say, "touched back" some 3 years later with Cephas and then 14 years later, when presumably he was more mature in Christ, he touched back with what amounts to a committee of the Church leaders(can you say "curia?" - well sort of a proto- or embryonic curia, maybe) and is open to the possibility that he might be running or have been running in vain!

This is a remarkable act of humility, as admission that even the great Paul, with his unforgettable conversion experience, might still need to have his good work ratified -- even by those with whom he later quite pronouncedly and publicly disagrees.

There's no implication that Cephas is, himself and by himself, the bees knees. In fact Peter could be said to have be tossing up veils and wedges (I didn't know the apostle even WORE briefs -- and now you tell me they had wedgies.
No. wait.)
Ahem. To continue ... One can see that Paul had a stormy relationship with "those who were of repute", but still wanted his work to be checked by them.

(When rock climbing, I'd just as soon some suspicious, mistrusting guy checked my knots as someone who thought I was right all the time.)

Look at Cephas. He loved IHS yet denied Him. He had the vision of, ahem "inclusivity" and then wussed out before the Judaizing "circumcision party". It was to so weak a reed and his homies that Paul submitted his ministry for review.

Can we dare to think that our call and ministry is so certain, so much more certain than Paul's that we need not humble ourselves as he humbled himself? It was a very visible, all TOO visible, group of Church leaders to whom Paul went. Those clowns and yahoos were the then current crop of "those chosen from the foundation of the world."

The eternality of the call does not excuse us from dealing with, and submitting our call and ministry to the review of, the manifestly and obviously fallible and peccable (in their own persons) folks who bear the ministry of being our pastors. Otherwise we seem to be making ourselves greater than Paul.

P.S. I need you and Forest Keeper to talk about eternity.

Yes they are .. they are not the exactly same (I did not say that) but communism "IS" socialism.. it is measured in degrees

Did you make that up? Communism is a theoretical concept of the end stage of social evolution. It is a classless society, where all means are available to all people, and everything is communal property.

In order for this state to be reached, a long period of building "socialist consciousness" is required, essentially a period of "purification" of our materialistic desires and profiteering. No country ever reached that state.

For any society to begin this process, Marx advocated a violent overthrow of the government and the establishment of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." It was seen as a necessary step because, he argued, the ruling elite would never give up power without a fight.

Not all socialist movements of the 19th century were Marxist in that not all of them advocated a violent overthrow ("people's revolution") of the state system, but rather a peaceful transformation of the society into a more socially just one (accoridng to their definitions).

Even among Russian socialists, and members of the Socialist International, the hard-liner Marxists were known as the Bolsheviks (meaning the ones in majority), who considered the minority non-violent Socialists (the Menisheviks) as "revisionists," a label hard-line communists always used for west European Socialists such as those in power in Scandinavian countries (most of whicb are kingdoms!), etc.

It is safe to say that all of Europe today is Socialist in terms of medical care, job security, retirement and other benefits. Certainly, Japan is a Socialist society, even though it is an industrial giant and an Empire.

The Nazis were socalists.. for that was the name of the party.. They were just CALLED Nazis

No, they weren't just "called" Nazis. It is an abbreviation of Nazionalsozialismus, or National Socialism. Unlike the Socialists belonging to the international socialist movement, the Nazis were nationalists and German-hegemonists. Like all socialists, they favored "big state" but coupled with exclusivist national and racial beliefs.

Socialism can be an economic system or it can be an economic and a Marxist political system. They are both dedicated to creating some kind of socially "just" and equitable society. The basis for Marxist philosophy is to be found in the French Revolution, with slogans such as "liberty, equality, fraternity," and the violent overthrow of the establishment using mob violence.

Most Socialists do not advocate violence, but want a society that doens't have excessively rich and excessively poor.

Italian fascists were simply right-wingers. Their fascism was simply a formula for a strong state, and expansion by means of conquer. No racial intolerance was part of their philosophy. No purity of race was the goal. Italian Fascism did not advocate a socialist system of ownership and economy.

I submit that it is YOU that is ignorant

Who isn't? You? The problem is that those who know the least are usually the ones who think they know the most. They cover their gaps of knowledge with slogans but do it in such a way that betrays their ignorance.

Democracy is a bad thing, and a bad form of government.. The United States is NOT a democracy...

Do you even know what democracy means? From the way you put it, I don't think you do. Here I detect slogans sans understanding. And why would democracy be a bad thing? What proof do you have that democracy, in every form, is a bad thing?

Because democracy is Mob Rule by mobsters and our founders(U.S.)

Oh boy! So, our country's founder's were mobsters? That's pathetic.

Democracy is Tribal Law.. like Sharia Law(Islam) is.. Democracy causes socialism

I'm putting on my fishing boots...and you are embarrassing yourself and probably don't even realize it.

the United States is a republic and NOT a democracy could be an interesting study for you.. for there are reasons very good reasons for it.. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic..

You need to understand the words before you thrown them around, hosepipe. A republic (res publica, people's entity) is a state that is not a monarchy. A republic can be a democracy, distatorshbip, socialist, communist, fascist, you name it.

Likewise, any state can be absolutist or constitutional, depending on what the supreme law is, a constitution or a monarch, or a religious leader, etc. You can have a socialist monarchy that is constitutional (Sweden, Spain), or you can have a nationalist, socialist republic that is a dictatorship (Nazi Germany), or you could have a constitutional democratic republic (USA), or you can have a theocratic republic where the religious law is supreme (Iran), or you can have an absolutist monarchy (Iran, during rule of Shah Reza Pahlevi), where the monarhc is the law, etc.

[ It is safe to say that all of Europe today is Socialist in terms of medical care, job security, retirement and other benefits. Certainly, Japan is a Socialist society, even though it is an industrial giant and an Empire. ]

Socialism is Slavery by Government or even Giverment.. Can start out democratic and usually does but morphs into Slavery or absolutely central gov't.. granting privileges NOT rights.. No socialist government on this planet grants the people rights.. merely privileges. That can of course be taken away.. on a whim.. Socialism always breeds an elite which becomes an Oligarchy..

[ Most Socialists do not advocate violence, but want a society that doesn't have excessively rich and excessively poor. ]

I know its a nasty enviorment.. Euphoria for the Lazy.. i.e. as in Cuba... Ever been to Cuba?...

[ Who isn't? You? The problem is that those who know the least are usually the ones who think they know the most. ]

Tuche'.. When your right your right..

[ And why would democracy be a bad thing? What proof do you have that democracy, in every form, is a bad thing? ]

Democracy breeds socialism which breeds Oligarchy which is Slavery by Government..
Theres a difference between democracy and "A" democracy.. thats NOT subtle.. Capitalism creates wealth, Socialism uses that wealth up.. Hybrid socialism/capitalistic systems are inept and wasteful.. [ Because democracy is Mob Rule by mobsters and our founders(U.S.) Oh boy! So, our country's founder's were mobsters? That's pathetic. ]

The U.S is not a democracy.. even a democratic republic its a Constitutional Republic..
Democracy IS Mob Rule or by a consortium of Mobs.. same thing.. which is Tribal Law..or the Law of the strongest Tribe.. which results in Oligarchy(the elite) like all socialism does..

Democracy is the social disease that produces the symptom of socialism.. and other corruption.. [ A republic can be a democracy, distatorshbip, socialist, communist, fascist, you name it. ]

True it can.. But the United States is a unique republic.. Where we have rights granted by GOD.. NOT the government.. No other nation on earth can say that.. Those rights cannot be legally taken away or adulterated by government "legally" according to our Bill of Rights..

A Banana Republic is really a democracy and not a republic at all.. The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics(USSR) was not a republic either.. it was an Oligarchy.. driven by an elite.. as all socialist government do or morph into..

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.