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."
“Liberalism always seeks to subordinate the individual in the name of the group.”
Classic liberalism was individualistic, stressing individual freedom and limited government. It elevated individual freedom over the group, whether it be the government or the church. It championed freedom of thought.
Sure if we want to go back 200 years or so.
The liberalism of today is the stateist model in which any and every problem is solved by the state and the group identity is more important than individual identity.
The Reformation was the renewal of classic liberalism and made possible the Enlightment. How’s that for truncated, simplistic, Cliff-Noted, history?
Pretty darn good!
The current day lexicon has turned all that upside down. Today what would have been called classic liberalism is conservatism and what was statist is liberalism. Liberals today do not seek individual empowerment or protections. It is all about sublimating the individual to the group.
“It is all about sublimating the individual to the group.”
I think God did that when He created Eve!!
okay, I give up!
“okay, I give up!”
Them’s Adam’s exact words when he saw Eve.
ROFLOL!
That's good!
WM: I am not as optimistic. I think the radical left from the 60's has control of the Rats and they are saying immediate withdrawal and submit to the UN.
My view is that if either RAT gets in that SOMEBODY will clue them in that it will all be on them and the DIMS if they evacuate the troops out prematurely and then the whole country falls apart and the real bad guys will have a long term home base. THEN what will they do? It would be suicide politically. I think they both want to use the PUBLIC threat of pulling out as leverage on the Iraqi government to get its act together quickly to the point of it at least being plausible to remove our troops, or most of them.
I do think we're going to have to have some presence there for quite a while though. We can't have our civilians and contractors unprotected, and if a bunch of them start getting killed because of insufficient support, then the RATS will get blamed for that too. But even after those projects are basically done, I don't see how we can totally leave anytime soon. Iraq would have to look like a totally different country than it does now.
I would say that before creation, there is God. But if God has never existed and does not exist now, then do you say He is real? Or, a recent example that has been used is unicorns on Mars. We would all say that they do not exist. Is there a difference?
Yes, God gave the world its existence. And, I don't think any of us can say for certain what the deal was before creation. Except, that I assert there was active love within the Trinity. I would say that active love requires existence.
Thanks, and it looks like I should have pinged you to 4,451. (Sorry :) I suppose I am postulating that there is a real difference between change/motion and "something happening". I fully agree that God has never gone from things like good to better, or OK to not so OK, but I don't think that necessarily means that nothing was going on before He created.
Kosta: "They have no business in Christian countries."
Kolo: "None whatsoever."
Mary: "How many countries are Christian? Not many."
I have had this discussion pretty recently and I think they would say any country in which most of its citizens were baptized as infants into either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches. (In several countries/cultures, "everyone" is baptized into an Apostolic Church as a matter of course.) At that point they believe that their respective Churches own the infants, regardless.
Now, of course many of these infants grow up to have no discernible (or real) faith in God at all. They would say: "That's my clergy's problem to fix". That is, even though there is no where near the manpower or resources to do so. To them that is irrelevant and I have been told, in essence, that they believe it would be better for the person to rot in hell having never believed, than to be led to the Lord by a Protestant missionary.
And even though I have been told this, the way I interpret it is that they think that a solidly converted Protestant is still less likely to get into Heaven than a total non-believer (who was baptized in an Apostolic Church) and who has one breath of life left in him, because he still might be reached by an Apostolic clergy. IOW, THEY are willing to take the chance ON BEHALF of the lost person. They believe that is THEIR right. If that sounds incredible to you, and extraordinarily unbiblical, it does to me also, but unfortunately, they are very serious about this.
“If that sounds incredible to you, and extraordinarily unbiblical, it does to me also, but unfortunately, they are very serious about this.”
Indeed, completely serious.
All? He was addressing the Apostles. And the NT reminds us that not all are Apostles.
By that reasoning there is no one left to make disciples, unless you put your clergy on a par with the Apostles. This falls apart immediately. You are forced to insert what is not there, i.e. "EXCEPT for Apostolic succession, which we claim."
The Great Commission (Mat 28: 1-20) ....... Intended for the apostles only!
Then Christ is not always with His children to the very end of the age. At best, you would have to say He is only with the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church. I know the Orthodox are against evangelism by the laity, but the only interpretation that makes any sense here is that Christ was talking to all of His children. You are truly trying to have it both ways.
If it is truly Christian to think of others first, then why wouldn't you want to share the most important thing in the world, the Gospel of Christ, with them? We have no reasonable answer for that, so we DO share. We even want to. Sometimes, I have worried that I will mess something up (and I have), but now I remember that it is God alone who does the saving. Perhaps under a works-based model you fear that your works might (through mistake) interfere with the works of people you're talking to. I'm not sure.
Your preaching doesn't give anyone faith; neither does the Bible. Is it not God who gives faith?
God gives faith. Under normal circumstances, it is through the hearing of the word either or both through preaching and the text of the Bible.
Was it not God, according to your theology, who decided that at one point, long before you existed, you will have faith regardless of what takes place?
Technically, no. It was God who decided that at one point, long before I existed, I would have faith. But, it was never REGARDLESS. Everything that led up to that moment was choreographed by God. The moment of my faith was not "whenever, just sometime before he dies". :)
Preaching, praying, bible reading had nothing to do with it. It was set in stone.
In my particular case, preaching (to me), praying, and bible reading were ALL a PART of the stone that was set for me. They were all ordained to happen, they all did happen, and now I believe. God first changed my heart to make any of these of any value to me, but everything had to happen (as described above in my case).
FK: "When we preach to the non-elect, we also benefit from the experience, and the non-elect probably benefits from the interaction as well."
What benefit? Is your faith and your assurance not sufficient? What else do you need?
What are you talking about? We don't preach for our own salvation!!! LOL! That is a TRUE mindset giveaway. :) No, we preach because we want to obey God and we want to please Him. And though it doesn't happen every day, I can't tell you how much of a thrill it is to be there when God decides to do a miracle in the person I'm talking to. God lets me watch, and there is nothing more fulfilling I can think of. I'd say that is a pretty worthwhile benefit. :)
FK to Mark: You're right that we don't have common terminology. I really DO believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall. ...
But this "belief" is based on factual experience; not some "indwelling spirit."
Not really. Before I had ever seen a hammer in my life I could have read a book describing gravity and then reasoned that if I ever did see a real hammer, that it would fall. When I read the book, He who made me believe the truth of gravity was the Spirit. So, when I finally did come across a hammer and dropped it and it fell, I knew I was reading a very true book.
You know, Prof. Kalomiros, an Orthodox theologian of the 1970's, wrote in his address "You see, the devil managed to make men believe that God does not really love us, that He really only loves Himself, and that He accepts us only if we behave as He wants us to behave; that He hates us if we do not behave as He ordered us to behave, and is offended by our insubordination to such a degree that we must pay for it by eternal tortures, created by Him for that purpose."
Do you see the reformed theology in this? I do. It reeks of Calvinism, where hate becomes love, where a tyrant becomes a "benevolent" Father, even a "Daddy."
I don't see Reformed theology at all. I also don't agree with your implied equating of our beliefs with satan, again. But in this case, instead of stating our beliefs correctly and then just calling them satanic, this isn't even close to being right. In fact, it's so wrong I'm not even positive what you are trying to say, in order to refute it.
But in any event, if you really see Calvinism in that statement then I can only hope that others have learned a SINGLE thing about Calvinism from any of my posts. :)
But the premise is that not all dimensions are perceptible or even conceivable by men, so how can that supposition not be vague? Besides, I only use that as a possibility for God existing without taking up "space". :)
God beheld Adam and said, "very good -- except he's not aggravated enough ...."
Since I'm into and enjoying the study of Blessed Aquinas these days...
This should help(I hope)
That in Created Subsistent Intelligences there is a
Difference between Existence and Essence
THOUGH subsistent intelligences are not corporeal, nor compounded of matter and form, nor existent as material* forms in matter, still it must not be thought that they come up to the simplicity of the being of God: for there is found in them a certain composition, inasmuch as existence (esse) and essence (quod est) is not in them the same.*
4. Whatsoever reality subsists of and by itself, nothing attaches to that reality except what is proper to being as being. For what is said of any reality not as such, does not belong to that reality otherwise than accidentally by reason of the subject:* hence, considered apart from the subject in a particular case, the attribute does not belong to that reality at all. Now to be ‘caused by another’ does not belong to being, as being: otherwise every being would be caused by another, which is impossible (B. I, Chap. XIII) Therefore that existence which is being of itself and by itself, must be uncaused. No caused being therefore is its own existence.
5. The substance of every reality is a being of itself and not through another. Hence actual illumination is not of the substance of air, because it accrues to it through another. But to every created reality existence accrues through another, otherwise it would not be a creature. Therefore of no created substance is it true to say that its existence is its substance.*
Hence in Exodus iii, 14, existence is assigned as the proper name of God, He who is: because it is proper to God alone that His substance is none other than His existence.
An added bonus to wrap your mind around
That in God there is no Composition
IN every compound there must be actuality and potentiality. For a plurality of things cannot become one thing, unless there be actuality and potentiality. For things that are not one absolutely, are not actually united except by being in a manner tied up together or driven together: in which case the parts thus got together are in potentiality in respect of union; for they combine actually, after having been potentially combinable. But in God there is no potentiality: therefore there is not in Him any composition.*
3. Every compound is potentially soluble in respect of its being compound, although in some cases there may be some other fact that stands in the way of dissolution. But what is soluble is in potentiality not to be, which cannot be said of God, seeing that He is of Himself a necessary Being
That God in willing Himself wills also other things besides Himself*
EVERY one desires the perfection of that which for its own sake he wills and loves: for the things which we love for their own sakes we wish to be excellent, and ever better and better, and to be multiplied as much as possible. But God wills and loves His essence for its own sake. Now that essence is not augmentable and multipliable in itself (Chap. XLII), but can be multiplied only in its likeness, which is shared by many. God therefore wills the multitude of things, inasmuch as He wills and loves His own perfection.
3. Whoever loves anything in itself and for itself, wills consequently all things in which that thing is found: as he who loves sweetness in itself must love all sweet things. But God wills and loves His own being in itself and for itself; and all other being is a sort of participation by likeness of His being.
6. The will follows the understanding. But God with His understanding understands Himself in the first place, and in Himself understands all other things: therefore in like manner He wills Himself in the first place, and in willing Himself wills all other things.
This is confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture: Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of the things that thou hast made (Wisd. xi, 2)
This really is the branch of philosophy that tends to make my head hurt. It is hard to focus and to discuss in an orderly way what we mean by "being", by the verb "is" when it is not used as a copula, by "existence". And I guess I have to concede it is even a question whether one can talk about "being itself" and say anything worth saying.
Here is the kind of mental and intellectual self-torture which leads to saying "God does not exist." A useful beginning would be to wonder if, say, justice "exists" or "is" in the same way as the chair you're sitting on exists. Or we could wonder how the statement,"It is true that Albany is the capital city of New York" differs from "The Pythagorean Theorem is true," and whether they both differ meaningfully from, "It is true that 'truth is beauty.'"
What kind of existence or being does the truth of those statements have? Does Truth "exist"? Does "existence itself" exist? Or, even worse, "Is there "being itself" and if there is what does "is" mean in that sentence?
Or we could ask why do we even have the word "existence" with its etymological suggestion of "Standing out"? Is there a difference between saying "Justice is," and "Justice exists"?
How (if at all) does the the word "exists" vary in meaning in the statements "Forest Keeper exists" and "The chair he's sitting on exists" and "Justice exists" and "God exists"?
And to get closer to why we say God does not exist, "What, if anything, does God share with Forest Keeper, his chair, and Justice?"
It is the "stand out from" suggestion of the word "exist" that pushes some of us to say that God does not exists. There is nothing for Him to stand out from. He is that from which created things, by His act, stand out. He, as it were, provides the matrix of existence in which created things stand out from one another and from Him.
Why, when God gives his name, does He choose Hebrew to do it, of all languages? Maybe because, in His providence, Hebrew is a language in which it is impossible to say clearly, unequivocally, and unmysteriously "I am that I am," since the tenses in Hebrew seem to be able to mean whatever the speaker wants, (well, almost).
Tillich is not my favorite thinker, but he is not so bad when He suggests that God doesn't so much "be" as "let be" (NOT in the colloquial sense of "leave alone" but in the sense, more or less, of "make it possible for existent things to exist."
It is the rank uncreated differentness of God that requires us to talk about Him using analogies, that makes everything we say about Him (but note, NOT everything we say about TALKING about Him) an analogy.
So to say that God "exists" and to think we mean the same thing as we mean when we say "FK exists," or "FK's chair exists," seems to posit something like a "thing" called existence in which these three "existents" share. That in turn seems to call into question the root of monotheism, by giving us something like, 'Before the beginning there was existence and God,' While we want to say "Before there beginning there 'was — so to speak and whatever that means' only God."
So saying God does not exist seems to the theists who say it, the necessary consequence of monotheism.
It may be relevant to insert here that the only Mormon "thinker" I've ever read completely disavows this entire enterprise and its conclusion.
Dear Brother,this is a good explanation.
I would add..
Liberalism is grounded in pride of self. It is the elevation of self proclaimed knowledge above humility and the will of God in the name of personal freedom.
It is NOT true freedom he is gaining,but rather the error to separate himself from God for that false personal freedom.
The first liberals were Adam and Eve when they ate of the tree.
Christ died for our sins and founded the Church to set boundaries and give us rules for us to follow so that we might not fall into the idea of this false freedom again.
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.