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."
My spellchecker doesn’t see anything wrong with walter. I can’t help it.
If God determined what out choices will be before the foundation fo the world, then we do not have a measure of free will, FK. We are (pre)destined to think and act as God programmed us. In your theology God lets us "feel" that we have free will, but in reality it is a deception. No matter how you turn it around, the Reformed God is either creating evil or deceiving.
I answer: ON the one hand, yeah, the catechism is a big book. But on the other, in the wide range of doctrine and morals stuff about which one might have an opinion, the Big Cheeses only speak (I think; I am no historian, so this is an ignorant impression which wiser heads may reliably correct) when controversy (like the Trinity, two natures in one person, etc.) gets so rough that a resolution is called for OR when popular pressure is very strong.
I think I have offered before the analogy of a solution out of which solid matter slowly precipitates. All these notions float around, like "Jesus is Lord," "Jesus is the Son of God," "Christ is present in the Sacrament," "The canonical books are the NT and, you know, all those other books," and finally, somebody says that we have to nail down what we mean by that, BECAUSE a lot of people are saying, "Well, He's Lord (or Son), yeah, but in THIS way, not in THAT way," or "Nope, not Maccabees," or whatever.
SO it's like the controversy gets kicked up the subsidiarity ladder to a body of sufficient, so to speak, "jurisdiction" (Hey! looka me! Lawyer talk!) to decide and bring the controversy to an end.
(It's helpful to me to remember that not every polity in the world has the crisp division between judicial, legislative, and executive branches that we have.)
So, as the Supremes are the court in which a question ends up when two appellate courts disagree, so when there is widespread and strong disagreement among the "churches" (that is, the dioceses) well either the Holy Father has got to "declare and define" or a council has to be convened.
And when that's happened, Roma locuta, causa finita.
[ This not only cracks me up, but it also may give some sense of the "on the ground" reality of this: Rome said, "Girl altar boys are okay." This had been a vexed issue.(I don't know which chunk of "Rome" said that or how authoritative it was supposed to be, but the return address was "Vatican City".) So our then Bishop, Walter the Pink, who was very much in favor of girl altar boys, actually said, "Roma locuta, causa finita." Fine.
[ Then, within a few months, J2P2 said that there weren't going to be, there couldn't be, lady priests. The manner of hi saying this was discursive and firm, and somebody else with the same return address said, "This should be regarded as 'infallible'." (Of course "should be regarded" is the kind of language that gets my attention: why not just say, "This IS infallible"? )
[Anyway, Walter the Pink says s bunch of stuff about how this is a complicated and controversial issue and we haven't seen the last of it and blah blah blah. So evidently the causa was no more finita than the "Ordinary" wanted it to be, at least in that bishop's alleged mind anyway.]
So most of the stuff we discuss is going to refer to the "final decision", which can only be made "at the top". We can't say that the powers of the state in eminent domain are delineated firmly until the Supremes have decided Kelo (and, as in that case, sometimes not even then.)
It seems to me to be a matter of common sense that, for a matter to be "settled" (and thus fit matter for Catholics to say, "This is the teaching of the Church") is has to be settled by the entity with final jurisdiction.
It may be that we Catholics over-state the divisions in Protestantism. It gets my attention that the very word is sufficiently vexed that the Episcopal Church used to call itself Protestant and now doesn't and that some Protestants would say of some other western "ecclesial assembly" not in communion with the see of Rome, that they are not REALLY Protestant. But if the First Baptist Church of Esmont (a small community near hear) has one opinion on a matter of faith and morals and the Green Mountain Baptist Church of Porters (a community within a half mile of Esmont) has another, who can say, authoritatively, "This is what Baptists believe and teach: ..."?
In any event, I would prefer "supreme or final jurisdiction" to "supreme power".
The spell checker doesn't see the error...mortal, in context, of course. Did you have to ask, or does context not matter to you?
As to quoting you, the quote was accurate and a great opportunity to praise God!
It was accurate, but out of context, an excerpt cherry-picked for desired effect.
As to wave/particle duality - it stands as a great example of the observer problem. What the observer sees depends on the observation made
The observer problem exists inwardly as well as outwardly. Inward "observations" can be just as relative and misleading as those outwardly ones.
So does the uncertainty principle, by the way, stand as a great example. The observer can know momentum or location but not both
Very good! These wave/particle issues simply tell us what every honest scientist should be able to admit: we do not know the true nature of light or electrons or gravity or anything for that matter. What we know is what we discover through our working models.
Just as a spiritual person should be able to admit that we do not know God as He really is, and that what we know of Him is through our "spiritual" working models.
In either case, we have limited human working models.
That's ecumenical relativism. That's denying that Protestantism is a grave error.
What is "personal" to you? If you talk to your congressman and ask him to do something, is that a "personal" relationship? What is personal about the OT God? Does anyone hug him? Does anyone kiss him? Does anyone call him "Daddy?"
What Kolo is telling you is that the ineffable OWN is impersonal compared to the human Jesus. A human being is a lot more personal than a burning bush. That's why Christ reminds us that it is only through him that we can see the Father.
No it's not (it snot).
It's doing things one at a time. I'm not saying he's NOT wrong. I'm also not saying "nyah, nyah". I'm trying to say something like: It is ALWAYS wrong not to 'follow your conscience' (where 'conscience' is rightly understood) even though following your conscience is no guarantee that you will do the right thing.
And when the best your conscience can do is to lead you astray, while you have the benefits of having followed your conscience, you're still astray, and suffer the consequences of that.
And then I'm saying that, of course, those who do not acknowledge the self-evident truth that I am right will, in their delusion, think that I am missing out on something because I have my opinion.
I guess I think it important in these conversations to make clear when I don't think I've given a comprehensive and conclusive answer and to, so to speak, pre-emptively acknowledge that there are still disagreements left to be discussed.
There you go, you are learning something..,
Indeed, flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit..
you: It was accurate, but out of context, an excerpt cherry-picked for desired effect.
You also said:
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25
To God be the glory!
You illustrate the mistake of looking at the reasoning for something from only one view, which is exactly what happens when you rely on the early theologians of your church.
I picked the Donatist's for a very specific reason. They were a part of your church and left for very specific reasons. They were not considered "heretics" until they refused to submit to a central authority that was backed by the power of the state.
It would only be less freedom for the adult. The child would gain freedom by being born, by not being exploited sexually and children would be produced by the union of a man and woman in marriage rather than two homosexuals.
The thing to keep in mind is conservatives today are actually the liberals of old. It is the liberals who have changed into the conservatives by seeking all answers to problems by the state, or large institutions.
AS to whether they were considered heretics, what do you think Augie thought of them? Surely he thought they were in error. I'd guess they couldn't really rise to the level of obstinacy required for heresy until there was an authoritative statement to the effect of, "Yo! Y'all are WRONG! Chill!"
Everything.
Prior to the power of the state being used to enforce the will of a hierarchy churches choose to cooperate or not. Now they would no longer have that option. While the mono-bishophoric system began to emerge in the 120-130 AD it still did not have any power to force cooperation. For example Clement writes a letter complaining that the church in Corinth has changed their leadership. Other than sending a letter he had no power to deny the church in Corinth the right to do this.
Is that the reaspon St. Augustine gave, or is it an assertion of your own?
On your larger point, of course the fathers of the Chruch are important in clarifying the position of the Church, including the position vis-a-vis the heretics. That's news?
I think you’re confusing “power” and “right”/”authority”?
“...mono-bishophoric system....”
What’s that? You lost me, wf.
A leadership system that culminates in one person having the final authority in a region, or for an entire church. For example, this did not exist at the Jerusalem Council where James was considered the head of that church. Peter presented his thoughts and Paul presented his thoughts. The Apostles, elders and entire church then discussed and decided as a group. The final decision making was not left to James.
In the early 100's you begin to see a single head of a church in various cities and then heads of churches for regions. This is the beginning of the mono-bishophoric system. Apparently it developed to a greater extent in the west.
I think if we were looking at a "right" it would not have happened. It was never the example of the early church. Even in the early 100's the Shepherd of Hermes indicates leaders in Rome, not a leader.
I think it developed in part due to external forces such as Marcion as well as internal desires to be able to "just get things done". I am not ascribing any evil intent. It was an organizational trend that led to events like what occurred to the Donatist's.
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.