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."

If you go back to my post and read it one more time carefully...you will find that I am talking about instrumental music, not choirs.

What do you have against instrumental music in service? Is it because the early churches didn't have it? They didn't have air conditioning either, and the Bible has nothing against it. In fact, the Bible says:

Ps 150:3-5 : 3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, 4 praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, 5 praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals.

2 Chron 29:25-26 : 25 He [King Hezekiah] stationed the Levites in the temple of the Lord with cymbals, harps and lyres in the way prescribed by David and Gad the king's seer and Nathan the prophet; this was commanded by the Lord through his prophets. 26 So the Levites stood ready with David's instruments, and the priests with their trumpets.

Of course I do not say that instruments are mandatory, but I don't see anywhere how the Bible frowns on them in worship. And I assure you it is only a coincidence that I happen to be an instrumentalist in our church orchestra during services. :)

You wrote: testing helps [sic] to sanctify us during our lives. You are making a relationship between testing and sanctification.

And I asked basically what happens to those who are not tested (because there are people who go through the entire life as such), or to those who are tested in abundance (because there are many more who suffer)? And you didn't answer that with you "testing helps to sanctify." How does it 'help', and to what degree?

To what does your "[sic]" refer? Are you sure you are using that word correctly?

Anyway, I don't know of anyone who goes through life untested by God. Have you ever lost a loved one who "died too young"? Boom, you've been tested, etc. God tests all those He loves. I don't know who you mean by those who have not been tested.

For those who are tested more, they are sanctified further, as God wills. Testing is not the only means of sanctification.

I don't know how to answer "to what degree does testing sanctify us"? There's not a meter or anything. :) But as I said before, testing builds faith, just as it did with Abram. We experience (again) that we can and should trust God for everything. For example, a father loses his child to leukemia. Now, he can either blame God and run away from Him, or he can run right into His loving arms for comfort. He won't understand all the "whys" behind God calling the child home at 12 years old, but it will be enough for Him that God knows what He is doing and the trust level is strengthened. This is what happened to my pastor, and he continues to speak of it now and then when it is helpful to someone else. He says his faith is stronger and I believe him.

FK: "I couldn't imagine spending my whole life going from saved to damned to saved to damned over and over again. I wouldn't leave the house. :)"

... I'm not in the confessional, in the pew, before the Sacrament, saying my prayers, studying my Bible, writing checks to charities, restraining myself from reaching right down through the phone wires and strangling the solicitation-caller or (in the real world) being nice to him before I hang up in order, or WHATEVER in order to be saved or to skew the odds or because I'm worried about being saved, or because being saved, as such, is in my mind at all.

I know. :) I was just referring to what the works-based salvation model implies as I interpret its description to me. Your saying that you do good works because of your love for God rather than to rack up points does not give me pause or cause for disbelief. To change the subject I wish my side could get some similar consideration from the Apostolics. Not YOU mind you, you are not in the group I am talking about. It's just that I have been told many times, in essence, that Reformers don't do good works "on purpose" because we don't "need" to given our belief in Jesus' work on the cross. But, I digress.... :)

If I have a moment of doubt or a temptation, and as soon as I'm aware of it, I cross myself and mutter "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This is Catholic-speak for,"Take over, God, you have the conn."

From your lips to God's ears. Going directly to God is the way it should be done. We know for certain that He hears all of our Godly prayers.

BTW, are you a Navy man? If so, then thank you so much for your service. (I'm just a Star Trek freak, so I knew to ask from your comment. :)

Maybe, in terms of objective, so to speak, theology, I am just assuming that I am "saved". But, suppose I get angry and misbehave somehow. As soon as I "notice" I tell God that I know I did it and I'm sorry and ask for help to avoid messing up like that again AND I talk about it the next time I make a private confession. I just don't "worry" about being saved.

That's perfect. Even if we know we are saved, that doesn't mean we should not seek forgiveness of sins as believers. Heart-felt confession with the knowledge of God's promised forgiveness sanctifies us to His glory.

I try, in the paradoxical way of working with Him who works in me both to will and to do, to hold up my end of the relationship -- which mostly means being grateful for it. It's the whole "hag-ridden" thing again. Evidently some are hag-ridden and draw no comfort from their relationship with God. So far, since I "got" in 1971 that it was for me that He died, it has not been that way at all for me.

AMEN, MD, AMEN. :)

The early Church banned musical instruments because they were used by pagans and Jews during temple sacrifices and the Church wanted no association with them. No musical instruments are used in synagogues during liturgical services. Since Christian worship is an outgrowth of synagogal liturgy, even though there is (bloodless) sacrifice involved, no instruments were used.

Early Presbyterian assemblies (whose services were/are supposed to be liturgical) also banned musical instruments as part of the Reformation movement in an attempt to get away from the pagan practices of using musical instruments that crept into the western Church.

Of course, in your quoting Chronicles you do not distinguish temple sacrifice from synagogal worship because Baptist services are associated with neither. Jews did not go to the Temple to pray but to sacrifice. The Temple wasn't a "mega-synagogue." Nor was it a synagogue-substitute.

The Temple was where the Jews believed God physically present in the Holy of Holies (Mercy Seat of the Ark), or the Tabernacle in earlier days. You would go to the Temple to offer God the blood of dead animals and burnt offerings (because the Old Testament God, the same God we are supposed to associate with Christ, "likes" the smell of grilled meat in the minds of the Old Testament writers).

Now, a church is pretty much a mixture of a synagogue, where people go to worship, and the Temple, where the priest offers (a bloodless and perfect) sacrifice of the Eucharist. In fact, large Orthodox Cathedrals are called Temples, such as the Temple of Saint Sava in Belgrade, Serbia (one of the largest Orthodox Churches in the world; compared to buildings surrounding it one can get the idea of its size).

The Divine Liturgy (i.e. the "Mass") consists of two major parts: worship, petitions, litanies (which is variable to some extent), which is synagogal and liturgical, and the Eucharistic offering (invariable), which is sacrificial and templar.

Well, this is one example why the Bible is not Encyclopedia Britannica. If you want to fashion your services according to the Bible, then you should be Jewish because the Bible doesn't describe how Christians are to worship. Apparently, the early Christians knew and agreed on how to worship (since there were no known objections, as far as I know, on this subject for at least 1,500 years of the Church, that is until bible-toting Reformers came on stage to teach the world how to do it just "right").

You wrote: testing helps [sic] to sanctify us during our lives...To what does your "[sic]" refer? Are you sure you are using that word correctly?

I think I am, it is used to question the word preceding it, it appears after the questionable word and is italicized in square brackets. If God's testing only "helps" then it is uncertain. Moreover, many an individual is tested to his detriment, and does not necessarily "help" sanctify.

Harley D recently reminded me that equality is not biblical. Not everyone is tested equally and some are hardly tested at all. Yet others just go through life tested to the max. There is no proof that testing making one a better or stronger believer and being "lucky" makes one a weak believer or a non-believer.

Depending on our disposition we deal with death in different ways, like drunks. Some who drink heavily get giddy and funny, others quiet; yet others become violent. Death is not a test; it is a fact of life which we try to rationalize into something comforting.

It's easier to face the "what's this all about" dilemma that way, because despite all the chest-thumping faith so many claim, if given the opportunity to live 200 more years in health and youth, very few would opt for an early meeting with God!

Death is never, not even among the so-called believers, something they look forward to, provided they are happy where they are. Heavenly bliss can wait.

Death reminds us of our powerlessness. There is nothing we can do when someone we love dies. The fact of nature is that all those who are born living will die. We are born and then we die. And life is something in between those two events over which we have no choice whatsoever.

Death is therefore one major subject of man's rationalizations and he approaches that fact with whatever pre-disposition he has in his mindset: some accept it meekly, thanking God for everything they were given; other ask God for more time; yet others are so angry they just want to end it all.

It was the sweeping generalization that God testing us somehow "helps" sanctify us is why I put a {sic] behind "helps." It didn't "help" Abram. Abram already believed and trusted God. He not once doubted that God wanted his son sacrificed and he was willing and ready to kill his son for God! So how did the cruelty Abram was exposed to help Abram believe more is beyond me.

Besides, considering Abram and Job, and Theotokos, what did their ordeals do to their faith and their sanctity that they already didn't have?

If God determined what our choices will be before the foundation of 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.

It depends on how one defines "free will". If what is absolutely real to us counts for anything, then we have some measure of free will. If God's perspective, which we cannot experience, is the only thing that matters then we do not. Notice that for your side's version of free will to be "real" it necessarily means that God follows the leadership of man. That would be true by definition. God sits back and watches who will accept Him, and then He writes their names in the Book of Life, etc. That does not describe to me an all-powerful and sovereign God, it describes a God who is weak, who mostly follows. An all-powerful God who just let things play out however they did would be one who cared comparatively LESS about His creation than a God who directed what happened.

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.

Do you know if either of those was the case in examples like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary? I mean, there's always debate about everything, but I didn't seem to find either of these being "rough controversies". I'm not sure.

And thanks for the story of Walter the Pink. It sounds like J2P2 saw a snowball forming that he wanted to stop before it got too big going down the hill. :)

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: ..."?

Well, based on that, no one, of course. However, the Southern Baptists DO have a confession that all member churches are supposed to adhere to. I can't swear to how well they all follow it in their preaching, but I can say that my church follows it to the letter. The Baptist Faith and Message

There are of course liberal Baptists, like the group Carter and Clinton tried to get going, but I turn my back on them in a theological sense.

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?"

To me "personal" means that which has a personality, distinguishable from others, has the ability to reason and love, and communicates with others. The alternative would be an impersonal God, subject to irrational actions and thoughts, who acts randomly. An impersonal God also would not have much if anything to do with us. He would just sit back and let history play itself out however it did, by chance.

The OT God was very personal. He spoke to His prophets directly and even gave the appearance of bargaining with them on occasion. IOW, He suffered their words without need to. He clearly WANTED to interact with them, AND let us know that He wanted to. An impersonal God wouldn't have bothered. ..... Hugging and kissing are certainly personal, but are not required to be personal.

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.

I was unaware of any relative comparisons being made. I understood your position to be that God is impersonal, irrational, and unknowable, regardless of any other position. Could you restate your correct position without comparing it to anything else?

In a world where the OT is taken sincerely in a literal way, clearly our God is “incitable”. +Athanansius’ comment makes it clear however that The Church views the story of Job in a different way

(1) In general, the Church struggled not only with Job but with the entire Old Testament for the entire duration of the second century. Today, the Church simply doesn't struggle, but rather ignores those things that remain unsettled.

During the Good (Holy) Week we read from Exodus and Job, two most controversial books of the Old Testament. One is a legend that all archaeological evidence shows never happened; it is Christ-less because God goes on a killing spree; the other one is also a Christ-less legend in which a righteous man is subjected to terror for no apparent reason.

The OT became ever less present in Christian writings until +Irenaeus (c 200 AD) who developed the Christian doctrine that equates events in the OT to those in the NT. We see that for instance even +Paul, having determined that the Law was true but temporary, makes no mention of it or of the OT in general in Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Philemon.

We see the OT mentioned mostly in early Gospels (those not associated with the johnny-come-lately mission to the Gentiles), and in early Pauline writings (which were mostly directed at Jewish diaspora).

I also don' see reference to any Old Testament books in 1, 2, and 3 John or in the Apocalypse of John, unless I missed something. To say that the Church from the beginning treated the OT as it does today is simply not historically verifiable. In fact, I would say the early Church experienced an Old Testament crisis in the entire 2nd century.

The two early 2nd century extremes in OT approach were Marcion, who wholly rejected the entire OT, having read it literally, and others who accepted it wholly insisted that it always be allegorically (i.e. the Epistle of Barnabas that used to be considered canonical).

It was Origen first who insisted on reading it literally and allegorically to various degrees.

(2) More specifically, there are several things that are problematic in Job. One is God making a bet to destroy Job, whom God sees as "perfect," because God is "enticed" by the accuser/prosecutor (ha-satan, which is not a proper name, but a title). [also notice in Job 2 that God asks ha-satan where he came from...as if he didn't know; it seems like the OT God is always testing to see if those he talks to would lie to him, as if he doesn't know...]

Two, ha-satan actually wins when Job declares "Though I am guiltless, He will declare me guilty." (9:20), and "I say, He destroys both the blameless and the wicked. When disaster brings sudden death, He mocks at the calamity of the innocent" (9:22). That's as close to cursing God as it comes.

Three, God's response doesn't address any of the Job's misfortunes; neither does God reveal to Job the little "deal" he made with the angel-accuser. God's response is simply to the effect which we in the miltary used to call 'mind-over-matter' (iow, I don't mind and you don't matter!).

Job repents because he accepts that the world is as it is even if we don't understand or like it (the backbone of Taoism!). The fact that Job repents is rewarded, because that's the theme that runs throughout the whole Bible, but the reply God gives to Job is disconnected with Job and it's all God saying how great he is!

It never, ever addresses why it was just and "loving" for God to subject Job to this test. There is no Christ in Job. Christ-like God does not make bets with Satan. The God of Job is not satisfied with one perfect, upright man's loyalty; he doesn't treat Job as his son. Job must be terrorized into fearful acceptance of this Giant. Job is not to obey because he loves, but because he fears God! God is not interested in Job's love; only in his blind obedience.

It is interesting that the OT is about 80% of the whole Bible, and that the Church uses only 20% of it in its annual publicly attended services (excluding Vespers' OT readings and the Lent). It is equally interesting that the only books that sit on the altar are the four Gospels, roughly 6% of the entire Bible.

Those are the only books we stand to, when read, and the only books shown physical reverence when carried before the congregation. In churches with pews, the people sit during the reading of the Epistles, and the Apostle is always read by a layman.

It is clear that while the Church says that the entire Bible is the word of God, it treats 94% of it as packaging for the jewel of the four Gospels and that as far as our praxis is concerned, the Gospels are the Scripture sacrament ally and otherwise. The rest is held in high regard but only the Gospels are revered.

“(1) In general, the Church struggled not only with Job but with the entire Old Testament for the entire duration of the second century. Today, the Church simply doesn’t struggle, but rather ignores those things that remain unsettled.”

The “struggle” ended for all practical purposes, in the 2nd century, Kosta. By the 4th century, Christian theology had developed to the point where the Fathers could refer to the horrors of the OT as stories to scare the simple folk. They were right, Kosta.

The difference in interpretation of Job found in the West and the East is instructive. The monster “god” of the Book of Job is a theological ancestor of the monster “god” which demanded the bloody slaughter of the only thoroughly innocent man, its own Son, to slake its wrath against creation. That has had “interesting” results in the West, results we have never seen in the East, like the Reformation.

I think you are looking at the OT in far too Western a way, Kosta. That leads to people fearing our loving God. The Church employs and explains the OT in a Christian manner as it should be explained.

It depends on how one defines "free will". If what is absolutely real to us counts for anything, then we have some measure of free will.

If all we do is predetermined than we live in an illusion, because whatever we do is God's will. So, Judas and Pontius Pilate, Hitler, John the Baptist and Christ Himself were doing only what was preordained. In that heavenly soap opera there are no true villains and no true saints; just God-appointed actors.

If God's perspective, which we cannot experience, is the only thing that matters then we do not.

Neither you nor I know what is God's "perspective."

Notice that for your side's version of free will to be "real" it necessarily means that God follows the leadership of man.

No it doesn't. Those who come to God are saved; those who don't are lost. God offers salvation to the whole world. He is not partial. It is God's prerogative to call. No need to micro manage. If I invite you and Mark and Irish and all our Freeper Religion Forum friends to a party and some of you show up, while others don't, whose fault is it if those who didn't show up missed a great party? Am I following the leadership of others? Of course not. I make the invitation. Those who show up win, those who don't lose.

God sits back and watches who will accept Him, and then He writes their names in the Book of Life, etc.

No, God knew from all eternity who will come to him and who won't, and therefore who will be saved and who lost; but he is not the one who forces anyone to make those decisions. He doesn't have to sit and bite his nails, expecting the unknown, and hoping...

That does not describe to me an all-powerful and sovereign God, it describes a God who is weak

So, going back to my example with the invitation, I am weak for making the invitation to all and knowing that some will not show up? It seems to me that your definition of a strong God is the one that God forces people to "love" him or to hate him. That is not love, FK; that is a perversion.

If I send out invitations only to some and then force them to show up, are they there because they want to be or because they have to be? I think the qualitative difference is obvious. They are there because they must be not because they want to be. It's forced "love" FK. And some people like it that way...

The Reformed God, the God of the OT, is a Zeus-like being, unlike anything we see in, and know of Christ.

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.