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."

Neither of your Scripture verses defeats my proposition.

I.e., you're engaged in a Scripture contest, just as I said.

Both verses can be read with the faith proposition, in the first case the context actually proves my point that true faith has “fruits” that prove a man’s gratitude.

And they can be read much more plainly and plausibly in the sense of affirming that what we do actually matters come the Judgment Day. You're left with the unenviable task of trying to explain why Jesus' words don't actually mean what they plainly do mean. And this is the central fallacy of the "Reformed" position, as it's being touted on this thread. It requires your interpretation to make it mean something different from what it says. It is no longer Scripture, but rather your interpretation of it, that is the most important thing.

In the second case, a humble man is one who does not take account of his worthiness, who does not exalt himself with some action he may have performed. This is the definition of faith. It that looks outside itself for justification.

I’m afraid that the rest of your post reads like a liberal Christian textbook. The problem your having is that you are taking isolated texts of Scripture and putting together some conclusion without considering the over-arching story.

Ahhh, the sweet scent of unadulterated irony.... Here you are engaging in a Scripture contest in which you've just attempted to explain away the clear meaning of two very clear passages; and you're allied with a group of "Reformed" folks who are deeply engaged in an exercise in selective use of Scripture, and you actually accuse me of doing it?

And just to be very clear: the over-arching story of the Bible is quite obviously that salvation is a combined effort. God does the really heavy lifting, but we nevertheless have a meaningful role in the process. If nothing else, look to this: From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17) God is sovereign, and we are responsible.

From beginning to end. Start with Paul's description of Abrahams faith in the book of Galations.

And look at what the Angel said to Abraham: "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

The key to the story is that Abraham could have said no. But he did not -- he meant to do what God had told him to do. His faith in God's promise was such that he was willing to kill the same vessel through whom God meant to carry out His promise to Abraham. He had the knife raised to strike the fatal blow!

And only then did the angel stay his hand. God wanted Abraham to show the true depth of his faith, and Abraham did.

The lesson is certainly NOT that Abraham's actions did not matter. They mattered very much -- they're the whole point of the story! It is quite true that Abraham could not give himself eternal life, and neither can we. Only God can do that.

But the story makes absolutely no sense unless Abraham's actions mattered to God.

Some "recommendations" from some conference are just that -- opinions. Catholic dogma affirms Filioque. Period.

You insist on the validity of men's opinions from 1,000 years ago, yet you complain the article from 1909 is too old to be trusted.

Apparently New Advent thinks it can be trusted and thinks it's still Catholic dogma -- which it is, and rightly so.

All your attempts at watering down your distinctions with Rome do not include this subject. You and Rome stand at odds as you have for centuries.

And regardless of your discomfort with this obvious difference with Rome (with whom, gasp, Protestants agree), it's even more disturbing that your belief contradicts God's word. As New Advent correctly reminds us from Scripture...

"Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; John 16:7; John 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26)."

We have honest and fraternal disagreements on some theological issues of shared beliefs.

LOL. Well, which is it? Is Filioque an "honest disagreement" or a "shared belief?"

Because it sure looks like you want it both ways.

I do find this fascinating, however, especially when MarkBSnr writes in post 853: "Most of us Romanists will side with the Orthodox in terms of the Filioque. It is not an issue."

New Advent begs to differ.

I would very much like other Roman Catholics' opinions on Filioque. Does the Holy Ghost proceed from both God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son, as Catholics and Protestants have believed for nearly two centuries?

Or are the Orthodox correct in believing the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Son?

Because again, NEW ADVENT on Filiogue denounces the Orthodox error.

I.e., you're engaged in a Scripture contest, just as I said.

Not according to your definition where I supposedly give a counter-example. I merely rebutted your interpretation of the given texts.

And they can be read much more plainly and plausibly in the sense of affirming that what we do actually matters come the Judgment Day. You're left with the unenviable task of trying to explain why Jesus' words don't actually mean what they plainly do mean. And this is the central fallacy of the "Reformed" position, as it's being touted on this thread. It requires your interpretation to make it mean something different from what it says. It is no longer Scripture, but rather your interpretation of it, that is the most important thing.

It's really not all that unenviable because what you ascertain is the plain meaning is only a reflection of your life situation, or horizon. It does not necessarily reflect what the author was intending to say let alone what the Holy Spirit was saying through the author. You take a few sentences in isolation without any surrounding context of the nearest verses, nor do you consider that the author may have a central theme around which the meaning of the verses could be effected, instead you just add your own presuppositions to the text and call it the plain meaning. That's why you have difficulty with the counter-examples. When two supposedly plain meaning passages apparantly conflict you find no way to resolve the difficulty.

What you've just described is "a work," in the context of this conversation. It's a positive and conscious act of submission that we must perform in order that justification may occur. The Pharisee, by contrast, refuses to acknowledge his sins, and is therefore not justified -- his works lead to condemnation, precisely in the manner Jesus described in Matthew 12. What you've just described is "a work," in the context of this conversation. It's a positive and conscious act of submission that we must perform in order that justification may occur. The Pharisee, by contrast, refuses to acknowledge his sins, and is therefore not justified -- his works lead to condemnation, precisely in the manner Jesus described in Matthew 12.

No, what I'm describing is an instrumental cause. For example, a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house. The house is built by the carpenter through which he uses a hammer, the tool. The work is actually done by the carpenter through the tool. The hammer cannot build the house without the carpenter. Faith is not the actual cause of our salvation its just merely the tool through which Christ works and without Christ's work the tool, faith, is not initiated.

I tell you what, we'll each give a narrative of the Bible that we think supports each of our major Bible theme and then we can critique each others position. Sound good?

The key to the story is that Abraham could have said no.

What evidence do you have for that? Was it his actions that was the cause or was it the instrument, his faith, that God loved? (I think I know what Paul would say.)

FK: ***We just look at what Paul actually says. While interpretations are needed and made by both sides at different times, the NUMBER of times Paul’s plain meaning is taken is FAR greater in Reformed theology.***

Really?

You then go on to list about 93 passages from Paul. Actually they aren't passages from Paul, they are the Catholic interpretation of those passages from Paul. In all seriousness, if I had known about this list I would have posted it to you as PROOF that Catholicism does not take the plain meaning of the text very often. It would take me a week to hit all of these, so since the theme is the same throughout, I will just touch on a couple of examples:

2 Cor. 5:10 - at the judgment Seat of Christ, we are judged according to what we have done in the body, not how much faith we had.

Again, this is not the passage, nor is it the plain meaning of the passage. It is the Catholic interpretation away from the plain meaning of the passage. Here is what it actually says:

2 Cor 5:10 : 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Note that the actual verse doesn't mention faith. There is no plain meaning concerning faith here. Yet, the Catholic interpretation adds in that since faith isn't mentioned here it must not be important. This is at the heart of Catholic interpretation, adding in what isn't there and subtracting what IS there.

Extra-Scriptural Tradition says there is only one judgment, so everything along these lines concerns Heaven and hell. However, we use the Bible to interpret itself. So, the Catholic view would have Paul talking out of both sides of his mouth here because just three verses earlier he says:

2 Cor 5:7 : We live by faith, not by sight.

Your quote above says the Catholic view is that how much or whether we have faith is not what determines Heaven or hell, yet Paul says that faith is how we LIVE. To match Catholicism, Paul would have said "We live by works, not by faith." He clearly doesn't say that.

Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10; 1 Pet 3:18 - Jesus died once and redeemed us all, but we participate in the application of His redemption by the way in which we live.

Here are the verses:

Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10 : 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. .......... 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. ...... 9:26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. .......... 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

1 Peter 3:18 : For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,

Now, are you seriously trying to tell me there is ANYTHING in plain meaning from all of this that says anything about the need for Jesus' sacrifice to be "applied" by us or anyone else over time? By the plain meaning, ALL of these verses fully support the Reformed position and refute the Catholic position of Christ dying only to set things up for man to finish the job by "applying" what Jesus did. I'm starting to get the idea that our respective definitions of "plain meaning" are worlds apart.

For example, a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house. The house is built by the carpenter through which he uses a hammer, the tool. The work is actually done by the carpenter through the tool. The hammer cannot build the house without the carpenter. Faith is not the actual cause of our salvation its just merely the tool through which Christ works and without Christ's work the tool, faith, is not initiated.

AMEN.

"Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ."

"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood." -- Isaiah 10:15

What about when your beliefs are supported mostly by the opinions of a website like CARM?

That's not an accurate statement. I was in a hurry and I knew CARM seems to follow pretty closely to what I believe so I cut and pasted their answer. I don't believe what I do because of CARM, but because of what the weight of Scripture says.

If this was the only verse about baptism, I can understand your way of looking at it, but it isn't the only verse about baptism. I don't have time this morning to lay out all of the verses about baptism, but you'll see a number of things about it.

Belief, repentance, or conversion occurs before it. Paul was happy he didn't baptize. The thief on the cross made one of the most simple confessions of faith without baptism and Jesus said he would be with Jesus in Paradise. Baptism is a covenant sign just like circumcision was. In Acts 10:44-46 you see that people become saved or indwelt with the Holy Spirit before being baptised. Finally, if a person says that baptism is necessary for salvation they are adding a work to the completed task of salvation.

Aren't you doing precisely what you reject us for doing?

No, because the primary weight of my reason is based in what the Scripture says, not what men say.

What makes your opinion, or CARM's, superior to, or more trustworthy than St. Cyril's? Why should I believe them, and reject him? How is CARM's opinion about Scripture any less a "tradition of men" than St. Cyril's? How is what you are doing any more "scriptural" than what we do?

Nothing makes mine, CARM's, or St. Cyril's opinion valuable unless it is supported by Scripture. I look at the Catholic approach and idea of baptism and I see less Scriptural support for it and more 'tradition or ideas of man' support for it.

As for their appeal to Scripture, that simply begs the question: who gets to decide, authoritatively, what Scripture means?

Well obviously you have to have some authority. Ultimately we would agree that the final authority is God or the Holy Spirit. If you disagree with what your local church says about what a certain portion of Scripture says, then you need to study both sides seriously. Raise your concerns, and pray earnestly. If you are then convinced that your church is wrong, then leave and find one that you believe is more in-line with what you believe the Holy Spirit wants to teach.

The whole claim is simply a recipe for anarchy, which inevitably circles back on itself and does the same thing it accuses Catholics of doing: it goes to fallible men to decide what infallible Scripture is really telling the Church.

No, I've not seen anarchy but growth and learning. Growing up, my family attended various denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Pentacostal, etc.), while each denomination had certain secondary belief differences, they all taught basic Scripture study which resulted in salvation in Christ and taking care of others.

Now could there be a problem if you never accept that your understanding could be wrong and the church has to conform to your ideas 100%. Absolutely, but that hasn't been my experience. In my adult life, I have been part of a Baptist, Lutheran, and now a Wesleyan Methodist Church. I have never been in 100% agreement with all of the churches stances, but I have stayed, studied, asked, and learned in the process. I only left when I believed that the doctrines of the church could have negative impact on my children's ability to learn about God and His Word.

The only real difference is that you choose your own "Pope", and mine is chosen for me.

Not exactly. My Father is in Heaven and his guide is the Holy Spirit. He chose me long before I chose Him. I suppose there is a peace in trusting that your church hierarchy will always get things right, but I see that as slavery to other men's opinions and a recipe for laziness in studying what the Scriptures actually say. (I'm not saying that you or every Catholic is lazy, BTW.)

FK: "Men who actually have the (human) power will naturally feel threatened by anyone who comes in and says that it is truly God Who holds all the power. That would be unacceptable."

I'd be surprised if anyone here on this thread besides me knows personally a priest or bishop who resides in South America. The priest I know and love as my brother acclaims it is God Who holds all the power. And he's not looking for any power - he's out taking care of his flock, not playing keyboard speculation.

That is wonderful to hear. I have no idea how your friend would weigh in on the issue I was discussing, but that was trying to figure out why some Apostolics believe that it is better for a person to die in his sins and go to hell, than for a Protestant minister to witness to him. I surmised that it was related to the FULL power monopoly that IS claimed by the hierarchy of the Latin Church as a whole, since it believes it is the only true Church.

First off, I probably answered some of your questions on post #896. I don't have much time today to discuss much on-line, so I'll try to be thorough and brief.

Explain to me please where you are not referring to amniotic fluid. That's what the water of the womb is.

Yes, in John 3, I believe the word water is refering to what you label as amniotic fluid. However, you jumped to saying something about where is amniotic fluid mentioned by Peter (in Acts I believe) when he says repent and be baptised. I never said that Peter said anything about amniotic fluid, that was you confusing the matter.

So you don't agree with Christ? He instituted the sacrament of baptism very, very clearly and unambiguously..

I'm not in disagreement with Christ. Baptism is an important outward demonstration of an inward change, but it isn't required for the inward change. Baptism is a work which testifies of Christ's saving grace, but we are not saved by works.

Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

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.