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."

Okay, this calls for a line by line (well, almost)

well evil is evil, whether interesting to you or not.

never said ti wasn't. Are you saying that I have to drop a field of enquiry that interests and concerns me because you have one that interests and concerns you, or what?

Questioning the doctrines of so-called Christian churches is not abuse and when I am told (all the time by the way, what I believe) I don't consider it such.

I never once, never in my life, have said that questioning what we teach is in itself abuse, I resent any implication that I have so said, and I would cite such an implication as an example of the very abuse with which I am concerned.

What ever you think, if A absolutely and persistently refuses to listen to an account of what B believes, persistently misconstrues what B is saying, calls B a liar, wrenches quotes out of context to tell B that he does not believes what he says he believes, whatever you consider it, I call it abuse. If one responds without explanation "HOGWASH!" to another's statements, if one consistently describes the other's arguments and "denomination" as evasive so that one must either be a fool or scoundrel to remain in the denomination, I'd call it abuse.

Some of the most intense debating here sometimes goes on between believers of the same denominations. Quoting the bible in defense is "iron sharpening iron", not abuse and is healthy and a way of learning.

To me that is not relevant. And your mentioning quoting the Bible indicat4es how little understanding there is of the issue AND how little desire there is to increase understanding.

Further, Iron doesn't sharpen iron by beating on it. It does so by friction in a controlled way. I would say some of you don't understand the image. Quoting the Bible incessantly using the same lengthy selection of verses over and over again has no use that I can see. To those who worship idols, maybe Isaiah's passage about the guy who cooks with some of his wood and worships the rest is useful. To me it's just another way of calling me an idolater. And once that charge is made, what is the good of making it over and over and over again? At the first or second instance of yelling "Idolater" it's understandable. At the twentieth, I look for other reasons for the repetition. And I think I've found 'em.

Getting threads closed or shut-down because someone doesn't like what is posted, is very childish, in my opinion.

If I ever meet anybody who has done that, I'll be sure to tell them what you think. I don't get 'em closed -- never set out to get one closed in my life, but I rejoice when a "Let's abuse the RC's for Christ" thread meets its belated end.

Attributing sadistic motives to long-time, and respected posters, especially those who feel they are called to preach the Word, and whom we do not know personally, is in itself highly suspicious of a defect in one's own personality, wouldn't you agree?

Making uninformed and snarky insinuations certainly leads one to look further for some pathology, wouldn't you agree? Do you want to make insinuations or do you want to converse?

In my religion, a "Feeling" is not a sign of anything, pro or con, good or ill. It is certainly not a justification for anything and most certainly not proof of a call. It's the Calvinists that are all over Total Depravity, and will we now look to our affections for a proof of a call? Or am I misunderstanding you?

But if someone does NOT have a call and takes to himself the admitted purpose of provoking others, engages in perseveration, engages in attention getting behavior, ignores feedback which might be useful -- counting the advice that what he does is painful as a good reason to persist -- yes, such a one I would, after more than a year of such behavior begin to think was manifesting a syndrome.

Leaping ahead of one's data to a conclusion -- like for instance, the absence of a personal acquaintance --also is a mild and common error which MIGHT be considered pathological if it were persisted in. Sometimes it's good to be sure of one's facts.

Spending too much time online probably can't be constructive to one's physical and mental health anyway, as it might lead to an obsession of sorts. Or it might suggest a pre-existing obsession or tendency to obsession.

Some people might tend to take some matters a little too seriously. One thing about online posting that I do know from experience, one's posts that they themselves care so much about and are so invested in, can be not even read and quickly dismissed and forgotten.

No argument there, A little query of relevance, but whatever.

However, God has promised that when He sends out His Word, it does not return empty-handed. The posters who cite scripture so faithfully and repeatedly, which does tend to antagonize others for reasons we are aware of, are not doing it to abuse anyone, but using it instead of their own opinions and words in fruitful debate.

This is an opinion about which we will have to disagree, unless you count my finally realizing that there is a pathology here among some posters a "fruit". I have read Isaiah 55, and portions of it have been a regular part of my prayers for long periods. To me every citation brings with it a question about its aptness to a situation.

Again, IF I worshipped idols, which God forbid, MAYBE the evidently favorite passage would pluck at my conscience. But when it is repeated incessantly and with imperceptible relevance, all it does for me is remind me that someone is SO very sure of his or her beliefs that no amount of evidence to the contrary is even deemed admissible, much less considered. To me it conveys anger and contempt, like someone in a mob yelling a slogan at someone.

If I were to quote to you, "The wicked flee when no one pursues," (Proverbs 28:1a) every time or every other time you said something fonky about Catholics, what would you begin to conclude? Maybe that I thought (as I do NOT) that questioning Catholic beliefs is wicked and that persistent enquiry is somehow tantamount to feeling?

And finally, I'll make this offer: I'll cop to some degree of chauvinism if you will at least consider doing the same.

Here's what I mean. I see you all judging the, say 12th-13th century Church from the vantage point of 700-800 years of development in political thought and in technology. All this bazz-fazz about chaining up Bibles assumes or seems to assume paperback Good News for Modern Man editions were not produced only because nasty old men in Rome didn't want them.

While St. Dominic continued and developed a democratically representative tradition among monks and friars, there wasn't a whole lot of representative government around and not a whole lot of seeing why such might be a good or desirable thing.

Further the nonsense about "control" from Rome suggests to me that people have failed to learn from trying to control their families, or businesses, or political offices, or schools. It's just, I think, the aversion that we who have been brought up in a representative republic after more than 200 years of more or less successful constitutional government - just the aversion all who are so blessed would naturally feel toward an autocracy or aristocracy.

But the problem is that quite intelligent and good people lived for a long time under the system, we abhor, and probably would have thought us crazy, and would have looked at B.J. Clinton and poor Brittany and said, "See there? Told ya!" SO part of the work we all have to do is to get into the head of people who think WAY differently from the way we do, especially if we're going to look down on them from a position of assumed superiority.

In my background and tradition. trying to dope stuff out through "The art which the vulgar call talking" is a good thing. With the limitations of my Episcopalian background, my academic training, and the work, from Parish ministry to chaplaincy to running 100 ewes to law enforcement (and law enforcement chaplaincy) all give me an (oh yeah, and custom software to balance the family budget) an outlook whole limitations I probably don't perceive.

But I tell you. Saying what I think i Hogwash and laughing at it, or quoting for the 45th time some piece of Scripture just is NOT going to get through to me OR give me a good opinion of the benevolence (in the strict sense of the word) or, indeed, the thoughtfulness of the person doing the laughing and quoting.

Have a nice Game

“Questioning the doctrines of so-called Christian churches is not abuse”.

I am not sure what you mean by “so-called” Christian churches. Perhaps you can clarity that category.

I agree—questioning is not abuse. I don’t believe that a thinking person would call questioning abuse—with the proviso that the questioning is a sincere desire to learn something about another’s beliefs, and not just a fulcrum with which to agitate against the other’s beliefs.

“Getting threads closed or shut down because someone doesn’t like what is posted, is childish-—”

I’ve been here since 2002 (I asked for a screenname change) and rarely have I seen it to be the case that someone personally actually had a thread shut down. Some may have wished that a certain thread would come to an end, but I would think that it is quite rare for a thread to be shut down by request of a poster. It seems that they are more often shut down by the Moderator due to the general behavior of all.

As for attributing motives—I have seen so many occasions of that happening on this forum, when the Moderator was either off-duty or on vacation or SOMETHING—and these types of posts often get swept under the radar screen.

It’s all too apparent to me that we all have defects in our personalities. I belong to that unfortunate club along with everyone else. I also think that if someone is called to “preach the word”—if they feel they must on a self-proclaimed discussion/debate forum—then it should at least be done in a way that is not openly offensive (which I would not consider “preaching”)

I agree with everything you wrote in the third full paragraph of this post and could have written it myself.

“The posters who cite Scripture so repeatedly and faithfully...are not doing it to abuse anyone.....but using it instead of their own opinions and words in fruitful debate”.

Heavens, I wish it were so. But many Scriptural quotes are accompanied by demeaning remarks that ARE the poster’s own opinions and words. They come as personal embellishments to the Scipture quotes. That is not part of fruitful debabte.

I don’t understand why you have this embedded in your last paragraph: “....which does tend to antagonize others for reasons we are aware of”.

I don’t understand the inference in that phrase. Who are the “others” who are antagonized? Why do you charge those “others” with being antagonized (by Scripture)? And what are the reasons for the so-called antagonism you mention—the reasons that “we” are aware of?

And who is “we” in that phrase you wrote?

The John Jay Study (see threads here, here, and outside coverage here) - commissioned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops' National Review Board itself - found that the number of Catholic priest abusers equalled four percent of the entire Catholic priest population. The John Jay study's findings are more than conclusive - they're exhaustive of the entire US population of Catholic priests. Now by comparison, every study I've been shown of "Protestant" abuse included volunteers and laypersons, something the John Jay Study did not cover among Catholic parishes; if we exclude them from the "Protestant" studies (to create a "pastor vs priest" apple-to-apple comparison), we arrive at a roughly 1% abuse rate for all "Protestant" pastors, or (in other words) at least a four times greater likelihood that any given Catholic priest will be a sexual predator as compared to any given "Protestant" pastor. And that's according to the numbers and studies that Catholics keep telling me about.

In short, any raw numbers (i.e. "x number of claims filed per year") are meaningless. What's more telling is the percentage of the abusers out of the whole, and in that regard, the Catholic Church is far sicker than the "Protestant" Church. In that regard, the John Jay Study is positively damning.

Let me throw in one caveat to those comparisons. I found something interesting when I broke down the "Protestant" abuse cases by denomination / affiliation / theological leanings. The more free will / Arminian / synergistic the theology is, and the more independent the association is (as opposed to denominational affiliation), the higher the abuse statistic goes - and conversely, if you just look at the Reformed Protestant denominations, the number of "Protestant" abuse cases statistically drops off the chart by comparison. It's only the average of all "Protestant" pastors that is around 1%. Some independent churches have statistics that are far, far higher than the Catholic average of 4%. But we're not the ones who consider them "Protestant" - it's Catholics that insist on applying that label to them.

Thank you, Alex, for helping to keep us on the side of truth.

I will be putting up a moderated forum on the topic of S-E within 10 or so days. I'm going to be gathering anecdotes from people who have been targeted by people claiming to be presenting the Gospel of Christ, especially those who explicitly or implicitly say that they are being intentionally cruel for the sake of our souls, and trying to classify and organize them and then I'm going to run the observations by some pros I know.

Then I suggest you post your thread about your self-titled term, S-E ("sado-evangelism") in Chat, because it certainly doesn't belong on the Religion Forum.

Time-off is for letting go and putting aside, MD. Holding on to resentments and anger isn't healthy or productive.

Mass on Monday, before the service I was talking with a brother, who is doing advanced degree work in Patristics. I mentioned the new "diagnosis" of "Sado-Evangelism" to him, and he just shook his head, and then laughed ruefully. Why do you suppose he reacted like that?

Since you're asking for an opinion, then I think your friend was probably thinking you were being awfully defensive about something and that your attempted humor in coining the term "sado-evangelism" was pretty sick, and that finally you'd be much better off "letting go" and doing as Peter instructed us...

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." -- 1 Peter 3:15

Or perhaps your friend was thinking of Paul's advice...

"We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)" -- 2 Corinthians 6:1-2

there are ample opportunities, some even in FR, to find out the real notion that Catholics have...But what I frequently see is people insisting that I believe what I do not in fact believe

Take a step back and consider that every one of us on this forum agrees that you believe what you say you believe, and we would agree that you are in accord with the doctrines and dogma of Rome.

But that is not what is being debated on threads like this.

The doctrine and dogma of the RCC are being debated on threads like this. Mary's supposed sinless nature is being debated. Mary's supposed perpetual virginity is being debated. Mary's supposed bodily ascension into heaven after her death is being debated. Mary as supposed "co-Redeemer" and "Dispensatrix of all grace" is being debated.

So all this about us "telling you what you believe" is nonsense. We can read the catechism. We really do know what you believe.

And we disagree with you and your catechism by the word of God and the power of God. And by God's grace, we support that disagreement with Scripture.

We do believe you when you say you do not think you are praying to a wooden stick when you kneel to a statue of a dead person in church. We believe you think that.

But we think God's word rebukes that practice of what you do -- kneeling to, praying to, asking for intercession, guidance, help, absolution or mediation from, anyone other than the Triune God.

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." -- 2 Corinthians 6:16

An Introduction to the New Testament by Richard Heard

His is a fairly balanced presentation, and I can live with that, even though he obviously favors early date and apostolic authorship.

However, such arguments as, for example, that Peter was a cousin of Jesus, and had a successful trade in a city where Greek was the lingua franca of the trade, are rather weak defense of Petrine authorship.

Just about any merchant in Cozumel (Mexico) speaks some English because of the large number of tourists from North America who visit the place. That doesn't make these merchants proficient English speakers with very polished grammar and excellent vocabulary. Rather they speak to "just get by" (and to get you to buy their merchandise!).

The idea that after Pentecost the Apostles all of a sudden could speak Greek like highly educated philosophers and be thoroughly familiar with the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible is just simply not true, since it Mark who followed Peter and who wrote down what Peter must have told him (since Mark did not know Christ personally).

Mark's language, syntax, grammar, etc. is poor. Could it be because he was writing down what Peter told him? Or because mark was a "simple and unschooled" man (as Acts refer to Peter), or perhaps both were?

The HS certainly did not tell Mark that one does not go from Sidon to Galilee via Tyre, especially because there was no road at that time leading form Tyre (to the north of Sidon) to Galilee (southeast of Sidon). Just as the HS did not tell the OT authors that bats are not 'fowl' (as they are called in the OT).

Being a successful fisherman does not make one educated and highly sophisticated.

The argument that certain Sylvanus, who is suspected to be Silas, a follower of Paul, is feasible, but not probable, given that Paul makes no mention of Peter, as Paul's mission to the Gentiles was essentially different from that of Peter (to the Jews).

Neither did the time favor such a conflation, as it did at tne end of the century. And neither did the historical events, while Peter and Paul were still alive, in Asia Minor (present day Turkey) necessitate a Petrine Epistle, when this was a domain of Paul's.

Note that the author says "If the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom at Rome under Nero is accepted,..." in other words myth which is not a fact by any stretch, then we can conjecture the Epistle was written in the earlier part of the 1st century.

In other words we really don't know, and the Church has no evidence other than popular tradition as to its veracity of being of apostolic authoriship. So, we can say, if we accept popular tradition...then we can consider it apostolic..." and that is no proof of anything other than to being our choice, and not a fact.

And until something is established by sufficient evidence to be a fact, doubt is justified and prevails. In other words, I can's simply, say I believe there are unicorns on Jupiter; I actually have to show sufficient evidence supporting my claim in order to claim it as fact.

And I posit that such proof lacks not only in the case of 1 Peter, but in the entire Bible.

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.