Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
From Called To Communion: Understanding the Church Today
Editor's note: This is the second half of a chapter titled "The Primacy of Peter and Unity of the Church." The first half examines the status of Peter in the New Testament and the commission logion contained in Matthew 16:17-19.
The principle of succession in general
That the primacy of Peter is recognizable in all the major strands of the New Testament is incontestable.
The real difficulty arises when we come to the second question: Can the idea of a Petrine succession be justified? Even more difficult is the third question that is bound up with it: Can the Petrine succession of Rome be credibly substantiated?
Concerning the first question, we must first of all note that there is no explicit statement regarding the Petrine succession in the New Testament. This is not surprising, since neither the Gospels nor the chief Pauline epistles address the problem of a postapostolic Church—which, by the way, must be mentioned as a sign of the Gospels' fidelity to tradition. Indirectly, however, this problem can be detected in the Gospels once we admit the principle of form critical method according to which only what was considered in the respective spheres of tradition as somehow meaningful for the present was preserved in writing as such. This would mean, for example, that toward the end of the first century, when Peter was long dead, John regarded the former's primacy, not as a thing of the past, but as a present reality for the Church.
For many even believe—though perhaps with a little too much imagination—that they have good grounds for interpreting the "competition" between Peter and the beloved disciple as an echo of the tensions between Rome's claim to primacy and the sense of dignity possessed by the Churches of Asia Minor. This would certainly be a very early and, in addition, inner-biblical proof that Rome was seen as continuing the Petrine line; but we should in no case rely on such uncertain hypotheses. The fundamental idea, however, does seem to me correct, namely, that the traditions of the New Testament never reflect an interest of purely historical curiosity but are bearers of present reality and in that sense constantly rescue things from the mere past, without blurring the special status of the origin.
Moreover, even scholars who deny the principle itself have propounded hypotheses of succession. 0. Cullmann, for example, objects in a very clear-cut fashion to the idea of succession, yet he believes that he can Show that Peter was replaced by James and that this latter assumed the primacy of the erstwhile first apostle. Bultmann believes that he is correct in concluding from the mention of the three pillars in Galatians 2:9 that the course of development led away from a personal to a collegial leadership and that a college entered upon the succession of Peter. [1]
We have no need to discuss these hypotheses and others like them; their foundation is weak enough. Nevertheless, they do show that it is impossible to avoid the idea of succession once the word transmitted in Scripture is considered to be a sphere open to the future. In those writings of the New Testament that stand on the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it-especially in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pastoral Letters—the principle of succession does in fact take on concrete shape.
The Protestant notion that the "succession" consists solely in the word as such, but not in any "structures", is proved to be anachronistic in light of what in actual fact is the form of tradition in the New Testament. The word is tied to the witness, who guarantees it an unambiguous sense, which it does not possess as a mere word floating in isolation. But the witness is not an individual who stands independently on his own. He is no more a wit ness by virtue of himself and of his own powers of memory than Peter can be the rock by his own strength. He is not a witness as "flesh and blood" but as one who is linked to the Pneuma, the Paraclete who authenticates the truth and opens up the memory and, in his turn, binds the witness to Christ. For the Paraclete does not speak of himself, but he takes from "what is his" (that is, from what is Christ's: Jn 16: 13).
This binding of the witness to the Pneuma and to his mode of being-"not of himself, but what he hears" -is called "sacrament" in the language of the Church. Sacrament designates a threefold knot-word, witness, Holy Spirit and Christ-which describes the essential structure of succession in the New Testament. We can infer with certainty from the testimony of the Pastoral Letters and of the Acts of the Apostles that the apostolic generation already gave to this interconnection of person and word in the believed presence of the Spirit and of Christ the form of the laying on of hands.
The Petrine succession in Rome
In opposition to the New Testament pattern of succession described above, which withdraws the word from human manipulation precisely by binding witnesses into its service, there arose very early on an intellectual and anti-institutional model known historically by the name of Gnosis, which made the free interpretation and speculative development of the word its principle. Before long the appeal to individual witnesses no longer sufficed to counter the intellectual claim advanced by this tendency. It became necessary to have fixed points by which to orient the testimony itself, and these were found in the so-called apostolic sees, that is, in those where the apostles had been active. The apostolic sees became the reference point of true communio. But among these sees there was in turn–quite clearly in Irenaeus of Lyons–a decisive criterion that recapitulated all others: the Church of Rome, where Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. It was with this Church that every community had to agree; Rome was the standard of the authentic apostolic tradition as a whole.
Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea organized the first version of his ecclesiastical history in accord with the same principle. It was to be a written record of the continuity of apostolic succession, which was concentrated in the three Petrine sees Rome, Antioch and Alexandria-among which Rome, as the site of Peter's martyrdom, was in turn preeminent and truly normative. [2]
This leads us to a very fundamental observation. [3] The Roman primacy, or, rather, the acknowledgement of Rome as the criterion of the right apostolic faith, is older than the canon of the New Testament, than "Scripture".
We must be on our guard here against an almost inevitable illusion. "Scripture" is more recent than "the scriptures" of which it is composed. It was still a long time before the existence of the individual writings resulted in the "New Testament" as Scripture, as the Bible. The assembling of the writings into a single Scripture is more properly speaking the work of tradition, a work that began in the second century but came to a kind of conclusion only in the fourth or fifth century. Harnack, a witness who cannot be suspected of pro-Roman bias, has remarked in this regard that it was only at the end of the second century, in Rome, that a canon of the "books of the New Testament" won recognition by the criterion of apostolicity-catholicity, a criterion to which the other Churches also gradually subscribed "for the sake of its intrinsic value and on the strength of the authority of the Roman Church".
We can therefore say that Scripture became Scripture through the tradition, which precisely in this process included the potentior principalitas–the preeminent original authority–of the Roman see as a constitutive element.
Two points emerge clearly from what has just been First, the principle of tradition in its sacramental form-apostolic succession—played a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church. Without this principle, it is impossible to conceive of a New Testament at all, so that we are caught in a contradiction when we affirm the one while wanting to deny the other. Furthermore, we have seen that in Rome the traditional series of bishops was from the very beginning recorded as a line of successors.
We can add that Rome and Antioch were conscious of succeeding to the mission of Peter and that early on Alexandria was admitted into the circle of Petrine sees as the city where Peter's disciple Mark had been active. Having said all that, the site of Peter's martyrdom nonetheless appears clearly as the chief bearer of his supreme authority and plays a preeminent role in the formation of tradition which is constitutive of the Church-and thus in the genesis of the New Testament as Bible; Rome is one of the indispensable internal and external- conditions of its possibility. It would be exciting to trace the influence on this process of the idea that the mission of Jerusalem had passed over to Rome, which explains why at first Jerusalem was not only not a "patriarchal see" but not even a metropolis: Jerusalem was now located in Rome, and since Peter's departure from that city, its primacy had been transferred to the capital of the pagan world. [4]
But to consider this in detail would lead us too far afield for the moment. The essential point, in my opinion, has already become plain: the martyrdom of Peter in Rome fixes the place where his function continues. The awareness of this fact can be detected as early as the first century in the Letter of Clement, even though it developed but slowly in all its particulars.
Concluding reflections
We shall break off at this point, for the chief goal of our considerations has been attained. We have seen that the New Testament as a whole strikingly demonstrates the primacy of Peter; we have seen that the formative development of tradition and of the Church supposed the continuation of Peter's authority in Rome as an intrinsic condition. The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.
But the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure. It does not merely furnish proof texts, it is a permanent criterion and task. It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock; in the very disproportion between man's capacity and God's sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.
If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite. The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.
The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of God's power. Every single biblical logion about the primacy thus remains from generation to generation a signpost and a norm, to which we must ceaselessly resubmit ourselves. When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.
For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.
When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: "flesh and blood" do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is. Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it . . .
Endnotes:
[1] Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2d ed. (198 1), 147- 51; cf. Gnilka, 56.
[2] For an exhaustive account of this point, see V. Twomey, Apostolikos Thronos (Münster, 1982).
[3] It is my hope that in the not-too-distant future I will have the opportunity to develop and substantiate in greater detail the view of the succession that I attempt to indicate in an extremely condensed form in what follows. I owe important suggestions to several works by 0. Karrer, especially: Um die Einheit der Christen. Die Petrusfrage (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1953); "Apostolische Nachfolge und Primat", in: Feiner, Trütsch and Böckle, Fragen in der Theologie heute (Freiburg im.Breisgau, 1957), 175-206; "Das Petrusamt in der Frühkirche", in Festgabe J. Lortz (Baden-Baden, 1958), 507-25; "Die biblische und altkirchliche Grundlage des Papsttums", in: Lebendiges Zeugnis (1958), 3-24. Also of importance are some of the papers in the festschrift for 0. Karrer: Begegnung der Christen, ed. by Roesle-Cullmann (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1959); in particular, K. Hofstetter, "Das Petrusamt in der Kirche des I. und 2. Jahrhunderts", 361-72.
[4] Cf. Hofstetter.
Though I can't explain it fully, I trust in the Spirit we share that you will understand when I say, I had an epiphany of this truth as never before yesterday as I heard it. I've heard and read the lines a hundred thousand times, but this time was new. I realized more acutely than ever before that at the moment of my confession, on my knees and broken, beseeching a God I had only a seed of faith in, my life was indeed, in actual fact, laid down, and is no longer, and from that very moment, a split second in time, I have lived because of and in the resurrection life, the power, the very person of Christ Jesus - solely, completely, exclusively. My literal life is literally no longer mine; the "I" I was is that person nailed to the cross with the Jew, and the life I live, and have lived since that second of history, is literally Christ's Life. I can't explain better with words. Even in the realization I could barely vocalize a thanksgiving through the tears; I was physically and emotionally overcome by the realization of the power in me, and the plan of Almighty God. I trust you will know exactly what I am saying.
== == ==
Like you I have longed deeply with anguish for the fullest vivid overt manifestation of such many times in my life at the 100's of times of reading such lines.
Thankfully, your testimony is touching me a bit deeper on that score and a welcome vicarious revelation it is. And a very thinkful one.
Thanks tons.
and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
~John 17:22-26
= = =
INDEED. AND PRAISE HIS PRECIOUS NAME AND BLOOD FOR THAT!
Holy Spirit IS faithfully carrying out that assertion in all the lives of those who seek and Love God. Praise God.
Thanks for the sweet ministry that post is to me just now.
Careful. I never attempted to read your mind. The 'sola scriptura' assumption that lies behind your methodology is one that is there objectively, whether you realize it or not.
. . .
You don't appeal to "Jesus" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to the "Spirit" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to "creation" to back up these four ways. You appeal only to Scripture to back up these four ways. Therefore, whether you realize it or not, your methodology is 'sola scriptura'. In that respect, your 'sola scriptura' methodology (in constructing and defending these four ways) actually contradicts your 'four ways theory', because (1) all four ways are based on one way [i.e. Scripture] and (2) two 'higher' ways ["Jesus" and the "Spirit"] are based on a 'lower' way [i.e. Scripture].
= = = =
Hmmmmm . . . obviously some MORE wholesale
WHOLESALE
EXTRAPOLATING,
INFERRING,
ASSUMING,
PRETENDING,
going on here.
Perhaps the Romanist makes such tendencies a doctrine of the faith? Is there a catechism with practice sessions on how to wild-haired extrapolate, infer and assume all within the time to say one or 3 "Our Father's?"
I think, ASSUME that I know A-G a little bit. And I don't see her that way at all.
I see her affirming Holy Spirit's communications to her directly. Certainly she has the foundational substrate of Scripture to assess such direct communications with--in her mind and spirit. But I don't see her going:
Qx version of A-G replying to Holy Spirit: "OK, Alright already yet, Holy Spirit--hold your horses--I have to get my comptuer Bible out and search several dozen verses before I can listen any further. And a few hundred before I apply what you're telling me."
Not at all. Her spirit within her--if my sense is remotely right--resonates with Holy Spirit as Scripture asserts will be the case for Believers who earnestly love God . . . And, if my sense is remotely right, she's full enough of The Word as well as The Spirit to know immediately without a lot of cogitations whether something is kosher and truly from Holy Spirit, or not.
Sounds like a fantasy, an assumption a gross extrapolation to try and squeeze A-G into some preconceived tidy little box I can't begin to see her fitting in.
It is our RC FRiends who think we must die in a state of sinlessness in order to merit heaven.
That is patently false.
-A8
= = = =
I'm probably not up enough on the details of the thousands of years of doctrines and dogmas of man . . . dogmas of man . . . curious term . . . Is that the opposite of manmas of dogs? Just curious.
Anyway--where was I before I interrupted myself . . . Oh, yeah . . .
This business about whether one dies in a sinless state to make Heaven or not . . .
I'm seeking information at least partially . . .
Is that dogma . . .
1. The same Dogma from the Council of whatever when the Romanists really got organized as such and raced along their path so politically successfully--from that day to this?
2. Is that dogma the dogma from and believed by the magislegislatum before the magislegislatum several 100 years later didn't believe it?
3. Is that dogma a new extrapolation, elaboration, inference built upon layers of earlier traditions really having little to do with it but providing convenient excuse for it?
4. Or what?
But you don't know that
= = = =
Dr E knows a lot of things.
I can speculate on what she knows and doesn't know. I might even pontificate about something I have found unknowable and assert from that--that in my construction on reality it would also be impossible for her to know it.
But all that would be MY CONSTRUCTION on reality.
I'm very skeptical that any Romanist MRI, PET SCAN, EEG, BRAIN SCAN ETC. would reveal whether Dr E would know or now know something presumed to be or presumed not to be according to the Romanist Magistrumpupum's latest encyclicals.
Besides, She knows God. She probably has some capacity to hear Holy Spirit beyond what even she suspects. God might surprise her and us with some revelation.
It just seems to me to be rather hazardous to pontificate so emphatically that Dr E DOES NOT KNOW something.
But then, what do I know.
Amen, Bro.
Equality?
I think SCRIPTURE IS YET AGAIN
BOTH-AND.
Equality before The Cross. Certainly. Whosoever will may come etc.
But one sits on the right hand and one on the left and others elsewhere.
Some have greater treasures stored up in Heaven than others.
As my uncle Assembly of God pastor said about his son, my double cousin: Ronnie will probably make Heaven. But he won't have much to spend when he gets there.
Cloned critters, cloned cookie-cutter "Christians," robots . . . probably won't get tickets to Heaven--mostly because such don't exist in the spiritual existential sense I'm thinking of.
I don't recall . . .
WHEN in the umpteen centuries of tradition did this purgatory come into being as a fait a compli dogma?
Scripture indicates that The Spirit is subject to the prophet in terms of what flows through the prophet.
Resisting the gentlemanly Holy Spirit is not difficult, usually. Thankfully and sadly.
Thank you for all of your engaging, insightful posts!
Whenever I've thought of equality, I've been compelled to Scriptures such as prodigal son and the parable of guys hired at different times of the day. From man's vantage point, the guy who worked 8 hrs in the hot sun should have earned more than the one who worked 1 hr in the cool dusk.
That is "equality" (or getting the same break as the next guy) from man's point of view.
But God loves justice, so each man was paid the same. The guy who worked the long day complained but the response was that he agreed to do the work for that amount - and he must not complain that the one who hired him was generous to the guy who worked only an hour under better conditions.
Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words" -- Luke 24:6-8"He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
And so you and I, Quix, we remember His words, and believe He rose from the dead because He was God who paid for every one of our sins.
We know we have been redeemed because we believe what Scripture has told us; we believe it is all true. And that belief is a gift from God who testifies to His own glory by our salvation.
"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." -- Isaiah 53:10
This brings up something that Protestants see as a real knot in RC logic.
First, do RCs believe God ordains the day of our birth and the day of our death?
"Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass" -- Job 14:5
From your post, it seems not everyone ends up in purgatory. Some are able to be sanctified enough in this life to merit heaven. Which begs the question, wouldn't it be simpler for God to wait a while before taking those who will eventually be sanctified in purgatory, thus giving them more time on earth to be sanctified enough without the needless detour?
Why not just take the elect after they've been sanctified on earth, as some apparently are?
This would seem to cut out the middle man, which as you probably know, always gives Protestants a thrill.
Let me get this straight, Doc:
The TRADITIONS, which are interpreted from the Early Church Fathers in their works, but which are NOT considered cannon, are to be held equal to the self-claimed God-breathed Bible; Which some RC's cast doubt to the total infallibility of the said Good Book, without actually saying it is fallible, 'cause they need those "Peter is the Rock" and "Mary, blessed above all women" quotes to be there, unblemished.
"Look, we RC's had our hands all over this book since before it was a book, so who knows what was MEANT by all that old stuff. Well, WE know what SOME of the book means, and all that other stuff might lead to dangerous waters. If you actually interpret it wrong some counsel will cast you out of the church and into hell, unless you confess your heresy."
Okay, it has been a long time since the Roman Catholic Church gave someone a old-time full-body stake-tan 'cause of their heresies, but have they ever taken the anathema off poor Brother Luther? Does the Catholic Church say he is toasting right now or just cooling his jets getting his temporal punishments taken care of, which will last about 10000 years past the Day of Glory...
Dear Precious A-G
Am deeply humbled by your kind words on your several replies.
I used to wonder about Christ's sharp retorts and some Old Testament satire as well. They didn't jive with Jesus meek and mild. And then what about "What's the most loving thing to do" focus I've TRIED to have since Jr high. How did that jive with such Scriptures.
Many horrific long dark nights of the soul later . . . I've discovered that what's loving may not always be warm and fuzzy.
I think God prefers warm and fuzzy. But He prefers whatever's Love most. It's His most abiding and thorough-going trait. And His perspective is not always--not usually, ours.
I think Oswald Chambers comes closest to Godly Love of any author I know . . . except maybe Amy Carmichal in her IF volume. I don't know that I can handle long stretches of either one! LOL. Though it has gotten better as the fiery furnaces have done their work.
Amy's IF book would also make a good devotional or maybe tagline source. Each paragraph is a sentence long, as I recall. I wonder if it's a free E book online now.
Anyway . . .
God plays for keeps. He is touched by the feelings of our infirmities, flaws, struggles . . . but He is not deterred by them. He will persist in His task of being the author and finisher of our faith because He Loves us and most of us have asked Him to.
What loving parent would resist, neglect to pull a child's hand out of a black raspberry bush infested with a rattlesnake--and that very quickly--though it would scratch and pain the child to do so. There may be better analogies but I think the point is made.
God's FIERCE Love is not like our pablum notions of such.
Yes, imho, the bottom line is MORE warm and fuzzy than we could ever imagine. But the route there is not a bed of roses . . . unless one counts the thorns! LOL.
I've often wondered . . . Therre are Scriptures which indicate that--well--that really do indicate as Kenneth Hagin put so well--that if we pray according to God's will in faith--we shall have it. Doesn't make God a vending machine but those verses are solid Scripture.
And, many, if not most of us have prayed for God to cure, heal, deliver this or that flawed aspect of ourselves 100's if not thousands of times over the years.
Isn't it God's will that we prosper and be in health as our souls prosper? That's solid Scripture. So, what could be more important than our souls prospering spiritually?
It must be His will that we be conformed to the image of His Son. That's clearly a Scriptural priority. So, when we pray and ask for such at a faster clip than a snail's pace . . . what's the glitch? Why the slow to never delivery on answers to those prayers??? Bugged me for a lot of years.
The only sense I've been able to make of it so far, is that GOD'S PERSPECTIVE IS ETERNAL. HE'S AIMING TO HAVE US RULE AND REIGN WITH CHRIST WITH
AS GREAT A WEIGHT OF GLORY AS HE CAN SQUEEZE OUT OF US AND POUR INTO US.
[aside--PRAISE GOD--the NTLDR MISSING error may be solved . . . my computer is evidently working again! THANKS, LORD! Using another FREEPER'S]
There's just something extremely outrageously critical to our future ruling and reigning that seems to require 'getting there the long way around.'
Yes, God could snap His fingers and heal, deliver, provision, . . . in a list of ways we couldn't even fantasize well about. But Love requires the long way around. And our perspective doesn't process that well, I think.
= = = = = =
Nevertheless, God Alone is pure and has sufficient Godly perspective to manage such things.
I think it's wise for our focus to USUALLY be attempting to be as warm and fuzzy to one another as we can manage. But on occasion, something else is called for and I BEG OF ANYONE HEREON--SOCK IT TO ME whenever Holy Spirit nudges you to. If the exhortation is too fierce for forum rules, send it FREEPMAIL. I'll at least prayerfully consider all such even if I think it's 99.9% off the wall and meanly motivated.
= = = = =
In terms of the religion forum . . . theology is too often, imho,
a convoluted, hyperbolic, puffed-up, array of purported tidy little boxes
--that somehow are too often a chaotic bag of worms but obviously so only to the other perspective;
--full of intense emotions and not always a great deal of light;
--chronically prone to arrogance, self-righteousness, sanctimoniousness, phariseeism, pride . . .
--insular, parochial, narrow, rigid, biased,
. . .
. . .
And that's true, at least in temptation, for all intidividuals on all sides of all the standard theological issues. All of US.
The human relations project I worked at the last 2 years of my time in the US Navy had a somewhat wise Chaplain heading it. All of us on the staff were well aware that our great success with our workshops and weekly programs could easily be our undoing. We NEEDED outsiders to occasionally come in and throw some grenades at our ivory towers of smugness and self-confidence.
= = = =
I've often whined to The Lord that He must have some better roles around I could have than to be one of His favorite grenades. He finally got tired of my whining about that and insisted I shut up and get on down the road with the program. That He made me the way He did; conditioned me the ways He has . . . FOR HIS PLEASURE AND HIS PURPOSES and that my whining was beginning to get in the way and He wouldn't tolerate it on that score any more.
So, I slowly developed some sense of humor about it. Now, others sometimes get "blessed" with that acquired sense of humor. LOL. At least they can be sure, that I've been on the receiving end of my own and others such satire countless times to eventually great benefit. And, no, I know it's not fun when one is on the hot seat.
On the other hand, one, BY HIS GRACE AND SPIRIT . . . CAN . . . learn to have a sense of humor EVEN ON THE RACK, ON THE HOT SEAT, IN THE FIERY FURNACE.
And that when one can . . . it's extremely liberating.
Anyway--this is well beyond the 3 point limit and then some! LOL.
Love you dearly A-G . . . and all the rest of us characters hereon, as well. . . . even those who think my hugs are much more full of prickly pears than warm fuzzies.
Probably more to say but I'll just stop! And some will certainly say AMEN to that!
That is "equality" (or getting the same break as the next guy) from man's point of view.
But God loves justice, so each man was paid the same. The guy who worked the long day complained but the response was that he agreed to do the work for that amount - and he must not complain that the one who hired him was generous to the guy who worked only an hour under better conditions.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. - Romans 9:15
Or as Scriptures say elsewhere:
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. - Mark 10:43-44
I believe it was Billy Graham who remarked that he might be seated in the very back of the congregation while some quiet little grandmother might be seated in front. That rang true in my Spirit. It is all up to God. But we can be sure whatever it is, it is just. Praise God!
= = = =
INDEED!
Equality is all of us being conformed to the image of HIS SON
consistent with the personalities and priorities God made us with FOR HIS GOOD PLEASURE AND PURPOSES.
Equality is all of us having the ultimate fantasmagorical opportunity to BECOME
THE MOST US AND
THE BEST US AND
THE MOST GODLY US and
THE MOST FULFILLED US and
THE MOST JOYFILLED US
possible
by His Blood, Grace, Spirit.
[BTW, of course you are exceedingly welcome for my feeble efforts. That's true whether I always note it or not. Many times I'd rather just slip on by, out the side dorr without acknowledging the fuss]
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.