Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
It is amazing to me that there would ever be a dispute on who should get the credit for any good thing.
To God be the glory!
LOL! :)
I think some people are quite sincerely confused about matters like homosexuality, matrimony, and abortion -- confused or easily misled.
That's possible, and I would think that whatever was lacking in IQ could be more than compensated for in childlike faith, at least on these issues.
That's what I mean about it's not seeming like a barrier to me. The diverse gifts of the Spirit benefit me, make me grateful, and evangelize me all over again. !
I have no problems with the idea that God uses other people to benefit us spiritually. I suppose I am just uncomfortable thinking that is the only way He does it.
This is not meant to persuade so much as to depict how it looks from here and how that appearance integrates with the whole ball of wax.
OK, and I can appreciate what you're saying. Thanks for giving many of the "why" insights.
It wasn't about others being good, but about God being just no matter what.
Good luck to you too.
A-G, +James is saying that we should not use our faith to boast, judge others and be prideful.
James 2:10 simply reminds us that sin is sin. It doesn't matter if you sin a little or a lot. The soul that sins is the soul that dies unless it repents.
You need to get to the core, to the essence of things. Instead, you are preaching.
Here is an interesting blog that I believe addresses (albeit limited) the Orthodoxy view and Protestant concerns on the atonement. The Doctrine of the Atonement in the Early Greek Fathers. Please note this statement which is similar to my view.
1. Humans have free will to engage in either vice or virtue, and the ability to become more or less virtuous over time.
2. God is virtuous and desires humans to be also. He is pleased with virtue and displeased by vice.
3. Christ taught virtue to mankind.
4. By following Christ’s teachings, and by the help of the Spirit, we can progress and improve in virtue if we make the effort.
5. All men have the ability to achieve a standard of virtue acceptable to God.
6. The Final Judgment will be decided based on our level of virtue.
Each of those points, and the paradigm as a whole, are common to all the Greek writers from the period 100-400AD.
Also, when the Western controversy over Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism came to the fore, why wasn’t the East denounced? Either (i) the West was ignorant of the Eastern writings, or (ii) they misunderstood the Eastern writers’ use of common biblical terms (like propitiation, expiation, etc) or (iii) they understood the spirit of the writings to honor the basic tenets of orthodoxy, even if expressed differently.
I tend to go with option 3. Maybe someone else can offer further insights on this complex matter. By St. Worm
Well, generally, I agree except that it isn’t so much practicng virtue as it is dying to the self. The idea is to die to the self so that the eye of the soul, the nous, focuses totally on God. The practice of virtue is one way in which we “die to the self” and frankly it is a rather low rung on the “Ladder of Divine Ascent”, but there are others. It is in this fashion that we become like Christ and become divinized. All of this is accomplished only through grace which we respond to (as you know we believe). At the Final Judgment we are not judged by how many fasts we kept or how much we gave in alms or whether we went to liturgy every Sunday, but rather we are examined to see if we bear any similarity to Christ, True God and True Man.
I think you need to read up on your history. First of all, at the beginning of the Dark Ages (in the Western half of the Roman Empire), there WAS no "secular" power. Rome fell and the only organized unit left was the Church. If you care to read the Church history into the second millenium, they had always fought against investiture (secular princes appointing bishops). However, as you can imagine, the Church didn't have a huge army to conquer people by force. Often times, they had to threaten with interdictions and such. Really, if you were the Pope and you wanted to maintain the authority to appoint proper bishops, what would YOU have done if some prince in Savoy decided to appoint his nephew to the position? I think you are being a bit anachronistic and not taking into consideration the situation faced by the Church.
That the State and the Church "united" only says that they often shared common goals. However, they were constantly vying for the "will of the people". The Church was trying to win souls for God, while the state was trying to win power for itself. Often, these goals were the same because society was so intertwined. Religion was STILL part of public life. Thus, a heretic was condemned by BOTH state and the Church, not because the state was the Church and vice versus, but because both sides saw their positions threatened by particular heresies - by nature, heresy stirred the people to rebel against both state and church. Naturally, then, they shared a common interest in keeping the peace. But it certainly does not mean that even during these moments, that they were still not battling over investiture or simony.
I think a study of the English Reformation would be beneficial to you. That is a perfect example of how the "state" suppressed the Church when given the opportunity. Money and land was in large part the motivating force behind much of the Protestant Reformation. Princes and barons didn't care about such things as "salvation by faith alone". They cared about the ensuing land grab once they saw the opportunity to take control of Church property. Now, what is the excuse of the Protestant Reformation's killing of priests and nuns? Were they trying to suppress heresy, or were they trying to secure their position to maintain their usurpation of Church wealth? Perhaps both, in their minds. But when given the opportunity, it appears that when men get into power, power can corrupt, whether Catholic or Protestant.
Thus, it is false to blame this on the Catholic Church. When given the opportunity, heretics persecuted men of the Church, as well. Ask your friendly Orthodox man. Read up on Church history. Many of the saints were jailed, suppressed, tortured, or exiled. Heretics were certainly not shy in using their power to force their will and interpretations on the people - and when the Church tried to teach the Gospel, they were subsequently silenced. Read the history of St. John Chrysostom, or St. Maximus the Confessor, or numerous other men.
Regards
MB: Paul’s eyes were blinded by God, not opened, on the road to Damascus.
HD: And there you have it...just make it up regardless of what the scriptures teaches.
NAB Acts 9:
1
Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
2
and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.
3
On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.
4
He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
5
He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
6
Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.”
7
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.
8
Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.
9
For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank.
My Bible tells me that Saul was blinded on the road to Damascus. What does your Scripture teach you?
What’s the point if running around saying that you are of the club because you know it in your heart and nobody else will believe you except those who also believe themselves in the club? Kinda like being a Freemason without the grips, tokens and signs.
So repeating the Lord’s Prayer is vain repetition? Nice. Does Jesus know anything about that?
The rigid ritualists also kept the heretics at bay and out of the mainstream until Henry, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli ran free and started their own rigid ritualistic sects. With their examples in mind, men have founded increasingly absurd and abhorrent versions of Christianity that have led to such happy occasions as the Jonestown massacre, or the mass burnings in Waco.
History is normally omitted from these modern sects or twisted in such a fashion as to seemingly bring justification to yet another church of men. The Campbellites that I have talked to normally know little of the Campbells (certainly not their history), nothing of Stone, and less of the history of the splits in their denomination. The CofC folks I have talked to have no idea whatsoever that their denomination actually is only about 100 years old.
Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins. Yes. That payment is held in reserve until and unless we repent.
But the payment is not made for us specifically for specific sins until we repent of that sin. We get no free pass. Otherwise repentence has no meaning.
But, according to the Reformed, nothing that we do has any meaning. So therefore what significance has repentence in the overall scheme of things except as a meaningless gesture.
I believe this is in reference to my post #6981 which was in response to your post #6952 in which you stated:
This is no different than God working in our lives. God must open our eyes. He chooses to do so through people just like Ananias, who share with us the gospel but it's all His work. No one can take any credit. We once were blind, but now we see.
I believe that Paul was a special case; his experiences e.g. the Road to Damascus, the blinding, and the subsequent unblinding and change of heart suggest it. Plus the fact that he was able to go and teach the Gospels, albeit often somewhat apparently at odds with some of the teachings of the others, suggest even more strongly that he was special, in the same manner that all the Apostles were special.
We can find verses that might apply to all men, rather than a special case:
Acts 8:14-18
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles’ hands ...
Acts 19:1-6
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
This leads us to believe that we have the actions and the order of those actions correct.
The Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles appear to have understood the difference between the presence of the Holy Spirit in Baptism and in a later empowering. If a person were only baptized and did not receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles would pray and lay their hands on them, begging God to send his Holy Spirit in greater measure. Water Baptism is not the only time or way that the Holy Spirit comes to live in a person; but the New Testament indicates the importance of being baptized into Christ and thus being sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Roman Catholics believe that they are first born again of water and the Holy Spirit when they receive the sacrament of Baptism. Catholics also believe that Baptism only begins the work of mission of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.
Mt 3:11
He (Jesus) will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.
Mk 1:8
I (John) have baptized you with water; he (Jesus) will baptize you with the holy Spirit.
Lk 3:16
He (Jesus) will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.
Jn 1:33
On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.
The Roman Catholic Church has never claimed that the work of the Holy Spirit is limited exclusively to Baptism.
Confirmation is the Catholic Church’s official prayer for the Holy Spirit to empower a person to spread the gospel, to live a fervent Christian life, and share more fully in the mission and ministry of the Church.
Receiving the Holy Spirit in a new way, usually as the result of earnest, expectant prayer, is what many Christians today call being “baptized in the Holy Spirit.”
Being “baptized in the Holy Spirit” is actually a “release” or a “coming to consciousness” of the power of the Holy Spirit who already has been given to the believer through the sacraments of the Church.
We are in total agreement that the Holy Spirit opens one’s eyes and gives us the Grace of God in order to do what God wishes of us.
***God is not “partial” to those who “worketh good,” but just. He is also just to those who “worketh evil.” God is always just to everyone.***
I would say, good doctor, that if Catholics want to rely on God’s justice, they are free to do that. I believe that we are right to plead with the Lord for his grace.
If an image appears on your television set showing Helen Thomas alongside Angelina Jolie and your eye turns to Angelina because she is beautiful to you – or away from Helen because she is not beautiful to you – then you are guilty of judging your fellow man under the Law and are therefore guilty of the entire Law – including idolatry, murder, theft, adultery and so on.
This was the big complaint in Ezekiel 33 – it doesn’t matter that you were faithful your whole life long to the very letter of the Law, the moment you think “Angelina is beautiful” – you are guilty of all of it.
It doesn’t even matter what you do v. what you think. (Matthew 5:27-28) The evil fruit comes from the heart of a man:
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. – Matthew 15:17-20
We must be born again. (John 3) There is no other way! Apart from Him we can do nothing. (John 15).
Man is woefully ill-equipped to wrap his mind around God’s justice. Instead he hopes for a ‘god’ who keeps a balance sheet and that, in the end, his assets will be greater than his liabilities.
Worse, man anthropomorphizes God with his own sense of “equity.” We are not created equal - nor do we have equal challenges and opportunities. To whom much is given, much is expected. He is the Potter, we are the clay.
God’s justice is a very personal thing. His generosity to some of us - His mercy to some of us - His saving some of us - are His goodness alone.
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. – Philippians 3:3-16
Sigh … a lot of "good" (by mortal standards) people are in for a big disappointment.
Love God surpassingly above all else. Believe Him. Trust Him. Let go and let God.
But just two posts earlier, in 6,951 you say this to Dr. E: "Once again you use Pauline verses over Christ’s. Christ is inclusivist, with only those refusing Him going to Hell. Paul is exclusivist, with only those picked out of the jar going to Heaven."
What are we supposed to think? :) You are clearly pitting Paul as against Christ. He is not. Paul is espousing what Christ taught him DIRECTLY. If there is apparent contradiction in their respective teachings then one can reconcile them so that both are correct (Reformed approach), or one can declare one right and the other wrong (Apostolic approach).
We think that Calvinism is a dark and evil misinterpretation of Paul, ...
Then for you Roman Catholics, may you enjoy those views of your fellow Christians in all the fullness of Christ's love. :)
Luk 19:5-6 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house. And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.
Jhn 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Then you've got the wrong prescription. :) Who says prayers are not of consequence? Not us. That they do not change God's mind does not mean they are meaningless. God ordains that we pray. The Bible tells us that God already knows everything that we need and even everything that we are going to say in prayer. Does the Bible then imply that they are a waste of time? Of course not. Prayers glorify God and are beneficial to us in the communication. For example, the more I pray the more I am reminded of my utter dependence on Him. From that my love for Him develops and grows. This is regardless of whether the subject of the prayer is granted.
I’ll bite. What is salvation now and what is salvation then? How do they differ? They must differ because you point them out separately.
In the way I am speaking of it, these are milestones in time. Principally, one can correctly talk about salvation "happening" when Christ died on the cross for the sins of the elect. Or, one could also correctly speak of salvation as being at the point of belief. Likewise, one could refer to the actual entry into Heaven. These are three different events in time, but are inextricably tied together for the elect. No single one can happen without the other two necessarily happening. It's all three or none of them. The Bible also uses the word "salvation" in three tenses, and this is an explanation.
And as he journeyed , he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do ? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
Paul experienced a spiritual epiphany. Note how he immediately knew that the LORD was talking to him. He was given spiritual insight. Physical seeing is nothing in comparison.
Amen!
In motoring around the web this morning I found this absolutely terrific sermon/essay by a Baptist minister. Well worth reading in full. As good a Scriptural summary of God's justice and mercy as I've ever read. And the end illustrates it all perfectly.
Interestingly, Plato rather blindly grappled at some length with this question. In his Dialogue with Euthyphro he appears frustrated at his inability to come to any certain conclusion as to "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods." For him, the answer was illusive. "For somehow or other our arguments, on whatever ground we rest them, seem to turn around and walk away from us."(7) In light of the unpredictability and inconsistencies and the disagreements among Plato's many gods,(8) and given his non-Biblical frame of reference, his frustration is understandable! But viewing the question from the vantage point of monotheistic special revelation, the answer is not at all speculative: God is sovereign, and as such it is His nature and will that constitute the very essence of righteousness. In the words of Mastrict, "God is proto-, in fact auto-dikaion."(9) For this reason John Piper is certainly correct in emphasizing that Paul"conceive[s] of God's righteousness as his unswerving faithfulness always to preserve and display the glory of his name."(10) God is ever concerned to glorify Himself in all that He does, and His "righteousness" is no less designed to that end also... We are accountable to God to act in keeping with His righteousness, and any failure to do so demands retribution (cf. Gal. 3:10). If there is a God and if He is righteous, then all unrighteousness will one day be punished. Indeed the knowledge of this aspect of divine righteousness is innate in every man. Though they deny it, still they "recognize [epignontes] the righteous judgment [dikaioma] of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death" (Rom.1:32). No denial of the facts will alter their reality. Knowing it they hate it, and hating it they deny it, but only to become more culpable. It is one horrible prospect that awaits the sinner. But all this presents a very real problem. God reveals Himself as a righteous God Who demands the same of us all and condemns all who do not conform. He will "by no means clear the guilty" (Ex. 34:7). The problem is obvious: how can any of us ever escape God's wrath?...
We go free not by a sidestepping of justice but on the ground of a full satisfaction of justice. Our sin is punished and we go free! "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). "He bore our sins in His body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24) and thereby satisfied the demands of justice against us. God has "made Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21). "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God" (1Pet.3:18). "The Lord has laid our iniquity on Him" (Isa. 53:6)... God must punish all sin, and in saving His people He makes no exception. He will not compromise Himself. But instead, He Himself becomes responsible for us and bears the judgment of His own wrath. God the Son, forsaken of God the Father, suffering as a sinner under His condemnation. Jesus Christ, the sinner's substitute, bearing the sin of many. Still there is more. There is an exchange. He not only takes our sin, but in exchange He gives us His righteousness. In dying for us He satisfies God's righteous demand for punishment. But He goes still further. He was not only "made sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21); He "is made unto us righteousness" (1 Cor.1:30). Christ is "Jehovah our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6). He pays the penalty of our sin and provides us with His very own perfections. Our record becomes His, and so He dies. But His record becomes ours, and so we live..." It is this that makes the notion of salvation by human merit so blasphemous. It is to say that Christ's righteousness is not enough. It is to say that His death was not sufficient payment for sin. It is to say that "Christ died in vain" (Gal.2:21). And this is why the Scriptures make so much of justification "by faith" (e.g., Rom. 5:1). God cannot pronounce us righteous on the basis of our own merit, for we have not merited enough. "All our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6). To approach God on the basis of what we have done is to sidestep Jesus Christ Who alone has done enough. We can only approach God on the basis of faith in His Son, acknowledging and trusting Him as the only Savior. "The righteousness of God in the gospel is revealed by faith and nothing but faith; as it is written, 'he who through faith is righteous shall live'" (Rom. 1:17). It is the revelation of a righteous God who demands perfection and punishes all sin. But it is also the revelation of the righteous God Who in mercy saves sinners by doing for them what He requires of them... We must say, then, that the gospel reveals much more than God's righteousness. It also reveals His grace. God is righteous, uncompromisingly righteous. But He is not only righteous. He is also gracious. Through the merits and works of Jesus Christ received by faith, His righteousness becomes ours...." "...righteousness is determined by Lordship. Divine sovereignty makes no concessions here. "Who has first given to him, and it shall be repaid to him?" (Rom. 11:35). "The right, therefore, which God hath to act his righteousness or to act righteously towards others, is supreme and sovereign, arising naturally and necessarily from the relation of all things unto himself."(5) "In this respect God is wholly arbitrary, and hath no other rule but his own will; he doth not will things because they are just, but therefore they are just because God wills them." (6)
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.