ROMANS 11-13
[note- there’s much more on the video than the post]
.ROMANS 11
.ROMANS 12
.ROMANS 13
END NOTES-
.What effect did the Renaissance have on the Reformation?
.How did Erasmus differ from Luther?
.Do Catholics exalt Tradition over Scripture?
.Renaissance artists.
.Do Catholics believe in Justification by Faith?
.Catholic teaching on Civil Authorities [Romans 13].
.What does ‘AdFontes’ mean- and how does it relate to the
Renaissance/Reformation?
Romans 11
.Was Paul a full time preacher- paid?
.Is he teaching universalism here?
.Elijah was not alone.
(861)Romans 11:13- ‘For I speak
to you Gentiles, in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my
office’. Let me just make a few comments today. How is Paul 'exercising’ his
apostolic authority over the Gentiles in Rome? We know he hasn’t been there yet
[since becoming a follower of Jesus]. He did not have some type of relationship
with them where they contributed to him. He was holding no ‘church services’.
He exercised it by speaking into their lives and caring for their welfare. He
did this by WRITING THIS LETTER! Recently there has been some discussion on
‘Gods government’ and the apostles ‘bringing things into alignment’ [dealing
with the mistakes at Lakeland]. Lots of talk that I am familiar with. What is
Gods government? In the world we have 2 competing ‘world views’- systems or
modes of operation. You have God’s kingdom, and then the worlds system. When
the apostle John said ‘love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world’ he was referring to this system of lies and pride and sin. In Gods
kingdom you operate under his laws ‘love the Lord thy God with all thy heart…
and your neighbor as yourself’. In this family [children of God] you have
different types of ‘gifts’. Some are apostles, others prophets, etc. All these
gifted ones are given for the singular purpose of building you up so you can
have a mature faith grounded in Christ and be the ‘glorious temple’ of God in
the earth. Paul was playing his part by communicating Jesus to these Roman
Gentiles. He did not have some type of a corporate relationship with them where
he said ‘commit to my authority over you. Either I will be your ‘covering’ or
someone else!’ These are mans ideas. Now, we often say ‘Paul didn’t receive
money from the Corinthians, but he did from the other churches’. I have said
this myself. Paul did receive support from the Philippians, but that was
support for his traveling ministry. To get him to the next place. If you read
carefully you will see Paul telling the Thessalonians ‘when I was with you I
did not eat, or take stuff for free. My hands ministered to both me and those
that were with me’ I think he even said he worked night and day. When he spoke
to the Ephesians elders in the book of Acts, he also said ‘I labored when I was
with you, I did not take support from you when I was there. I did this to leave
you ELDERS an example’. Now, the point I want to make is it seems as if Paul
did not take money when he was actually living among the saints. It seems he
took it only for traveling expenses [and of course for his ministry to the poor
saints at Jerusalem]. Now, I believe and teach that it is scriptural to meet
the needs, financially, of laboring elders. The reason I mention this is to
show you that being an ‘apostle’ or any other gifted minister in the church
simply means you bear extra responsibility to bring Gods people to maturity. It
was not some type of office where you were a ‘professional minister’. When I
hear all the talk of ‘Gods apostles are bringing Gods government back into
alignment’ for the most part these are men’s ideas being applied to an American
corporate 501c3 ministry. Gods ‘government’ operates along different lines. So
in this example Paul said ‘I magnify my office’ he was simply imparting some
truth to them for the purpose of their own edification. Paul did not see them
coming under ‘his covering’.
(862)ROMANS 11- let me make a
note on the previous entry. Over the last few years, as well as many years of
experience with ‘ministry/church’, I have seen how easy it is to fall into the
well meaning mindset of ‘I am going into the ministry, this is my career
choice. My responsibility is to do ‘Christian stuff’ and the people’s role is
to support me’[ I am not taking a shot at well meaning Pastors, I am basically
speaking of the many friends I have met over the years who seemed to think
ministry was a way to get financial support]. In the previous entry I mentioned
how Paul seemed to have a mode of operation that said ‘when I am residing with
a community of believers, I refuse to allow them to support me. I will work
with my own hands to give them an example, not only to the general saints, but
also to the elders. I am showing you that leadership is not a means to get
gain’. It does seem ‘strange’ for us to see this. Of course we know Paul also
taught the churches that it was proper and right to support those who ‘labor
among you’. I have taught all this in the past and I don’t want to ‘re-teach’
it all again. The point I want to make is we ‘in ministry’ really need to
rethink what we do. How many web-sites have I gone to that actually have icons
that say ‘pay me here’. The average person going to these sites must think ‘pay
you for what’? Paul did not teach the mindset of ‘pay me here, now’. Also in
this letter to the Romans we are reading Paul’s correspondence to the believers
at Rome. He often used this mode of ‘authority’ [writing letters] to exercise
his apostolic office. Of course he also traveled to these areas [Acts] and
spent time with them. And as I just showed you he supported himself on purpose
when he was with the saints. Basically Paul is carrying out the single most
effective apostolic ministry of all time [except for Jesus] and he is doing it
without all the modern techniques of getting paid. He actually is doing all
this writing and laboring at his own expense. He told the Corinthians ‘the
fathers [apostles] spend for the children, not the children for the fathers’.
So in todays talk on ‘apostles’ being restored. God ‘bringing back into
alignment apostolic government’ we need to tone down all the quoting of verses
[even the things Paul said!] that seem to say to the average saint ‘how do you
expect us to reach the world if you do not ‘bring all the tithes into the
storehouse’! When we put this guilt trip on the people of God we are violating
very fundamental principles of scripture. Now, let’s try and finish up chapter
11. Paul is basically telling Israel and the Gentiles that God’s dealings are
beyond our understanding [last few verses]. God is using the ‘unbelief’ of
Israel as an open door to the Gentiles. He is also using the mercy that he is
showing to the Gentiles as an ‘open door’ to Israel! He will ‘provoke them to
jealousy’. There are a few difficult verses that would be unfair for me to skip
over. ‘All Israel shall be saved’. Paul uses this to show that God’s dealings
with natural Israel as a nation are not finished. Who are ‘all Israel’? Some
say ‘the Israel of God’ [the church]. I don’t think this fits the text. Some
say ‘all Israel that will be alive at the second coming’ I think this is
closer. To be honest I think this can simply mean ‘all Israel’ all those who
are alive and also raised at the return of the Lord. Now, this would be a form
of universalism [all people eventually being saved]. I am not a Universalist,
but I don’t want any ‘preconceived’ mindset [even my own!] to taint the text. I
think God has the ability to reveal himself to the whole nation of Israel in
such a way that ‘they all will be saved’. If I were a Jewish person I wouldn’t
wait for this to happen! Just like the Calvinists argument of ‘why witness’?
Because God commands it. So even though you can make an argument here for a
type of universal redemption at Christ’s revealing of himself to Israel at the
second coming [which is in keeping with this chapter, as well as other areas in
scripture; ‘they will look upon him whom they have pierced’ ‘God will pour out
the spirit of mourning and supplication on Israel at his appearing’. Which by
the way would fit in with ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved’ which I
taught in chapter 10. This is a futurist text implying a time of future
judgment and wrath’]. So God’s dealings with Israel are not finished. Paul also
warns the Gentiles ‘don’t boast, if God cut out the true branches [Israel] to
graft you in. He can just as quickly cut you out too’! It would be dishonest
for me [a Calvinist] to simply not comment on this. You certainly can take this
verse in an Arminian way. Or you can see Paul speaking in a ‘nationalistic
sense’. Sort of like saying ‘if Germany walks away from the faith, they will be
‘cut out’. [France would have been a better example! Speaking of the so called
‘enlightenment’ and the French Revolution]. In essence ‘you Gentiles, don’t
think “wow, look at us. God left Israel and we are now special!”’ Paul is
saying ‘you Gentiles [as a whole group] stand by faith. God could just as
quickly ‘cut you out’ and replace you with another group’. I also think the
Arminians could use this type of argument for the previous predestination
chapter [9]. But to be honest I needed to give you my view. One more thing,
Paul quotes Elijah ‘lord, I am the only one left’. He uses this in context of
God having a remnant from Israel who remained faithful to the true God. God
told Elijah ‘there are 7 thousand that have not bowed the knee to baal’. Paul
uses this to show that even in his day there were a remnant Of Jews [himself
included] who received the Messiah. An interesting side note. The prophetic
ministry [Elijah] seems to function at a ‘popular level’. Now, I don’t mean
‘fame’, but Elijah was giving voice to a large undercurrent that was running
thru the nation. If you read the story of Elijah you would have never known
that there were ‘7 thousand’ who never bowed the knee! Often times God will use
prophetic people to ‘give voice’ or popularize a general truth that is
presently existing in the ‘underground church’ at large. Sort of like if Elijah
had a web site, the 7 thousand would have been secretly reading it and saying
‘right on brother, that’s exactly what we believe too’!
ROMANS 12
.ARE SOME GIFTS BETTER THAN
OTHERS?
.HOW SHOULD THEY FUNCTION IN THE
‘BODY’?
. HOW SHOUD WE GIVE OFFERINGS-
DID PAUL TEAHC TITHING?
.HOT COALS ON THEIR HEADS- HUH?
(864)ROMANS 12:1-8 ‘I beseech you by the mercies of God to
present your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto God, which
is your reasonable service [spiritual worship]’. Most times we see ‘by the
mercies of God’ as a recap of all that Paul has taught from chapters 1 thru 12.
This is true to a degree. I think Paul is honing in on the previous chapters
that dealt with the purpose of God specifically seen in the resurrection of the
body. As we read earlier ‘for we are saved by hope’ [the hope of the
resurrection]. Basically I see Paul saying ‘because of what I showed you
concerning Gods redemptive purpose for your body, therefore present your body
now, in anticipation of it’s future glorious purpose, as a living sacrifice
‘holy and acceptable unto God’. Why? Because you are going to have that thing
[body] forever! [in a new glorified state]
Paul exhorts us to be changed by the renewing of our mind, the way we
think. I have mentioned in the past that this renewing is not some type of
legalistic function of ‘memorizing, muttering the do’s and don’ts all day
long’. But a reorganizing of our thoughts according to this new covenant of
grace. Seeing things thru this ‘new world’ perspective. A kingdom view based
upon grace and the resurrection of Jesus. This resurrection that is assured to
us because we have the deposit of the Spirit which is our guarantee that God
will complete the work that he has begun in us. And Paul will jump into one of
his ‘Body of Christ’ analogies which he uses often to describe the people of
God. Because we are all one body, we should think soberly about our different
gifts and purposes. God gave some ‘better’ [or more noticeable] gifts for the
overall edifying of the body. So don’t boast about it. All have varying gifts,
freely given. Administrate them with much grace. Do it with humility and
cheerfulness. We are simply children thru whom Gods Spirit manifests himself in
different ways. Don’t boast that ‘Wow, daddy gave me a bike’. Or look, I got a
more expensive Christmas present than you. Daddy distributes the gifts freely
as he wills. They are for everyone’s benefit. Don’t use this grace gift as a
means of self importance or prestige. It would be like ‘prostituting’ a gift
for self-aggrandizement. People have done it, but it displeases the giver of
the gift.
(865)ROMANS 12: 13 Paul continues to give some basic guidelines
on practical Christian living. Notice his teaching on financial giving
‘distribute to the necessity of the saints’. This basic Christian doctrine from
Jesus teachings has become the premier act of giving for the New Testament
saint. The reason I have stressed this teaching as opposed to the more popular
view of tithing, is because the scriptures place such a high priority on
Christian charity. As I have mentioned before, Jesus even uses this basic
description to describe those who ‘are righteous’ or ‘unrighteous’. He teaches
the final judgment will be based on this outward identifier of ‘what we did to
the least of these’. If you read carefully the New Testament epistles you will
see a picture of ‘local church’ as a caring community of people who show their
love for one another thru these acts of kindness and compassion. None of the
New Testament letters teach a type of
financial giving that focuses on ‘support the ministry/institution’ as being
‘the new testament church’ that replaced the ‘old testament temple’. For
example a tithe system that supports the ‘pastor/priest’ in the same way the
Levitical priests were supported under the law. It’s so vital for us to see and
understand this. Because the average believer is taught thru out his life that
his primary expression of giving is to ‘bring the tithe into the storehouse’ in
such a way that it violates the actual primacy of giving as taught in the New
Testament. Which is to regularly give to meet the needs of those around you.
The fact that there were instances in the book of Acts or the letter to the
Corinthians where believers gave an offering in a corporate way [the collection
for the poor saints- 1st Cor. 15, or the laying of the money at the
apostles feet in Acts] does not excuse the believer from the teaching that we
should all regularly give to meet the needs of those around us. This is flatly
taught as a regular part of the Christian experience. The other fact that Paul
never once teaches the tithe as a function of giving for the Gentile churches
should cause us all to take another look at the way we teach giving in the
church today.
(866)ROMANS 12:14-21 Notice how
Paul puts such a high priority on the principles of Jesus. He exhorts the
saints to live by the precepts of the great ‘sermon on the mount’. Often times
believers try and make a division between Paul’s revelation of justification by
faith and the ‘liberal moral teachings of Jesus’. I see no division here. Paul
actually quotes Jesus ‘if you’re treated badly, respond in love. By not getting
even you heap “coals of fire on your enemies head”’. Actually, I remember how a
few years back, when everybody was coming up with their ‘new revelation
knowledge’ ideas on scripture. Things like ‘the camel going thru the eye of the
needle’. Some taught Jesus was not really rebuking wealth, he was simply
talking about a ‘low gate’ thru the wall of the city that was called the ‘eye
of the needle’ and the camels had to crouch a little to get thru, true
silliness! This verse ‘coals on the head’ was taught as saying Jesus was simply
saying you were helping your enemy on cold nights by ‘keeping his head warm’!
Sad. Jesus said don’t avenge yourselves, God will avenge you. Doesn’t sound
like the lord is talking about ‘head warmers’! Look at these verses carefully.
Paul incorporates the teachings of Christ as having a very high priority for
the believer. We are often inundated with modern concepts of ministry. How to
raise funds [or amass wealth]. Paul ‘locates’ the important thing as being
centered on Christ. He knew if the churches [believing communities] of the
first few centuries would follow this idea, that they would truly turn their
world upside down for the cause.
ROMANS 13
.SHOULD WE OBEY WICKED RULERS?
.IS IT EVER RIGHT TO ‘NOT OBEY’
[Civil Disobedience].
.TAXES AND THE TITHE.
(867)ROMANS 13:1-6 Paul teaches
that believers should ‘be subject’ unto human government. He shows us that ‘the
powers that be are ordained of God’. All human leaders are given their position
of authority, ultimately, from God. What about Hitler? Or evil Pharaoh? Did God
‘put them there’? If God is sovereign [which he is!] then he permits all things
to transpire, that actually transpire! He does not ‘ordain evil’ in the sense
that he initiates unrighteous things. But because he has the power to prevent
anything from happening, if ‘it happens’ that a wicked ruler is in authority,
then he in that sense ‘ordained it’. Understand Paul is writing this at a time
in Roman history where the leaders were quite wicked. They worshipped false
gods, and even claimed to themselves the title of ‘a god’. For Paul to use this
language in this chapter, he even says ‘they are the ministers [servants] of
God to thee for good’ is strong. Paul is also not teaching that there is never
a cause for civil disobedience, in the sense of ‘whatever the government says,
we will do’. In the New Testament we have Peter resisting the order to ‘not
teach or preach in Jesus name’ [Acts]. He even says ‘should we obey God or man’
in his defense. Of course today we have legalized abortion, and in the case of
later term abortions, the practice is equal to infanticide. We should do all
that is in our legal power to stop the murder of unborn children. This law
violates Gods law, from whom all human government is derived.
(868)ROMANS 13:7-14 ‘For this
cause pay your taxes also, for they are Gods ministers’ I noted earlier how
Paul taught ‘give to those around you that are in need’ [chapter 12] and here
he teaches the importance of ‘paying taxes’. Where is the exhortation to ‘pay
tithes’? In the ecclesiology of Paul, the ‘corporate community of people’ are
the ‘new testament temple of God’. Therefore you see the need to ‘pay tribute’
to only two ‘institutions’. One being the ‘local church’ [as seen in simple
giving to the needs of the community around you] and the other being ‘the
government’. Paul sees no 3rd ‘institution’ that is called ‘the
local church’ to which the tribute of the tithe belongs. To correctly apply the
verse in Malachi [if you were going to use it at all. It is obvious that the
prophet is directing the rebuke towards natural Israel] you would simply see
the ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse’ as ‘give to meet the needs of
the community [Gods new testament storehouse] around you’. Now Paul teaches the
primacy of the law of love for the believer. If we walk in Jesus command to
love, we fulfill the law. And again Paul uses the language of ‘fluent
soteriology’ [salvation]. He says ‘now is our salvation nearer than when we
believed’. Paul comfortably jumps in and out of ‘being saved’ and ‘will be
saved’. It is this free use of the term that we need to become familiar with.
The New Testament clearly teaches a future salvation. And it is not as simple
as ‘My spirit is saved, my mind [soul- which is really a very weak translation
for soul. The soul is much more than the mind, emotions and intellect!] is ‘being
saved’ and my body will be saved’. It is not this cut and dry. Your spirit is
saved, your spirit will be saved and is being saved [he ever lives to make
intercession to God for us- this ongoing intercession deals with all aspects of
the humans salvation. Not just the body!]. All 3 modes of salvation [past,
present and future] can apply to ‘all of you’ [spirit, soul and body]. Don’t
think future salvation only deals with the ‘salvation of the body’.
END NOTES- I’m adding portions of the Catechism at the bottom to
show my Catholic [and Protestant] friends the official teaching of the church.
Some of my Catholic readers who are following along in this study-
I want you to know that these doctrines are indeed in line with your faith.
RENAISSANCE STUFF -
The renaissance was the
13-14th century revival of culture and learning that was lost for
centuries- It began in Florence Italy.
The catch phrase for it was ‘Ad Fontes’ meaning ‘back to the sources’- both in
philosophy- as well as in Christian learning.
This began a revival of studying the Greek New testament again
from its original language.
The Catholic Humanist- Desiderius Erasmus [15-16th
century] - re introduced the New Testament in the Greek version [He was
referred to as a Dutch renaissance Humanist- as well as a Catholic Priest and
scholar]
Now- Erasmus was a critic of the Church- like Luther- but chose a
‘middle road’- he did not join the breakaway Protestant Reformers- but chose to
stay within the fold of Rome- while speaking out against the abuses he saw.
But his first Greek translation of the New Testament did indeed
set a spark- because it allowed the Priests to see the bible in its original language.
And Luther was actually teaching this book of Romans to his students
in Germany when the Reformation began.
Today the Catholic Church [as you can see in the official Catechism
that I have been posting] does indeed teach the bible as God’s Word.
The divisions between Protestants and Catholics are many- but they
did agree that the bible was the Word of God.
Some Protestants do not know this- they think the church holds
Tradition higher than the bible.
No- the church does believe that God speaks both thru tradition-
and scripture.
They see the tradition of the church as simply another means by which
God uses the church [Magisterium] to explain scripture- but the Catholic Church
does not elevate tradition over the bible.
And indeed- it was a catholic scholar- Erasmus- who introduced the
first Geek version of the New Testament.
NOTE- Erasmus disagreed with Luther on the doctrine of
Predestination- which I covered in the last video. Luther was for it- Erasmus
was what we would call ‘Free Will’.
In his writings- which were very influential- he wrote in Greek
and Latin- the language of the elites.
He did this on purpose- for his target was the influential leaders
of the Church.
He rejected offers of money- because he did not want to align
himself with any particular movement- so he could be an independent writer with
no strings attached.
He had many criticisms of the Catholic Church- and was very
influential for the later reforms- those we see at the Council of Trent [Though
the church criticized him- they said he ‘Laid the egg that hatched the
Reformation’].
He taught that the church/priests/popes should be the servants of
the people-
He rejected the idea that the Priests/leaders made up the ‘whole
of the church’- but he believed all believers made up the true church.
Erasmus was a firebrand in his own way- rejecting the language
that Luther and some of the reformers used [they were vulgar at times]-
Luther respected the works of Erasmus- he thanked Erasmus for
debating with him on the nature of Justification by Faith-
He disagreed in the end- but said this debate was at the heart of
the gospel- and was glad that Erasmus was willing to engage.
RENAISSANCE ARTISTS-
The famous renaissance artists- DaVinci- Michelangelo- Raphael-
used their artwork as a form of knowledge- the images taught things- they were
not just paintings.
DaVinci’s most famous work was his painting on the ceiling of the
Sistine chapel in the Vatican.
It took him 4 years to complete.
The renaissance period- from about the 13/14th century
to the 17th- [though there was a sort of Renaissance that took
place- yes- in the Islamic world before the European Renaissance] was marked by
what we term Humanism.
Today we associate this term with ‘secular Humanism’ which often
has a bad connotation- especially among Christians.
But it meant something different back then.
It was a new focus on breaking the limits off of man- and for man
to excel in knowledge and skill- and to see man as having value.
There was somewhat of a break away from the church in a sense- in
that the church and its teachings were not the only source of wisdom for man.
But- Jesus himself taught that ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not
man for the Sabbath’- so- the Humanist spirit- elevating the value of man- does
have a Christian basis in my view.
Leonardo daVinci [15/16th century] was what we refer to
as a true Renaissance man- meaning his knowledge was in many fields- not just
art.
He actually considered himself a sculptor first- then an artist-
though he is most famous for his Fresco mentioned above.
1990
Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love
of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s
merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It
frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. (1446, 1733)
1991
Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through
faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of
divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our
hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. (1812)
1992
Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who
offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and
whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us
to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his
mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal
life:40 (617, 1266, 294)
But now
the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law
and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in
Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a
gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as
an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s
righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former
sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that
he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41
1993
Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s
freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the
Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity
with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: (2008, 2068)
When God
touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is
not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and
yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward
justice in God’s sight.42
1994
Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made
manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of
St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the
creation of heaven and earth,” because “heaven and earth will pass away but the
salvation and justification of the elect... will not pass away.”43 He holds also that
the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice,
in that it bears witness to a greater mercy. (312, 412)
1995
The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the
“inner man,”44 justification entails
the sanctification of his whole being: (741)
Just as
you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity,
so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.... But now that
you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you
get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45
II. Grace
1996
Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free
and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become
children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal
life.46 (153)
1997
Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us
into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in
the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can
henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life
of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. (375, 260)
1998
This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends
entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give
himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every
other creature.47 (1719)
I added
these below for commentary on Romans 13- Civil authorities. In our world today-
there are many governmental authorities- and some are changing ‘overnight’-
with much instability in the world. So you have cases where one group-
government- is in charge- to be ‘obeyed’- but yet- that group is ousted some
times in a day. Then do you view the new government- and all the new courts- judges-
etc. - as illegitimate? Because they did not submit to the former group?
I find
lots of confusion among Christians about our right relationship to civil
government- many do not seem to understand that when we in the U.S. rebelled
against British/English rule- we too were not ‘obeying’ the authority. We
formed a new government- with courts- judges- etc.
So- this
portion below shows us that there are indeed times when government loses the
authority to govern- given to them by God.
1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy
from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the
common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords
with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls
short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much
the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when
it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit
means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures
contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in
conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in
shameful abuse.”23
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
ccoutreach87.wordpress.com
Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post
them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John.#
No comments:
Post a Comment