Biblical inconsistency?

OSV.com ^ | 07-25-18 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Biblical inconsistency? Jesus does not negate himself but rather gives different teachings on following the commandments

Msgr. Charles Pope

7/25/2018

Question: In Matthew 5:19, Jesus rails against relaxing or changing even the least of the commandments, and yet verse 19 also says that if one does, “[he] will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” It seems the consequences should be “losing” the kingdom of heaven if Jesus is consistent with what follows in verse 20. Can you explain the seeming inconsistency? — Jim Flynn, via email

Answer: Two different teachings are being made here, hence it is not a matter of consistency.

In verse 19, the operative teaching is that while unrepented mortal sin excludes one from the kingdom of God, not all violations of the law are mortal. Even the Ten Commandments, while indicating grave sin in themselves admit of lighter matter.

For example, regarding the Seventh Commandment, stealing a large amount or something essential or irreplaceable is usually a mortal sin. However, taking something small or insignificant, while a sin, may not be a mortal sin that excludes one from the kingdom of God. Thus, if the Lord were to adopt your word, the condemnation might be too sweeping. It does not follow that if someone breaks the least of the commandments they necessarily lose the kingdom of God.

Further, you will note that there is a kind of parallelism or play of words at work here. The Lord is saying, in effect: “If you break even the least of my teachings, I am going to call you the least!” Preachers often use such sayings in order to be memorable.

For example, consider the following word stitch: “Say what you mean, and mean what you say. But don’t say it mean.” The word “mean” unites all three phrases, but in each case a slightly different sense of the word “mean” is used.

Here, the Lord is not only being careful not to imply that even small infractions would land us in hell, but he is also being artful, resourceful and memorable by his use of a parallelism.

As for verse 20, we encounter a different teaching: “I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Here we are dealing with the problem of minimalism. Though the Pharisees fancied themselves meticulous observers of the law, they were very minimalist in their application of it. Jesus said they were hypocrites because they followed exacting laws about small things, such as tithing, but neglected weightier matters of the law, such as justice and mercy (cf. Mt 23:23). It is one thing to pay tithes; this is good and required. But neglecting the poor and failing to feed and teach them is far more important to God.

Jesus will develop this teaching against minimalism in the verses that follow in the Sermon on the Mount. For example, he will teach that it is not enough to avoid murder; the command requires we let God banish vengeful hatred from our hearts. It is not enough to avoid acts of adultery; we must allow God to give us chaste minds and hearts. It is not enough to avoid excessive retaliation; we ought to avoid retaliation altogether.

Therefore, the message of verse 20 is a call to exceed the minimalist notions of the law. Grace equips us for more, and we are expected to attain more by that grace. The old law could not save. Only the “new law” of grace can save or make us sufficiently holy to enter heaven.

Thus verse 19 speaks of little things, verse 20 of weightier things.

[nobamanomore]

Hmm, baptism has nothing to do with sin. That’s a novel idea you’ve made up.

[boatbums]

It’s Mary’s own admission that she was a sinner. She called God *my savior*. If she had been without sin, then she wouldn’t have needed a savior.

So, by the same ‘logic’, Jesus was a sinner also, since he was baptized? Did he need to be baptized to wash away his sins? By your logic, if Mary were sinless, then she would have been saved without God? If you lost a baby an hour after birth, obviously committed no sin, and went to heaven, then it went on it’s own? The baby would have no savior? I’m thinking not.

I continue to be amazed at how little it seems some people actually know about the Christian faith! NO human being has ever been - and never will be - saved because they are righteous enough. Even an innocent baby that dies can only be saved by the grace of God. We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners - it is our nature, we are born in iniquity, at enmity with God. Mary was saved NOT because she gave birth to the incarnate God but because she believed in Him as her Savior. The innocent who are incapable of acknowledging their sin and their need of a savior are covered by the mercy and grace of God.

Jesus IS God with us, He didn't need a Savior - He IS the Savior! You believe that, right???

[boatbums]

God's word tells us that Jesus ALONE was without sin. He is God with us, the incarnate Word. His baptism was an act of obedience, a testimony to others of the beginning of His earthly ministry. The Mikvah/Jewish "baptism" means something different than the Christian one.

[boatbums]

Amen! Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to HIS mercy He saved us.

[ebb tide]

The error is in thinking that baptism deals with sin.

You don't believe in the remission of original sin with the Sacrament of Baptism?

[nobamanomore]

You completely missed my point. My point was that even if someone never sinned, you have to have a savior, therefore the statement about Mary having to have sinned because of the ‘my savior’ statement proves nothing.

[boatbums]

You completely missed my point. My point was that even if someone never sinned, you have to have a savior, therefore the statement about Mary having to have sinned because of the ‘my savior’ statement proves nothing.

I don't think I missed your point. "Sin" is not just an action but a state of being. What we must acknowledge is that Scripture says:

And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:22-24)

Little babies and those who do not have the mental capacity to see their need for a Savior, are covered under the mercy and grace of God but everyone else has no excuse. We have ALL sinned and miss the perfection of God. Even the holiest and best people we can think of are STILL sinners in the eyes of God.

I asked this question before but nobody answered me - what do you think happens to babies who die without being baptized? Catholicism used to say they went to "Limbo" which was not "Purgatory" but was not heaven either. Now, I think they just admit they don't know but trust in the goodness and mercy of God for those souls.

[metmom]

No it isn’t.

The only thing that deals with sin is the blood of Jesus.

[metmom]

You don't believe in the remission of original sin with the Sacrament of Baptism?

Nope. The concept of original sin is not taught in Scripture.

[Ambrosia]

Hebrews 9:22 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

[Concentrate]

We, how can you be so sure?
Because it says so in the Bible.
Well then, how do you know that the Bible is 100% true?
Because God wrote the Bible.
So, how do you for sure that He wrote it?
Because it says so in the Bible.

[ebb tide]

How come nobody went to Heaven until Jesus was crucified?

[ebb tide]

So why is baptism necessary?

[metmom]

That’s right.

[metmom]

If you think otherwise, cite your proofs and the support for them and how you know for sure that they are right.

[daniel1212]

Therefore, the message of verse 20 is a call to exceed the minimalist notions of the law. Grace equips us for more, and we are expected to attain more by that grace.

Catholic profess that faith without works is dead, but it is Bible evangelicals who most live it.

Only the “new law” of grace can save or make us sufficiently holy to enter heaven.

And just what level is "sufficiently holy to enter heaven?" To be perfect as God or is a lower standard accepted? And if the former, can one attain perfection of character via baptism or a few hours after conversion? And if the latter, then where do you draw the line?

[daniel1212]

Ol' Arch-Pope is perpetuating the lie that some sins are mortal and some venial. All sin, without the Savior can send you to hell. Some sins have large consequences that lead to an early death.

That is why some sins can be called mortal, though this is relative to the light and grace one has been given. Thus,

For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:30-32)

Then there is apostasy against which Scripture warns believers. (Gal. 5:1-5; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39)

The true believer who is saved knows that all sin grieves the heart of his Savior and needs to be confessed.

Indeed, and confession of sin once convicted of it is a characteristic of a believer, and it is the heart-purifying faith (Acts 15:9) out of a contrite penitent heart which justifies, being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5), even if one is ignorant of sins. Thanks be to God.

[daniel1212]

We are not expected to perform more or better because we are under grace.

Actually that is not true, for while performance is not what justifies us so that we are "accepted in the Beloved," (Eph. 1:6) on Christ';s account, though performance justifies/vindicates us as being believers, (Heb. 6:9) yet God's purpose under grace is that we become on the practical level what we are on the positional level.

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. (Colossians 3:1)

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)

And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:24-25)

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1)

The basic difference btwn justification by heart-purifying faith which is counted for righteousness and effects the latter, versus that of Catholicism is that it makes the effect the basis for salvation, actually becoming good enough to be with God, as the Law also demands, but which Catholicism justifies by saying it is under grace that one becomes perfect in character.

[ealgeone]

ebb is counting on Mary the Mother of Jesus to get him out of purgatory, pronto.

And to confirm that....he wears, by his own admission (after a denial) a useless piece of cloth because some apparition told him to.

In doing so, he, and anyone else "trusting in this idol" has left the Gospel for a false Gospel.

But for it to "work" he has to do the following:

1.Wear the Brown Scapular continuously.

2.Observe chastity according to one’s state in life (married/single).

3.Recite daily the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin OR Observe the fasts of the Church together with abstaining from meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays OR With permission of a priest, say five decades of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary OR With permission of a priest, substitute some other good work.

http://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

[Luircin]

Depends on the definition of original sin, I suppose.