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.
Now that I can agree with.
The entire Bible is true; if we actually only needed the Gospels then we would have only the Gospels.
The problem is in interpretation, as so many of theological debates can attest.
It’s just that as the explanations about Calvinism mount, it seems that more and more of them lead down the road of mechanical performance.
Our prayers mean something to us because we believe that they actively work to help us towards our road to God and therefore our salvation. They do something and mean something to a believe trying to communicate with God, or else if they are truly mechanical, then they mean nothing since the intent of the individual is what matters.
You may have missed the gist of the post. I meant that Matt 25 is instructions to us on how to behave and what happens if we misbehave. The Genesis reference is a list of begottens, which really don’t have the same impact to our souls.
Matt 25:
1
1 “Then 2 the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2
3 Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
3
The foolish ones, when taking their lamps, brought no oil with them,
4
but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps.
5
Since the bridegroom was long delayed, they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6
At midnight, there was a cry, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’
7
Then all those virgins got up and trimmed their lamps.
8
The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’
9
But the wise ones replied, ‘No, for there may not be enough for us and you. Go instead to the merchants and buy some for yourselves.’
10
While they went off to buy it, the bridegroom came and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked.
11
4 Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’
12
But he said in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.’
13
Therefore, stay awake, 5 for you know neither the day nor the hour.
14
6 “It will be as when a man who was going on a journey 7 called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them.
15
To one he gave five talents; 8 to another, two; to a third, one—to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately
16
the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five.
17
Likewise, the one who received two made another two.
18
9 But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master’s money.
19
After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them.
20
The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. 10 He said, ‘Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.’
21
His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’
22
(Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, ‘Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.’
23
His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’
24
Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter;
25
so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’
26
His master said to him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! 11 So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter?
27
Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?
28
Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten.
29
12 For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
30
13 And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’
31
14 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32
and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40
And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44
18 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
What we have to do, why we have to do it and what will happen to us depending on what we do.
This by itself to me is proof against Calvinism.
Indeed. Now, if someone of those who seem to think God is full of passions could explain how can one change his mood and be one in whom "there is no variableness, neither the shadow of a change." I think we may have an "observer problem" here.
Which is exactly what the Orthodox (and, I surmise, also Catholic) doctrine advocates: God is experienced as either love or hate depending on our spiritual disposition, and not His "moodiness."
Assigning any human qualities (moods, hands, ears, needs, etc.) to God are always allegorical anthropomorphisms. Unrotunately, as you said, we have some simplsitic literalist interpretations that border on pagan deism.
However, it is not your perseverence, at least from what I gather. According to my understanding of reformed theology, man plays no part, it is ALL God. That would be where we disagree, the "all" part. It would be senseless to be commanded to do anything if we didn't have the ability (with God's aide) to do it. All wisdom, for example, comes from God. But He willingly GIVES it to those who ask. Thus, it is indeed OUR righteousness, given to us by God.
That is my take on it.
Regards
"Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them." -- Psalm 139:16 "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
And if Job's testimony and the Psalms aren't enough, we have the NT echoing the OT...
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" -- Acts 17:26
God is the author and maker of every life.
Amen.
Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him." -- Isaiah 43:4-7"Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
KOSTA: God could be completely dispassionate as regards our stay here. In fact, the eastern Church teaches that God is indeed dispassionate when it comes to mankind.
Kosta, how is it the EO disregards so much clear Scripture? I just don't recognize this dispassionate, impersonal, stoic, impotent God who sort of creates and then steps aside to watch how it all plays out. That's not the God the Bible reveals.
God is impartial to the works of all men because all men are equally fallen. But God is not impartial to His children whom He has named, numbered and called to Him.
"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." -- Job 14:4
Thus, all the righteous works of men mean nothing. It is only the righteousness of Christ that is good in the eyes of God, imputed to those whom God has chosen as His children, according to His own purpose.
That's what we thank God for. That's where our gratitude lies -- not for our own abilities but for God's grace through Christ alone.
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." -- Romans 5:5-6"And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
In these two short verses we have a total repudiation of your earlier point -- 1) God's love is given to us by the Holy Ghost
2) We are redeemed not after and because we have become righteous through our works or done anything to merit our salvation, but while we are still "without strength" Christ dies for the "ungodly."
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" -- Ephesians 2:4-5"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
I just noticed for the first time that Ephesians 2:4-5 is a total repetition of Romans 5:5-6.
Almost as if God planned it that way.
“Assigning any human qualities (moods, hands, ears, needs, etc.) to God are always allegorical anthropomorphisms. Unrotunately, as you said, we have some simplsitic literalist interpretations that border on pagan deism.”
Speaking of “simplsitic literalist interpretations that border on pagan deism”, why do you suppose God said he was “pleased” and Peter affirms that that’s what He literally and simplistically said if He didn’t want us to take Him at His word? Of course, it may be just a scribe’s accretion or commentary to what actually happened, even in the Gospels, but then, Peter witnessed it.
Matt. 17:5, “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”
2 Pet. 1:16-18, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”
That is all well and good but you need to read the passage in context. "Foolish" is always applied in scriptures to an unbeliever. "Wise" is applied to believers. So in the parable of the five "foolish" maidens and the five "wise" maidens there are (5) unbelievers and (5) believers waiting for the return of Christ. The foolish (unbelieving) maidens thought that the believers (wise) could give them salvation. Instead they were rightfully instructed to hurry to the source but it was too late.
As far as the wicked servant, well he didn't have the right perspective of God either, now did he?
The bottom line in Matthew 25 IS the separation of the sheep and the goats. Please note what Matthew tells us about this process:
The separation of the sheep and the goats is also interesting. The sheep did not know they were doing anything for Christ. When He stated all the things they did, they responded with, "When did we do this...".
The goats on the other hand had an opposite response. When Christ said they had not done this for Him, they thought they had. They asked the same question, "When did we do this...". They thought their works backed them up.
I find Matthew 25 to be more against works and relying upon God's promise that He has given us salvation and our works than anything else.
But then James notices that in Genesis 22:1 "God tested Abraham" by commanding him to offer up his son Isaac. What was God testing? He was testing his faith. What was he looking for? He was looking for the kind of obedience or works that shows Abraham's faith was not dead faith or devil faith or useless faith. So the issue in James 2:21 (where Abraham offers Isaac) is not the first act of justification that put Abraham in a right standing with God. The issue is the test: was Abraham's faith the living kind of faith that produces the "obedience of faith" or the dead kind that has no effect on life?
Without arguing over nuances, allow me to offer the following alternate perspective. The King James translation uses the verb 'believe' where it ought to be using 'faithe'. Greek nouns are derived from the verbs. The word faith (pistis) is translated properly, but 'faithe' (pisteuo) is translated 'believe'. Try this definition of 'faithe': action based upon belief in the promise(s) of God sustained by confidence built from learning God keeps His promises. This is the 'ABCs' of faith.
Faithe is an action word, where the Holy Spirit instigates the impulse and the faither acts accordingly to be transformed, made new in Christ Jesus ... a life-long process begun at the conversion moment. James tries to explain how the manifestations of God in you are measured as works completing saving faith. Paul tries to explain that only the faithing person is saved and being transformed by the working of the Holy Spirit in you and the fruit of this transformation are good works which God has prepared for you to manifest in your life behavior after the salvation/the Born Again moment.
In the cited passage above, allow me to offer the following regarding the 'works' of Abraham and Rahab, from the perspective of this 'faithing' principle which reconciles James and Paul, works and faithe. James was slightly off in his assignment of the saving 'faithe' because James focused upon the work of Abraham in sacrificing his son (as the essayist states it, the test) when James should have focused upon the 'faithing' at work in Abraham when he confirmed his faith that God would keep His promises that through Isaac would the blessing come. James missed the mark slightly when he focused upon the deeds of Rahab and failed to focus upon Rahab 'faithing' in the promise from Joshua that when she in faithing let down the red cord she and her household would be spared.
We are heirs to the atonement accomplished by Jesus when we 'faithe' in the promise of God that this redemption is all we need to be reborn in spirit, and Jesus taught precisely that to Nicodemus and to Philip. Once the 'faither' exercises 'faith' in the promise of God, the faithing process is activated by which the Holy Spirit activates transformation which results in outward manifestations of this 'faithing' in God's promises!
So, James is right, in his out-of-focus assertion that pretend faithe will not manifest works the Holy Spirit has authored in us/through us, but more accurately, he could have pointed to the believing God, 'faithing' principle, which results in the word (logos) he spoke to Isaac 'that God would provide a sacrifice' and expressed this same amen level (highest level of faithe) when he told the servants that 'they would come back down when they were finished with the sacrifice'.
Jesus affirmed this perspective with his comment regarding the Centurion who asked Jesus to speak and his household servant would be healed, for Jesus said 'I have not seen such 'faithe' in all of Israel.' The Centurion understood authority and logos (the word sent forth empowered by and in exercise of 'faithe') and matter-of-factly expressed his faithe in the authority of Jesus to heal the ailing servant.
In light of James out-of-focus epistle, if James explained this Centurion event, he would focus upon the Centurion coming to Jesus directly, boldly, to ask on behalf of the servant. If Paul explained this event, he would focus upon the Centurion 'faithing' in Jesus's authority when he said Jesus need not come to his unworthy gentile home but just speak the word to save the servant. So, we see how both James and Paul can be correct if we but refocus our perspective to comprehend 'faithe' for 'faithe cometh b hearing and hearing by the Word of God.'
Ping to ‘faithe’, if you’re at all interested.
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth" -- James 1:17-18"...the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
And God loves His children immutably, perfectly, personally and forever, having begat them from before the foundation of the world...
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
This love sometimes takes the form of encouragement and plenitude, but it can also take the form of chastisement and refining, all in order to teach and guide His children as He leads them home.
"For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them." -- Isaiah 61:8
Likewise, God's wrath is immutable regarding the chaff. He does not love the condemned.
For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." -- Psalm 139:19-22"Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
To some it is given to know the truth and to some this understanding is withheld, according to the immutable will of God.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." -- Matthew 13:11-13"He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Christ further illustrates the two divisions of men with the parable of the wheat and the tares...
He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world." -- Matthew 13:36-40"Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
All men are sinners. Some men are acquitted of their sins by Christ on the cross, and some men remain condemned by them, all according to the "mystery of His will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" (Ephesians 1:9)
Interesting. You are trying to reconcile James and Paul by saying that James was mistaken.
Seven
I agree that context is extremely important. I would take issue with some of the interpretations that you have made.
Foolish . . . wise: cf the contrasted “wise man” and “fool” of Matthew 7:24, 26 where the two are distinguished by good deeds and lack of them. Nothing to do with the status of saved versus unsaved.
Stay awake: some scholars see this command as an addition to the original parable of Matthew’s traditional material, since in Matthew 25:5 all the virgins, wise and foolish, fall asleep. But the wise virgins are adequately equipped for their task, and stay awake may mean no more than to be prepared; cf Matthew 24:42, 44.
“For just as a man who was going on a journey.” Although the comparison is not completed, the sense is clear; the kingdom of heaven is like the situation here described. Faithful use of one’s gifts will lead to participation in the fullness of the kingdom, lazy inactivity to exclusion from it.
Although the first two servants have received and doubled large sums, their faithful trading is regarded by the master as fidelity in small matters only, compared with the great responsibilities now to be given to them. The latter are unspecified. Share your master’s joy: probably the joy of the banquet of the kingdom; cf Matthew 8:11.
Wicked, lazy servant: this man’s inactivity is not negligible but seriously culpable. As punishment, he loses the gift he had received, that is now given to the first servant, whose possessions are already great. In the previous verses, it is clear that everyone has been given talents. If nothing is made of those talents, then the talent is taken away. But everyone has some talent given by God - everyone. You must read verse 29 in the context of the previous three at a minimum. Your interpretation is demonstrably wrong.
The conclusion of the discourse, which is peculiar to Matthew, portrays the final judgment that will accompany the parousia. Although often called a “parable,” it is not really such, for the only parabolic elements are the depiction of the Son of Man as a shepherd and of the righteous and the wicked as sheep and goats respectively (Matthew 25:32-33). The criterion of judgment will be the deeds of mercy that have been done for the least of Jesus’ brothers (Matthew 25:40). A difficult and important question is the identification of these least brothers. Are they all people who have suffered hunger, thirst, etc. (Matthew 25:35, 36) or a particular group of such sufferers? Scholars are divided in their response and arguments can be made for either side. But leaving aside the problem of what the traditional material that Matthew edited may have meant, it seems that a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist’s sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel. The criterion of judgment for all the nations is their treatment of those who have borne to the world the message of Jesus, and this means ultimately their acceptance or rejection of Jesus himself; cf Matthew 10:40, “Whoever receives you, receives me.”
I think that this chapter says what it means - that those who show mercy will be shown mercy and those who use their talents for God will be rewarded. It is reaching too far to try to label the sheep and goats the elect and the predamned. There is no evidence. And there is too much evidence that Jesus says very clearly exactly what he means.
Mistaken in the sense that James focused upon ONLY the final deed rather than the true essence of ‘Faith’. If James were truly wrong, as in absolute error, the epistle wouldn’t be in the bible, I don’t think.
Kosta, you continually try to equate all "knowing" with "gnosticism." And that is a mistake.
"Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." -- Hebrews 10:15-17 "The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." -- Psalm 119:130
Christian "knowing" is God-given through Scripture; discerned via the work of the Holy Spirit; confirmed by a right-division of God's word through a presbytery of like-minded believers; and stands or falls in evidence by its fruits.
A gnostic "knowing" floats in the ether and attaches to it no evidence nor consensus.
A Christian "knowing" created capitalism and prosperity throughout the world. What have the Greeks produced but a lot of question marks and an erroneous belief in a dispassionate, distant God?
1Cr 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
There are may places in scripture that talks about believers being wise and the wise being foolish.
Our views on Matthew illustrates why you believe you are saved by your works and I believe that I am saved by Christ's righteousness. These views are worlds apart like the left and the right.
You are still suggesting that his focus was misplaced. Perhaps James' focused on something different than you expected because of he was inspired when he wrote.
Seven
Sigh.
Here we go again, trumping Jesus’ words with passages from Paul. We are supposed to interpret Paul, and the others, from the prism of the Gospels, not vice versa. Paul admonishing one of his wayward churches beats Jesus speaking in Matthew. We really are worlds apart in that respect.
In terms of the parable of the servant, repeated in the Gospels, the servant that incurs the wrath is the one who DOES nothing, not the one who IS nothing.
The sheep are judged to be sheep BECAUSE of what they have done, not because they won the everlasting lottery. The goats are judged to be goats BECAUSE of what they have not done, not because they lost the everlasting lottery.
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.