Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

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.

[wmfights]

Sorry to hear it wasn't well received for you though.

It is an illustration of how posters get caught up in criticizing the poster and not looking at the thought. I am intrigued by idea of physical vs. spiritual.

I believe the physical can be identified in all, or most, of their sacraments. Also the claim of Apostolic Succession (the foundation of their claimed authority) in addition to being a historic lineage is supposed to impart special powers because of the physical act of laying on of hands. The worship practices of lighting candles, bowing down to statues, putting holy water on when entering church all have physical characteristics to them.

All of these acts empower the idea that for the individual's salvation they must do certain physical acts. It explains why there is such animus towards the 5 sola's, especially Faith Alone. Saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone requires no special ongoing physical acts, you just need to believe the gospel.

[OLD REGGIE]

The word "worship" had different connotations when Pius X wrote that. Can you show that he meant that Mary was to be given the same honor and position as God? That is what we mean by the word today, but does that thought exist in the writing of Pius X??? Context will help you when you read writings from men who are not living in our age and use words differently than we do.

Regards

Of course not. I fully expected it would be recognized as a facetious statement meant to illustrate the foolishness of cherrypicking the statements or writings of a man, any man, and attempting to classify it as dogma.

Discernment would be helpful for you when reading what and why I made that, or any similar, post.

[jo kus]

I wrote: “But when recreated and transformed, indwelled with God’s Spirit, we CAN do good in Christ.”

Kosta replied: “A higher principle, jo...that sums it up brilliantly”

blue-duncan wrote: And when does this rebirth take place? Is it temporary or permanant? Is the recreation instantaneous or a journey?

At baptism. The rebirth is permanent. Our recreation is a journey that ends with heaven.

Regards

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragements!

[jo kus]

The use of "recreated" is a western concept; the idea of restoriation is more in line with Orthodox doctrine what Christ came for: He did not come to save us from God, but to restore us to our original state, purpose, and likeness to God.

Yes, I saw blue-duncan's question and I saw that Kosta answered correctly. The West believes that original sin is a state that man is born in. This state is a state without God, without grace. Man is only natural at birth. The East does not separate man into "natural" and "supernatural" charecteristics, but consider man one composite. Thus, in the East (from what I have read), that "divine spark" is there, but because of Adam, we don't have "access" to it. In the West, we don't receive it grace until Baptism - or, when the Spirit blows where He wills (God is not bound by the sacraments).

Thus, the West use "recreate" while the East use "restore". Kosta, does this touch on the Eastern view of man?

Regards

[OLD REGGIE]

I realize your personal creed is “I know nothing.”; however, organized religion, churches, would not last long adopting this. They have “Statement of Principles” or “Confessions” or “Catechisms”.

Using some structure of authority they determine what they hold to be true and what they teach concerning their theology including their interpretation of scriptures.

It would be well for you to recognize that you are not qualified to speak for these Churches either singly or collectively.

Actually, I do know some things but cannot speak dogmatically for the whole human race. By the same token you do not know all things and would be well advised to recognize you cannot speak dogmatically concerning "Churches" you know nothing about.

[jo kus]

Discernment would be helpful for you when reading what and why I made that, or any similar, post.

I cannot tell whether you are being sarcastic, or have a greater point to why you tell us about Pius X's use of "worship". Quite frankly, communication consists only partly of our words, so I cannot tell your body language or voice inflections or intent based on what you write, so I am not going to be able to "discern" your true intent based on what you have written so far.

Considering how our conversation begun, on how various "apologists" utilize snippets of someone's writings without looking at context, either you are showing an example of how NOT to do it, or are forgeting your own agreement with what I posted.

Regards

[jo kus]

All of these acts empower the idea that for the individual's salvation they must do certain physical acts.

You know that is not true. We are not saved by doing certain physical acts, that's ludicrous. These physical acts are all part of our relationship with Christ. We do not consider God as some abstract concept that exists only within our minds. We also worship with our bodies. Thus, the holy water reminds us of our baptism, how our relationship began with Christ. It would be like looking at a photo album of your wedding. They are not necessary for salvation - that is false. But these physical acts are expressions of our inner feelings. Thus, we kneel before a statue of Jesus, or we bow when we walk into a Church with the Tabernacle present - a sign of respect for our God.

Regards

[OLD REGGIE]

I cannot tell whether you are being sarcastic, or have a greater point to why you tell us about Pius X's use of "worship". Quite frankly, communication consists only partly of our words, so I cannot tell your body language or voice inflections or intent based on what you write, so I am not going to be able to "discern" your true intent based on what you have written so far.

Considering how our conversation begun, on how various "apologists" utilize snippets of someone's writings without looking at context, either you are showing an example of how NOT to do it, or are forgeting your own agreement with what I posted.

Regards

I can recognize, and sympathize, with your difficulty in recognizing whether I am being sarcastic or not.

It would have been necessary for you to follow my ongoing discussion with D-fendr concerning what he insists on calling Protestant dogma to see it truly WAS an illustration how NOT to do it.

I have not forgotten, and am still in agreement with you concerning "apologist" tactics. :-)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Well there's your original men of your Magisterium.

LOL. Nope. The difference is between day and night.

Elsewhere in the link I gave you it is written...

"It is important to note in closing that this document, as Hetherington says, "it is the wisest, sublimest, most sacred document ever penned by uninspired men."

The Westminster Confession of Faith is simply a compendium of agreed-upon principles and beliefs written by mere mortals who could have erred, thus the requirement for supporting each statement with the only words that are inerrant -- Holy Scripture, the words of God.

OTOH, the RCC magisterium is viewed wrongly as the equal of Scripture. (And frankly, from what we've been told here on FR, the magisterium is often considered by RCs to be superior to Scripture.)

From the RCC catechism...

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Chruch are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." (Pg.29, #95)

Now Bible-believing Christians the world over would join with every member who drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith to denounce that paragraph as blasphemy. Neither the magisterium nor the traditions of men "contribute to the salvation of souls."

There is only one thing that saves souls -- Christ on the cross. And we learn this truth by the Holy Spirit through the word of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." -- Psalm 119:160

---

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." -- Psalm 12:6-7

---

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." -- John 17:17

---

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." -- Acts 17:11

---

"Jesus answered and said unto them, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." -- Matthew 22:29

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Nope. See 9,500. (meant to bump you, too, Young Reggie.

[D-fendr]

So, the difference is:

Once again, what we believe is the Church established by Christ vs...

Your Magisterium adds the caveat: “We could be wrong.”

;)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

No, we believe no magisterium nor church on earth is perfect. Fallible men are not perfect. None of them. No popes. No magisteriums. Nada, save Christ Jesus.

[Frumanchu]

Now see, that's the problem, that perhaps I didn't explain very well. How does a Calvinist know they are of the elect for glory? I find this presumption, because Scripture has very little - nothing - to say about the individual being elected to heavenly glory. With that said, how does a person KNOW they are of the "supposed elect for heaven". It is a personal, subjective opinion, not objective. Thus, when a person makes that claim to be of the elect, he has committed to saying he CANNOT POSSIBLY FALL AWAY.

I never said that such assurance was anything BUT subjective. The only way to have objective assurance is to have direct knowledge of God's election, which no man has. The Calvinist's assurance of his election is the logical conclusion of the subjective assurance of their salvation. It's not as though the Calvinist says, "I know I'm one of the elect, therefore I know I'm saved." It's quite the opposite: I know I am saved, therefore I know I am numbered among the elect.

Likewise, the assurance of perseverance is simply put in this syllogism:

Premise 1: I know I am saved
Premise 2: God preserves all who are saved in their salvation
Conclusion: I know I will be preserved in my salvation

No non-sequitar here. The minute a Calvinist makes that claim, they have overriden the Sovereign will of God, who can now no longer send a person to eternal damnation because the Calvinist has said so... God is no longer sovereign, the Calvinist is.

No, friend...it is you putting forth a non-sequitor. The Calvinist does not claim that the elect will be saved regardless of the sovereign will of God. They affirm that the elect will be saved according to the will of God. Furthermore, it is not the mere claim of being elect that carries the certainty of salvation, it is the fact of it. Again, it is impossible for anyone to have any assurance of salvation (and thus of their election) beyond their own.

Although OTHER Christians can lose their inheritance and fall away, "most" Calvinists can not, because they have said so.

Again, non-sequitor proceeding from the previous error. The belief of a Reformed Christian (or anyone else) that they are numbered among the elect can only be a deductive conclusion based on their subjective assurance of their salvation. Election is not a "name it and claim it" doctrine in the Reformed church, friend :)

More double-talk, excuse me. The non-believer? At what point on the 'belief scale' does one leave the 'non-believer' zone and become a 'believer who cannot fall'?

This is where your inexperience or ignorance of Reformed doctrine really shows. A non-believer becomes a believer when he/she is regenerated and quickened to faith by the Holy Spirit. They are justified at the point of faith, sealed unto the day of redemption, and sanctified unto their ultimate glorification in and with Christ. Saving faith is saving faith. It is either present or it is not.

This is an artificial definition that ignores the fact that WE do not judge whether we are going to heaven, nor do we KNOW the absolute criteria that God will use to determine whether our faith was manifested properly by our love.

Your answer belies the gospel you preach. Our salvation does not ultimately rest upon the extent to which we manifested our faith properly by our love. Our salvation rests in the person and work of Christ alone. Faith is the instrumental means by which we are justified on the basis of HIS righteousness and our sins are expiated. The works which necessarily will proceed forth are the outworking of that faith being manifest. They are result of faith, not the substance of it. Which human while still alive CANNOT deceive themselves? Are Calvinists immune to self-deception? Hardly.

I never said anyone was incapable of or immune to such self-deception, nor does the confession which I quoted maintain such a thing.

A person may have firm belief that they are elect - living the faith for 20 years - and then fall away. That is reality. Now, during that 20 years, did this Calvinist believe they were without doubt of the elect? Well, they deceived themselves, making the whole idea of self-election faulty.

"Self-election?" How many times can I explain that we don't "elect ourselves" and that the Reformed do not teach such a thing? That is precisely why the confessions say that such personal assurance is possible but is neither guaranteed nor an essential part of saving faith.

Friend, you are really not seeing the whole picture of the Reformed view of salvation.

[D-fendr]

That’s pretty much what I said: Your church believes it could be wrong.

It includes other churches in ‘could be wrong’ too, but I don’t see that as a good point.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights!

I believe the physical can be identified in all, or most, of their sacraments. Also the claim of Apostolic Succession (the foundation of their claimed authority) in addition to being a historic lineage is supposed to impart special powers because of the physical act of laying on of hands. The worship practices of lighting candles, bowing down to statues, putting holy water on when entering church all have physical characteristics to them.

All of these acts empower the idea that for the individual's salvation they must do certain physical acts.

I see the tendency to view spiritual matters through a physical lens as early as the Didache (circa 100) – emphasis mine:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism

1. And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. 2. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. 3. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Compare the above understanding of living water to Scripture:

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) – John 7:38-39

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. – Jeremiah 2:13

No wonder the doctrine of transubstantiation!

And no wonder the dispute in the Reformation, laying aside the doctrines and traditions of the Catholic Church to look only to the words of God for guidance!

[D-fendr]

The Westminster Confession of Faith is simply a compendium of agreed-upon principles and beliefs written by mere mortals who could have erred,

Not exactly inspiring confidence here..

thus the requirement for supporting each statement with the only words that are inerrant -- Holy Scripture, the words of God.

Well we've seen what mere mortal Episcopalians can do with this part..

From here it seems the authorities of your Confession wish not to seem to authoritarian about it while claiming to have greater authority from scripture which gave them no such authority.

It's interesting that it was created by parliment, government, and was influenced by the king, which I thought would be a bad thing for Protestants.

[D-fendr]

I can’t seem to find it online, perhaps you can help: Do you have any idea how many churches/members still use this confession?

[HarleyD]

The Calvinist's assurance of his election is the logical conclusion of the subjective assurance of their salvation.

Amen!!

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

We rest upon the scriptural promise that what God has spoken, He will fulfil it. The more one moves away from the word of God, the more doubts one has about their salvation. It's a matter of trust.

[Alamo-Girl]

Neither the magisterium nor the traditions of men "contribute to the salvation of souls."

There is only one thing that saves souls -- Christ on the cross. And we learn this truth by the Holy Spirit through the word of God.

Indeed. The messenger (apostle, council, magisterium, evangelist, prophet, missionary, minister, priest, teacher, etc.) does not control the power of God.

The messenger is nothing – the power of God is Jesus Christ and only the Holy Spirit reveals Him.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. – Matt 3:9

I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. – John 15:5

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. – I Cor 1:24

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

Men and angels desire to proclaim Christ. But Christ is only proclaimed by the Holy Spirit.

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. - I Cor 12:3

And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and [unto] magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. - Luke 12:11-12

That God chooses to use any of us in this ministry of the Holy Spirit is an honor which cannot be purchased, acquired, earned, sold or transferred. (Acts 8:18-24)

Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see [him] not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls.

Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. – 1 Peter 1:9-12

Beware the hirelings.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. – John 10:1-15

To God be the glory!