Posted on 08/01/2010 1:39:03 PM PDT by marshmallow
It is really quite interesting how little sometimes our respective communions know about each other: a friend of mine, a convert Anglo-Catholic priest, now a Roman Catholic priest, was, soon after he had made his decision, carefully shown by a kind old lady how to make the sign of the cross. He hadn’t the heart to break it to her that he had been making the sign of the cross for years. I recall my surprise, even shock, as a boy when I discovered that Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed; how, I wondered, could they say ‘I believe in one, holy catholic and apostolic church’ and not be, well, Catholic?
I have seen many preconceptions the other way. A lady Methodist minister, attending Mass for the first time, was surprised indeed to find that it wasn’t all about Mary. There are very many non-Catholics who still fervently believe that Catholic laity are forbidden the scriptures. A Jehovah’s Witness that I met asserted that, to this day, Catholics must listen to sermons in Latin, it being forbidden to preach in the vernacular. That I denied this was proof to him of the mendacity of Catholics.
But there are other, less dramatic, mis-expectations. An Anglo-Catholic priest who is considering the Ordinariate option very seriously emailed to me the other day ‘I’m glad you do sometimes have fun across the Tiber there. I was trying to reconcile myself to doing without fun.’ It reminded me very acutely of my first encounter with the late Canon Brian Brindley. It was in December 1992, or thereabouts, and I was having lunch with a friend in a restaurant, and said friend nudged me and said ‘That’s Canon Brindley over there: he’s going to become a Catholic over this women priests thing.’ It turned out that my friend, also a convert, though of longer standing, knew Brian. When he had finished his meal, the larger than life Brian Brindley stopped by our table to greet my friend, and was introduced to me.
‘Well, Father, I expect you will see me soon at your church; I shall come to the earliest and lowest Mass I can find; after all, nothing’s going to be fun any more.’
I said, of course, that I hoped that would not prove to be the case, and, several years later, Brian, by now a good friend, admitted to me that it had all in fact been great fun; though not in the way that he expected. He enjoyed being a Roman Catholic, though it was a different experience from what he had been used to, and certainly from what he had been expecting. He had made a lot of new friends and had a lot of fun with them, and discovered that the Church of Rome was not a grim totalitarian monolith where everything was forbidden until it was compulsory.
I suppose there are swings and roundabouts. There is not the fun to be gained from being ‘naughty’ in terms of ritual, I suppose, which reminds me of an incident in Mgr Ronald Knox’s life. He was charged with having just had fun at the Church of England’s expense while still in Anglican orders. He was stung, and replied along the lines of ‘not at all; we were all in deadly earnest. But you won’t convince me that it wasn’t fun doing it’.
Liturgical frivolity, I suppose, is not really a feature in our life. But there are compensations. The fraternity among the clergy is much stronger and much more supportive, something akin, perhaps, to the SSC, except that it embraces all the clergy. Apart from the natural antipathies which occur in all walks of life, there is a much stronger interrelationship between clergy working in an area. Differences of views are not nearly as marked as those found in the Church of England, and not nearly as marked as I think you might think. Were you to judge an average diocese by, say Damian Thompson’s blog, you might believe that we were all at each other’s throats. Not at all: there is basic agreement on all the important things with ninety-five per cent of one’s brethren. Differences tend to be those of approach or liturgical style, which subjects tend not to get the blood boiling or make one want to avoid the other.
Part of the reason for this is the practice of incardination; priests live and work in one diocese for their entire careers. This means that they have known their colleagues since seminary and tend to have an underlying affection even when there are differences. The predominance of celibacy among the clergy also means that we tend to regard each other as family. Bishops are far less remote than in the Church of England; I would have no difficulty simply ringing up my bishop for a chat or for some advice; an Anglican friend tells me that that would be unheard of in his Anglican diocese.
On the other hand, I understand that the ‘flying bishops’ have done much to break down barriers—the affection with which Bishop Barnes writes about his clergy is edifying.
As regards the laity, I think the biggest change for people is suddenly belonging to a much bigger operation. I read somewhere recently on an Anglican blog that ‘Anglicans go to church, Catholics go to Mass’; this was to stress the rather congregational focus of Anglicanism; this will not be the case over the Tiber. Catholics tend to identify much more strongly with ‘being Catholic’ than ‘being a member of St Disibod’s’. It sets up all sorts of currents through one’s daily life; suddenly one finds that one has fellow Catholics among ones workmates and this immediately sets up a special bond. You notice others with a smudge on their forehead on Ash Wednesday, and suddenly find that you have more in common with somebody from the other side of the world than with your next-door neighbour.
Going to confession is another suprise for converts. I suppose most Ordinariate members will normally go to their own priests, but many have remarked at their surprise—perhaps shock would not be too strong a word—at the, literally, short shrift they get from ordinary Roman Catholic priests. We do not do spiritual direction in the confessional—in fact, I and many others disapprove of the practice, because of the nature of the seal of the confessional. Talking of other matters under the seal puts a strain on the priest to remember exactly where he heard something, and worry as to whether he can refer to it or not, and to whom. Confession is for sins, a couple of sentences of advice, penance, absolution, and that’s it. Spiritual Direction is for armchairs and a mug of something nice.
No doubt others of you who are familiar with this journey will be able to contribute your own experiences of familiarity and unfamiliarity that might help others on the same road. Although Ordinariates will have their own life, those of you who join one will almost certainly find yourselves joining and being part of a large mainstream which, I pray, will be an entirely positive, and joyful, experience.
“I wondered, could they say ‘I believe in one, holy catholic and apostolic church’ and not be, well, Catholic? “
I think all Christians believe, and most state, that they believe in one holy catholic apostolic church.
You might note that “catholic” is a small c. We aren’t confessing in one holy Roman Catholic church. There is a difference.
As defined thus:
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
I do believe in one holy apostolic catholic church. It consists of all true believers from Abel to present; hopefully including Adam and Eve? In short I don’t believe my local congregation to be the only believers on the planet.
So I don’t find our belief in one holy apostolic catholic church to be inconsistent at all.
The Church that is catholic is Catholic. No Protestant sect can be catholic.
Vladimir,
“Catholic” means one thing; “catholic” means another.
Choose any dictionary if you don’t want to believe me. The example I gave from Scientific American is not describing the including of formulas and constants in the Roman Catholic church.
You wrote:
““Catholic” means one thing; “catholic” means another.
Choose any dictionary if you don’t want to believe me. The example I gave from Scientific American is not describing the including of formulas and constants in the Roman Catholic church.”
I did not say that the words meant the same thing. I said only one body possessed the quality in question. Only one Church is catholic - and that is the Catholic Church. I am not surprised that you ignored what I actually said and instead insisted on a point no one was contesting. Classic Protestant misdirection: silly, ineffective and transparent.
I agree that only one church is catholic. But by “one church,” I don’t mean one heirarchical entity. I don’t think it is my denomination alone; nor any other denomination alone; but all who truly trust in Christ for salvation.
I believe even the Roman Catholic church has officially stated that people outside the Roman Catholic church can be saved.
If I am wrong, I’m sure you will correct me.
You wrote:
“I agree that only one church is catholic. But by “one church,” I don’t mean one heirarchical entity. I don’t think it is my denomination alone; nor any other denomination alone; but all who truly trust in Christ for salvation.”
The Catholic Church is not a denomination.
“I believe even the Roman Catholic church has officially stated that people outside the Roman Catholic church can be saved.”
Can be, yes. But there is stil only Church that is catholic - and that Church is the Catholic Church.
“If I am wrong, I’m sure you will correct me.”
Yep.
What we have here is a difference of opinion.
You and I both think there is only one catholic church. You think it’s the Roman Catholic church. I think it’s all who trust in Christ for salvation.
As for correcting me, does or does not the official Roman Catholic doctrine teach that people outside the Roman Catholic church can be saved? That’s what I was seeking correction on.
If they teach you can be saved outside of the RC church, then apparently, people outside of the one holy Roman catholic apostolic church can be saved; which begs the question, why have a church at all?
I do believe we should indeed have a church, formal, with sacraments and so forth; I am just pointing out the logical consequence of saying on the one hand the Roman Catholic church is the only church; yet you can be saved if you are outside of it.
I say there is only one catholic church, consisting of all believers over all of time; and you can’t be saved if you are outside of it.
You wrote:
“What we have here is a difference of opinion.”
Nope. We are disagreeing about facts. Protestants often push a relativistic tact when they don’t like the facts.
“You and I both think there is only one catholic church. You think it’s the Roman Catholic church. I think it’s all who trust in Christ for salvation.”
No. There is only one catholic Church and it is the Catholic Church. Show me where I said anything about “Roman Catholic church” in this thread? The very term is a Protestant invention. I am not a Protestant and am not beholden to Protestant terminology, but to the truth.
“As for correcting me, does or does not the official Roman Catholic doctrine teach that people outside the Roman Catholic church can be saved?”
Show me where I said the Catholic Church did not teach that some nor formally in the Church might not be saved. Can you do that? No, you can’t. My statement in the last post was clear: “Can be, yes. But there is stil only Church that is catholic - and that Church is the Catholic Church.”
“That’s what I was seeking correction on.”
Can you read? Did I not make a clear declarative statement?
“If they teach you can be saved outside of the RC church, then apparently, people outside of the one holy Roman catholic apostolic church can be saved; which begs the question, why have a church at all?”
Because that is the agency of salvation on earth. The Church is necessary for salvation - it preaches the gospel and baptizes. Catholics just do not believe that those not formally in it are automatically damned.
“I do believe we should indeed have a church, formal, with sacraments and so forth; I am just pointing out the logical consequence of saying on the one hand the Roman Catholic church is the only church; yet you can be saved if you are outside of it.”
I don’t think you even understand the “logical consequence”. 1) Presumption that you will be saved is not a good thing. 2) God sent the Church and you don’t have what it has unless you have the Church.
“I say there is only one catholic church, consisting of all believers over all of time; and you can’t be saved if you are outside of it.”
You’re outside of the Church. Christ sent it. You’re outside of it.
All of us are called to share in Christ's redemptive work, are we not? Isn't that what evangelism is all about? Besides, it's obvious from the Scriptures that Mary co-operated in the Redemption in a special way: the Redeemer was her child, after all.
What "co-" doesn't mean is "equal to". It comes from the Latin cum, meaning "with".
The perpetual virginity of Mary
Luther and Calvin both believed in it.
If prayer be a form of worship
It isn't the sine qua non of worship. Offering sacrifice is; you can "pray" (ask, beseech) any superior person, but you only offer sacrifice to a deity.
We are invited to participate via evangelism, but not author [so-to-speak] redemption. People are not saved by [faith in/on] James, Ralf, or Dave... but Jesus, and Jesus alone.
Isn't that what evangelism is all about?
Evangelism is, simply put, "sharing the good news." It would be like if you were named the year's top sci-fi author [after years of writing sci-fi but, seemingly, getting nowhere]; you'd be ecstatic and want to tell people, right? While this could qualify as 'sharing in Christ's redemptive work,' I am a bit hesitant to do so because it [wrongly] opens the door to a semi-plausible explanation of Mary as a "co-redemptrix." I am flat-out against that; it is analogous to saying "Mary is co-author of our redemption."
Besides, it's obvious from the Scriptures that Mary co-operated in the Redemption in a special way: the Redeemer was her child, after all.
Co-operating is not the same as co-authoring; Abraham co-operated and it was counted to him as Righteousness. To "throw down your idol" I'll quote Jesus' rebuke to the Israelites over their pride in being Abraham's seed [Mat 3:9]: "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."
Paraphrased; "I tell you: God could raise up out of stones a mother for the Christ."
>>The perpetual virginity of Mary
Luther and Calvin both believed in it.
So? I'm sure that they believed a bunch of incorrect things, just as I'm sure that I do; Paul put it this way[1 Corinthians 13:12]: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
>>if prayer be a form of worship
It isn't the sine qua non of worship. Offering sacrifice is; you can "pray" (ask, beseech) any superior person, but you only offer sacrifice to a deity.
This is why I qualified it with the if-statement; it is true that 'pray' can mean ask/beseech. However, that is certainly not what the Mede/Persian king in the story of "Daniel in the Lion's Den" referred to when he made it a law "that anyone who prays to any god or man during the next thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into the lions' den." If that were the case, than anyone during that time who asked for a drink of water from someone else would be tossed into the lion's den... effectively that rendition of 'pray' would make everyone guilty of capital offense, not just Daniel whom the law was targeting.
“We are disagreeing about facts”
We are disagreeing as to what the facts are. You say the fact is, the Roman Catholic Church is the only real church. I say it is not. We can’t both be right.
“Roman Catholic Church. . . is a Protestant invention.”
It most certainly is not!
You admit a person can be saved if they are not members of the Roman Catholic church. On this point, we agree.
“1) Presumption that you will be saved is not a good thing. “
Jesus told me to trust Him. Shall I refuse? He said if I believe and am baptized, I will be saved. Shall I deny His words?
“2) God sent the Church and you don’t have what it has unless you have the Church.”
God sent His Son. His Son set up the church. Some local bodies adhered better to His scriptural instructions than others. Obviously I think the Protestants do a better job; you think the Roman Catholics do a better job.
“You’re outside of the Church. Christ sent it. You’re outside of it.”
You, Vladimir, do not hold the keys of the kingdom. You have not looked into the Lamb’s Book of Life. You do not have the authority to declare me outside of the body of Christ. I have elders, duly ordained and appointed, who are responsible and accountable for my walk with Christ. You are not one of them. You therefore have no authority to declare this.
You wrote:
“There are several Catholic doctrines that are very troubling for me:”
Very clearly the problem is NOT the doctrines, but your understanding of them.
“Mary as “co-redemptrix” with Jesus — This directly contradicts Acts 4:12 which says: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” {The ‘co-’ indicates a sharing of the position.}”
Nope. It does not indicate someone doing the very work of salvation. It indicates that she was a handmaid - just as she said she would be - to the Lord in what He wanted done.
As Mark Miraville wrote:
“What does “Co-redemptorix” not mean in the teachings of the Catholic Church? It does not mean that Mary is a goddess, taht she is the fourth person of the Trinity, that she in any way possesses a divine nature, that she is in any fashion not a creature completely dependent upon her Creator like all other creatures.” http://books.google.com/books?id=TopuWlNqBxUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+miravalle+%22co%22&source=bl&ots=SHM9qMnckb&sig=P2fNE8u1K0-Z5Wp0NxkTKjT6GLY&hl=en&ei=3dZWTNjEEcL58AaCiNCNBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=co&f=false
You can read many pages of that book online. You might want to.
“The perpetual virginity of Mary — Besides several passages wherein Jesus’s siblings are mentioned, there is also Matthew 1:25 which says [regarding Joseph] “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.””
Sorry, but that too is an error in understanding on your part: 1) siblings do not have to come from the same mother, nor in ancient cultures does the use of the word necessarily mean blood brothers as opposed to cousins; 2) Matthew 1:25’s use of “until” implies no difference afterward. This too was common usage in ancient languages but is rather absent from modern English.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
“Praying to Mary, angels, and/or Saints. — If prayer be a form of worship, then the words spoken to John and related in Revelation [22:9] are quite applicable: “Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.””
Prayer is not always a form of adoration. The word prayer means to ask. When I worship/adore God I worship/adore God. When I ask the saints for intercession, I ask the saints for intercession. I have never adored a saint nor will I.
You wrote:
“We are disagreeing as to what the facts are.”
I know the facts. You are contesting them. We are not arguing as to what the facts might be. You are contesting that that facts are not factual. That is an entirely different matter. It is shown in what happened here:
I wrote: “Show me where I said anything about “Roman Catholic church” in this thread? The very term is a Protestant invention. I am not a Protestant and am not beholden to Protestant terminology, but to the truth.”
Notice I made several important points: 1) I never used the phrase “Roman Catholic Church”, 2) I pointed out the FACT that the term “Roman Catholic Church” is a Protestant invention – which it is, 3) I pointed out that I am not beholden to Protestant terminology, but only to the truth.
Now, how did you treat those three points? How did you related them? You posted this:
“Roman Catholic Church. . . is a Protestant invention.”
I said “term” and “terminology”. You dropped all of that. That is a kind of mendacity that is all too common among Protestant posters.
You then wrote, “It most certainly is not!”
Yeah, actually it is. Check the Oxford English Dictionary – the full set – and you’ll see that I am absolutely correct and your position is indefensible. Again, I have the facts and you are contesting them. We are not arguing over what might be factual. I already have the facts and you are denying them. It’s just that simple.
“You say the fact is, the Roman Catholic Church is the only real church. I say it is not. We can’t both be right.”
You are wrong on two counts: 1) I never said it was the only REAL church. Again, we see Protestant mendacity there in the invention of things that no one here claimed. Why stoop to that level? My words are plain enough. 2) If you are implying that I believe the Catholic Church is the only Church sent by God, that is most certainly true. Not only is it that we can’t both be right, but it is certain that only you can be wrong if you’re going to say things I never claimed.
“You admit a person can be saved if they are not members of the Roman Catholic church. On this point, we agree.”
Can be. One should never be presumptuous, however, and all of Protestantism is presumption.
“Jesus told me to trust Him. Shall I refuse?”
No, I think you should start trusting Him right away. One way to do that is to be faithful to the Church He sent rather than a sect created 1500 or 1900 years later.
“ He said if I believe and am baptized, I will be saved. Shall I deny His words?”
I think you already do deny His words. You’re a Protestant.
“God sent His Son. His Son set up the church.”
Is Christ not God? I said Christ sent the Church. Are you denying Christ is God?
“Some local bodies adhered better to His scriptural instructions than others. Obviously I think the Protestants do a better job; you think the Roman Catholics do a better job.”
The Catholic Church is the Church. Protestants have sects invented by men and fractured by men.
“You, Vladimir, do not hold the keys of the kingdom.”
No, I do not hold the keys. The pope does.
“You have not looked into the Lamb’s Book of Life.”
I do not have to look into the Book of Life to know a sect from 1520 or 2003 or anytime recently is merely a sect of men.
“You do not have the authority to declare me outside of the body of Christ.”
I need no authority to do so. You yourself have made it plain that you are not in the Church. I do not deny your feelings, but your feelings mean exactly squat when compared to reality. The reality is undeniable: you are in a sect and not the Church.
“ I have elders, duly ordained and appointed, who are responsible and accountable for my walk with Christ.”
They were not ordained or appointed by anyone sent by God or His Apostles. Tomorrow, if you wanted, you could set up a sect and call it the “Sect of What’s Happening Now” and start “duly” ordaining and appointing anyone you liked. There will be no difference in authority between your sect and the one you came from since neither one has any “duly” given authority from God or His Apostles.
“You are not one of them. You therefore have no authority to declare this.”
By all logic I must have as much authority as anyone in your sect since no one in your sect has authority! In reality, however, I have as much authority as anyone needs to admit that that which is false – any sect – is, in fact, false.
As obviously my rejection of Gnosticism is due to my understanding thereof.
Let's place those doctrines, and my supposed [lack of understanding thereof on hold for a second to ask this question:
Was Mary, mother of Jesus, sinless?
You wrote:
“As obviously my rejection of Gnosticism is due to my understanding thereof.”
No. Your understanding of Gnosticism may be well grounded. From what you wrote I cannot conclude that your understanding of the Catholic faith is.
“Let’s place those doctrines, and my supposed [lack of understanding thereof on hold for a second to ask this question: Was Mary, mother of Jesus, sinless?”
Yes, through God’s grace she was. Now, what most Protestants who assume they know all about the Catholic faith but actually don’t understand scripture, or tradition or the Catholic faith do at this point is bring up Romans 3:23. Was that what you were going to do next? Be honest. Was it? I’ll just post this to cut that off at the pass.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/all-have-sinned-mary.html
>>“Let’s place those doctrines, and my supposed [lack of understanding thereof on hold for a second to ask this question: Was Mary, mother of Jesus, sinless?”
>
>Yes, through God’s grace she was. Now, what most Protestants who assume they know all about the Catholic faith but actually don’t understand scripture, or tradition or the Catholic faith do at this point is bring up Romans 3:23. Was that what you were going to do next? Be honest. Was it?
That did come to mind; but I’m on a slightly different track. Why was Mary sinless? If sin-nature is hereditary, and all Paul’s writing indicates that he thought so, then were Mary’s parents sinless? If they were not sinless, why was she, who aside from being the woman God chose to bear His son, any different than any other woman born to sinful parents?
Point is, if Jesus could only be born via a sinless woman, who by nature must be human, then it stands to reason that there was a whole lineage (Mary’s) which was sinless. If there was a whole sinless lineage then that lineage would neither need a savior nor need to repent; however, we know that Mary’s lineage includes [king] David, who was an adulterer and therefore sinned.
So, I can safely conclude that Mary was *not* of a sinless lineage; this brings up the question of why she should be sinless when her fore-bearers were sinful. With Jesus this is plainly evident, the sin-nature is inherited from the father and therefore a sinful mother need not be impactful on the Nature of the Son. {It’s pure speculation on my part; but maybe since Jesus was tempted, and born of a woman, who like Eve was tempted the Devil’s temptation-ability on humanity is inherited through the mother.}
You wrote:
“That did come to mind; but I’m on a slightly different track. Why was Mary sinless?”
Ask her Son.
“If sin-nature is hereditary, and all Paul’s writing indicates that he thought so, then were Mary’s parents sinless?”
No, there’s no reason to believe they were sinless.
“If they were not sinless, why was she, who aside from being the woman God chose to bear His son, any different than any other woman born to sinful parents?”
Christ created her (John 1) and thus made her to His desire, and to her everlasting holiness, perfect in grace. What gift would you give your mother if you could create her? Tupperware?
“Point is, if Jesus could only be born via a sinless woman, who by nature must be human, then it stands to reason that there was a whole lineage (Mary’s) which was sinless.”
Actually no. You’re wrong on two points. 1) Jesus’ holiness was not dependent on mary’s so he could have been born of a woman who was sinful if He chose to. 2) Mary’s sinlessness was not dependent upon her lineage. It was dependent upon a singular gift of God’s grace.
“If there was a whole sinless lineage then that lineage would neither need a savior nor need to repent;”
Since no one is conjecturing that there was such a lineage except you it would seem the point is moot to begin with.
“however, we know that Mary’s lineage includes [king] David, who was an adulterer and therefore sinned.”
Again, since no one is conjecturing that there was such a lineage except you it would seem the point is moot to begin with.
“So, I can safely conclude that Mary was *not* of a sinless lineage;”
Again, since no one is conjecturing that there was such a lineage except you it would seem the point is moot to begin with. You’re wasting a lot of time refuting a theory no one actually believes in since no one says what you proposed about Mary’s lineage.
“this brings up the question of why she should be sinless when her fore-bearers were sinful.”
Actually it doesn’t. She was singular in her role and devotion. Therefore, she could be given a singular gift.
“With Jesus this is plainly evident, the sin-nature is inherited from the father and therefore a sinful mother need not be impactful on the Nature of the Son. {It’s pure speculation on my part;”
Boy, is it ever.
“but maybe since Jesus was tempted, and born of a woman, who like Eve was tempted the Devil’s temptation-ability on humanity is inherited through the mother.}”
Your conjectures are your own. You spend a lot of time attacking that which you apparent do not know. You even go to the great trouble of inventing straw men theories.
Boy, is it ever.
“but maybe since Jesus was tempted, and born of a woman, who like Eve was tempted the Devil’s temptation-ability on humanity is inherited through the mother.}”
Your conjectures are your own. You spend a lot of time attacking that which you apparent do not know. You even go to the great trouble of inventing straw men theories.
First off, I owned up to my own conjectures and stated them as such.
Second, your response is little more than an arrogant and bigoted pile of dung as far as either argument or instruction is concerned. (As per Dictionary.com, Bigoted: "Utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.").
James has something to say:
Two Kinds of Wisdom
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
Submit Yourselves to God
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble.
Your responses show you to be neither peace-loving, nor considerate, nor submissive [to the authority of Scripture], nor full of mercy and good fruit, nor impartial.
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.