Biblical inconsistency?

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

[Salvation]

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

Msgr. Charles Pope

7/25/2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[daniel1212]

There are excellent books outside of the Bible itself.

Which does not answer the questions.

[daniel1212]

Sorry. I’m not a believer in sola scriptura.

Which does nor answer the questions. Catholics who deny sola scriptura try hard to justify Catholic traditions by Scripture, while what was also asked was your basis for assurance that Catholic teaching is True. Is it based on the weight of evidential warrant, as with us (though your trusted sources are broader), or the conditional ensured veracity of your church?

[daniel1212]

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It's right there in the Bible, MM.

So this "verily, verily" imperative must mean baptism is absolutely necessary for the salvation of one? Or what wiggle room must you employ?

[daniel1212]

Actually, you are missing one thing that verifies the Biblical text: prophetic writings.

No, I was not missing that, as such is included under evidential warrant.

[daniel1212]

Without original sin, some people can get to heaven without Jesus.

No, that does not follow. It is often repeated in Scripture that one is not condemned due to what they are not culpable for, (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20) Also in the judgement seat of Christ believers will be accountable for "the things done in his body," according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Corinthians 5:10)

Moreover, the stated requirement for baptism is penitent whole-hearted faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) which the morally in cognizant cannot and need not choose to do, as they are not culpable of sin.

Yet this does not translate into some people getting to heaven without Jesus, which is impossible, (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12) but with God all things are, and if the Lord Jesus prayed "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," (Luke 23:34) though in this case they made cognizant moral choices, though ignorant of them being evil, so also on His account the Lord can obtain acceptance of morally incognizant innocent souls, even of those aborted who could not be baptized.

That at least, is how I see it can happen. To the glory of God.

[daniel1212]

But baptism can’t erase the the sin nature, only the new birth can take care of that.

Well, i can only wish the new birth can took care of my sin nature, since it is all to present. Instead, while being accepted in the Beloved on His account, and new creatures in Christ, the sin nature still needs to be mortified. (Col . 3 is the way we ought to be). But i am sure you believe that.

Water is not the thing that deals with sin. It’s only the shedding of blood that can take away any si

Indeed. It is the faith that is behind baptism that purifies the heart in the washing of regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47[ 15:7-9; Titus 3:5)

[kosciusko51]

My apologies. It is implied in your statement, but not explicitly mentioned.

[rwa265]

The concept of baptism is a different matter. You averred that the concept of original sin is not taught in scripture. In Romans 5:12-21, Paul writes that “by one man sin entered into the world” and “by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” As I mentioned, I am not sure what your understanding of what original sin is, but this teaching of Paul is my understanding of original sin.

[nobamanomore]

Once again proving my observation about Protestants, even when they are wrong and obviously lying about what Catholics believe, they won’t admit it.

On top of that, I am pretty certain you knew it was a lie when you posted it.

[nobamanomore]

and Protestants have a denomination for every rule, with no documents to back up anything. On top of that, if you don’t agree with any of them, get a bible and a collection plate and start your own. That’s pretty special!

[nobamanomore]

would you agree with the following?

Nowhere in the NT does it say that scripture is the sole source of teaching.

I do remember this one, however taken from your KJV
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

[metmom]

Catholicism just labels its denominations are *rites* and voila, *Catholic unity*.

No different than renaming divorce as *annulment* and voila, (allegedly) sin free breaking of the marriage vows. Church sanctioned divorce.

Catholicism has got a real market on relabeling stuff and excusing in themselves what they condemn in others.

[metmom]

Why did you change the subject instead of answering her question?

[metmom]

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?

How do you know?

How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?

How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?

What is your source for verifying all of the above?

Please provide the sources for verification purposes.

[nobamanomore]

Sure, how many rites are there?

How can you criticize annulment process when protestants don’t care how many times you’re married, nor whether you ever confess adultery, or ever stop doing it.

If you ever went through the annulment process, you would know the difference between divorce and annulment.

Protestantism has a real market in starting new denominations for fun and profit! Lots of profit!

Reflecting a recent trend, 40% of the more than 1,500 mega churches in North America and a majority of the hundred largest churches are unaffiliated denominations.

Bishop Jakes lives in a $1.7 million mansion, he has been called America’s best preacher and has featured on the cover of TIME Magazine. He is a writer, preacher and movie producer.

He is the pastor of the Potter’s House, a non-denominational American mega church with 30, 000 members located in Dallas, Texas. TD Jakes wear custom made suits and a diamond ring the size of a coin

He runs Kenneth Copeland ministries, one of several televangelists whose finances were investigated from 2007 to 2011 by Republican Sen. Grassley of Lowa.

According to an article that run by the associated press that ran in 2008. ‘’His ministry is 1500-acre campus, behind an iron gate a half-hour drive from forth worth includes a church, a private airstrip, a hangar for the ministries $17.5 million jet and other aircraft, and a $ 6 million church owned lake-mansion.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think the market is with the non-denominational church of make my Escalade payment.

[ealgeone]

Once again proving my observation about Protestants, even when they are wrong and obviously lying about what Catholics believe, they won’t admit it.

I remind you that accusing a fellow freeper of lying is a no-no on Free Republic.

However, what I said was not a lie regarding the thief on the cross invalidating Rome's false position on baptism being necessary for salvation.

It was the man's faith in Christ that saved him....not baptism as he could not be baptized. Hence, Rome's position is invalidated through the Word.

The CCC is clear that baptism is necessary for salvation [per Rome though not the NT]. However, reading on further, and this is what Rome has to do when it departs from Scripture, we see several caveats.

But before we do let's examine this little gem in CCC 1257....God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Rome's position says baptism is necessary as it is a sacrament given by God.....but then God is not bound by the very sacrament He gave????

You honestly cannot make this stuff up.....well, I guess Rome can.

God does not contradict Himself. Rome however, does....but not God.

CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

No. The "Church" has not always held this position as it is not a New Testament position.

CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

This one contradicts 1257 (but was not referenced by you).

This is why I said Rome wants to have it both ways.

If as Rome falsely claims baptism is necessary for salvation then one has to be baptized....unless you don't!

CCC 1260 strays even further from the Gospel.

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

There is nothing in the New Testament allowing for this.

The will of God is that we believe in His Son for our salvation.

So no....I was not lying in my post as your falsely accuse...which I guess that means you've committed a mortal sin and are now without any assurance of Heaven unless you can get to your priest, confess, do penance, participate in the Mass. If I were you I'd get to the priest right now.

The New Testament is clear on how we have salvation and forgiveness of sins.

14“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:14-18 NASB

[ealgeone]

Catholicism has got a real market on relabeling stuff and excusing in themselves what they condemn in others.

Boy do they ever!

[Rock N Jones]

I am not seeing a whole lot of conflict between verse 19 and 20.

To rephrase, in verse 19 Jesus warned the Jews that they should keep the law and in verse 30 he railed against the scribes and Pharisees for not keeping it. Frankly I see consistency.

I would like to point out also that the statements in Verses 19 and 20 were made prior to Christ death and resurrection. Christ death to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=CEV

[Biggirl]

Your OPINION only.

[ealgeone]

Bishop Jakes lives in a $1.7 million mansion, he has been called America’s best preacher and has featured on the cover of TIME Magazine. He is a writer, preacher and movie producer. Maybe it’s just me, but I think the market is with the non-denominational church of make my Escalade payment.

A CNN investigation found that at least 10 of the 34 active archbishops in the United States live in buildings worth more than $1 million, according to church and government records.*

Chicago's Cardinal Francis George lives in a pretty fancy crib, too.This mansion has 19 chimneys and sits on 1.7 acres of prime real estate in Chicago's ritzy Gold Coast neighborhood. It's worth $14.3 million "as is," but the property could fetch far more, appraisers told CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/american-archbishops-lavish-homes/index.html

You're not very good at this game.