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]

A person does not lose their salvation by sinning, and if they think they do, they are depending on their own works to save them, not the grace of God.

A person does not lose their salvation by sinning, nor obtain salvation by being sinless, but Biblical effectual (not inert, dead) faith appropriates justification, being counted for righteousness, and which is evidenced by obedience by the Spirit.

Thus Scripture warns believers against departing from the faith they once held, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, drawing back to perdition. (Gal. 5:1-5; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39) Which are addressed to believers as applying believers.

Man can take no credit for having and keeping the faith, as It is God who draws, convicts, opens hearts, grants repentance and faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:8; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) and moves us to obey, (Phil.2:13) thus both motivating and enabling us to do what we otherwise could not and would not do. Yet under grace, God rewards faith via recognition of what it effects. (Heb. 10:35; Mt. 25:32-=40)

But man can indeed resist God, (Proverbs 1:24-32) and deny the faith, (1Tim. 5:8) which is what man must take credit for, and will. (Jude 1:15).

[daniel1212]

Going to informing books on the scriptures do much better job than it from a context point of view. There excellent scripture scholarship out there. ☺

You mean like study helps and all the notes in your New American Bible for the past 5 decades?

[daniel1212]

So did His Blessed Mother. What is your basis for assurance that this statement is true? The veracity of your church, or the weight of Scriptural evidence

If the latter, then the burden of proof is upon you to evidence this, seeing as it is simply incongruous that the Holy Spirit would not state that Mary was one of the only persons besides Christ that was sinless, or record perpetual Marian virginity (PMV), seeing that He characteristically records notable exceptions to the norm by even great to lesser characters, from extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), barrenness (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, birth by a virgin (Mary), to Christ being sinless, which is mentioned at least thrice.

[daniel1212]

**may God give you pardon and peace,** Are you calling God’s acts “hogwash?” I certainly hope not.

That is rank sophistry, for metmom was not calling God giving you pardon and peace to be "hogwash," but that God forgets the sin via the absolution said by the priest.

1. Nowhere are NT pastors distinctively called by the distinctive word for a distinctive separate sacerdotal class of believers , ("hiereus" in Greek, and "priests" in English due to a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros), to whom souls regularly came to obtain forgiveness.

Instead, all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

2. Nowhere are NT believers shown regularly confessing sins to their pastors, or ever commanded to do so as a practice. Instead, the only exhortation or command to confess sins is to each other in general, and who can hide a multitude of sins

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:17-20)

Here we see an example of spiritual binding and loosing, in which the heavens were bound from providing rain, and then loosed to do so, whereby believers of like fervent holy faith are encouraged as able to obtain such binding and loosing in prayer.

However, before these verses we see the case of an infirm man in which the intercession of NT pastors (presbuteros) can obtain forgiveness as in deliverance of chastisement (see Mark 2 below), as indicated by James 5:14,15, as can the intercession of believers of fervent holy faith, but pastors are particularly expected to be so.

Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:13-15)

Yet nowhere is the infirm man required to confess his sin, and which in this case is likewise one he is ignorant of, but chastened for. (cf. Mark 2:1-11) Nor is this an example of the Catholic "Last Rites," as healing is what is promised here, while the Catholic Last Rites is normatively a precursor of death.

One can be chastised for unconfessed sins he is not aware of, and mercy can even be requested for those who sinned in ignorance, (Lk. 23:34; Acts 7:60) and we see healing and forgiveness being treated as one thing, for the latter obtained the former. And which was in response to the intercession of the man's friends, and is corespondent to James 5.

And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. (Mark 2:3-12)

In both cases it seems that the afflicted were not aware of the sins that there were under chastisement for, and in neither case was confession of such required, and in both cases intercession obtained deliverance without the separate Catholic sacerdotal class of clergy ("hiereus") being required.

3. Nowhere does any NT pastor teach believers that they need to be confessing their sins to them in particular in order to obtain forgiveness.

Instead, Scripture simply states that,

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

And when Peter charged Simon Magnus with sin, he told him to pray to God himself if perhaps he might be forgiven. However, this does not mean that intercession for mercy cannot be asked of pastors or believers in general, as was also the case here.

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. (Acts 8:22-24)

4. As seen in James 5:16-18, the power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but there are formal judicial actions of binding and loosing, which magisterial judicial power flowed from the OT supreme magisterium, (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) which, as with civil courts, could declare a person guilty of innocent, and even physical bind or loose a person. Likewise a father could bind or loose his daughter who is under his care from her vows, or her husband could could once married. (Numbers 30)

However, premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is novel and unScriptural, and there is no and for binding and loosing judgments to also stand in Heaven (Matthew 18:18) requires them to be in accordance with the known (Scriptural) character and will of God, just as the promise that whatever we pray for will be done must.

Note also that magisterial judicial actions executed under leadership are not autocratic, but in union with all the church overall, following sound and just judgment of leadership.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:16-18)

The formal corporate judicial binding and loosing is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5:

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by the body that was harmed by public sin:

To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

Yet while judicial actions are carried out by the whole church under leadership, that the spiritual power to bind and loose is not restricted to clergy is also evident by what follows Matthew 18:16-18, as it applies to two or three are gathered together in the Lord's name.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18-20)

Therefore while leadership can act in the person of Christ in such judicial and disciplinary cases together with the church, Spirit-filled holy men such as the apostles can also declare one to be bound in sin, as seen before in Acts 8:20-23, and in Acts 5:1-10 (cf. Acts 13:6-12; 1Co. 4:21) and be instruments of Divine judgment.

And this spiritual power is not an endowment of office as if anyone in that office can effectual spiritually execute such, but should be the power of Spirit-filled holy men who are to occupy that office, yet the power of binding and loosing in general is provided for all Spirit-filled holy believers.

However, since there simply is no separate sacerdotal Catholic priesthood in the NT church, no separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively called by the distinctive name for such, whose primary active function is that of offering the erroneous Catholic Eucharist as an offering for sin, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life , then any spiritual power that might belong to the office of NT presbuteros does not apply to them .

5. Outside of the cases such as above, nowhere is clerical intercession or that of anyone required for forgiveness, but the promise that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) means that forgiveness does not require regular confession to clergy, let alone Catholic priests.

[daniel1212]

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

Which is as circular as saying,

Well, how can you be so sure?
Because the Catholic Church says so.
Well then, how do you know that the Catholic Church is 100% correct?
Because the Catholic Church says it (conditionally) cannot err.

In contrast to this circularity, in both cases appeal is made to external evidential warrant, that Scripture is of God, or that the the Catholic Church is, and thereby one knows Scripture is.

The problem with the latter is that in Catholic theology it is taught that one cannot discover the contents of revelation and believe in the Bible and find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in her, as they have to be told what is of God by her.

However, if it is allowed that souls can discover the RCC as being of God before they submit to her, then how that it is not allowed that they can discover Scripture as being so before they submit to her?

And the fact is that long before there was a church of Rome who presumed this, then common people rightly ascertained both men and writings of God as being of God. Even in dissent from the historical magisterium, and which is how the NT church began, contrary to the Catholic model for ascertaining and assurance of Truth (but not contrary to the non-infallible authority of leadership).

[Biggirl]

There are excellent books outside of the Bible itself.

[Luircin]

So in other words, Catholicism says “do this.” While Christ says, “It is finished.”

[rwa265]

The concept of original sin is not taught in Scripture.

---

metmom - I’m not sure what your understanding of the concept of original sin is. My understanding is that which is described by Paul in his letter to the Romans, Chapter 5, verses 12-21.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+5&version=KJV

[ebb tide]

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

[Salvation]

John 3:5

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.

[Luircin]

You seem to be missing out on everything ELSE that talks about salvation, Salvation.

Just picking one verse that agrees with what you already think does not an argument make; you have to answer the counterpoints too.

[Salvation]

Are you saying that you do not believe the words of Jesus?

Oh, my!

[Luircin]

Isn’t that nice. The exact dismissive condescending answer that I expected.

“26Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Do you believe that?

Because that would mean that those filthy nasty Lutherans would be taking part in eternal life.

[Campion]

It is a prohibition against ALL stealing.

All stealing is sinful, and all sin is prohibited.

Do you think a Christian who steals a paperclip is going to hell if he doesn't consciously repent of stealing the paperclip before he dies?

If you answer "no," then you, too, think that stealing a paperclip is a venial sin for Christians.

(You may in fact think that stealing *anything* is a venial sin for Christians, but your objection is not with the idea that stealing something trivial is a venial sin, but with the idea that stealing anything is a mortal sin.)

[Campion]

You can't refute Romans 3:23 in relation to the Immaculate Conception.

That's easy. Read the context. The context is that both Jews and Gentiles are in need of a savior. Any stretching of the verse beyond that is an abuse of Scripture

The point of the verse is not that every single individual has committed an actual sin. Babies who die before the age of reason haven't committed an actual sin, for example.

As for needing a Savior, Mary absolutely needed a Savior. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception asserts that she had one from the first moment of her existence, through the gracious favor of the God who became her son.

[Campion]

The concept of original sin is not taught in Scripture.

Assuming you mean by that that you don't believe in it, you've cleanly discarded Christianity itself.

Without original sin, some people can get to heaven without Jesus. If some people can get to heaven without Jesus, the next apostasy is to assert that all people can get to heaven without Jesus. The next apostasy after that is to assert that Jesus was nobody special.

Yet your rejection of original sin, which makes Protestantism, Catholicism, and to a great degree Orthodoxy into dead letters, will earn no condemnation from the anti-Catholic crowd here.

[ealgeone]

>>It is a prohibition against ALL stealing.<<

All stealing is sinful, and all sin is prohibited.

Do you think a Christian who steals a paperclip is going to hell if he doesn't consciously repent of stealing the paperclip before he dies?

If you answer "no," then you, too, think that stealing a paperclip is a venial sin for Christians.

The commandment is clear....ALL stealing is prohibited. It is the Roman Catholic church who has tried to qualify "bad stealing" vs "ok stealing". That is not supported by the OT or NT.

For the believer in Christ, all of their sins are forgiven....they've been nailed to the cross.

[ealgeone]

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

By your desperate clinging to a piece of cloth to keep you out of the Hell-fire you've demonstrated you're not event a believer in the Gospel.

[ebb tide]

Cross-threading again?

[ealgeone]

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

I guess the thief on the cross is out of luck in your theology.