Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)
Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: apostolic; catholic; fascinatedwcatholics; givemerome; obsessionwithrome; papistsrule; pope; protestant; solascriptura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 6,981-7,0007,001-7,0207,021-7,040 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
To: Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; blue-duncan
I suppose this is how oral tradition works

It's not oral. It's written. And it's not a tradition. We know who used his faith to boast, and we know who corrected him. I was making a rhetorical comment in my little snippet.

7,001 posted on 09/22/2007 7:48:50 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6994 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; kosta50; 1000 silverlings; Forest Keeper; wmfights; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; xzins; ...
kosta50: Being partial, dear doctor or whatever you are, is a negative characteristic in the English language. It is rather synonymous with being one-sided, unfair, prejudiced, and unjust.

We are clay in the Potter's hands. "Equality" seems right to a man, but God's way is just. Emphasis mine:

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? – Romans 9:20-24

But now, O LORD, thou [art] our father; we [are] the clay, and thou our potter; and we all [are] the work of thy hand. – Isaiah 64:8

O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. – Jeremiah 18:6

Jesus' parable illustrates the futility of man's sense of "equality:"

And when they had received [it], they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought [but] one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take [that] thine [is], and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. – Matt 20:11-16

To God be the glory!


7,002 posted on 09/22/2007 8:04:39 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6995 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; Forest Keeper; wmfights; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; xzins; blue-duncan
Sounds to me like you just make this stuff up.

This is pathetic.

Webster's definition of partial (in context)

inclined to favor one party more than the other : BIASED

markedly fond of someone or something

I there is any wonder if the second definition means something positive, look at the synonyms.

Thesaurus: Synonyms: biased, one-sided, partisan, prejudiced

Dictionary.com Unbridged biased or prejudiced in favor of a person, group, side

Synonyms: one-sided, unfair, unjust

American heritage Dictionary Favoring one person or side over another or others; biased or prejudiced

WorldNet Dictionary showing favoritism

Maybe they made this up too? Every other dicitonary I looked at shows "partiality" and being "partial" as everything God is NOT.

God is not "fond" of you. He is just. in His eyes you are either just or you are not. He doesn't love you the way you love Him. He doesn't need you. To Him you are either visible (good) or invisible (evil).

7,003 posted on 09/22/2007 8:15:33 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6995 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Yep

Nope.

7,004 posted on 09/22/2007 8:17:28 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6996 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
FYI I'm partial to chicken and dumplings and apple pie

Thank you for sharing that. Unfortunately, it's out of context. Aren't you the one who said that my quotes were "out of context?" Geez.

7,005 posted on 09/22/2007 8:19:49 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6997 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
FWIW, you notice they didn't follow some highly ritualized practice. It was really simple. They heard the gospel and those that were meant to believed and were saved

Is there anything that says one cannot have a highly ritualized practice when it comes to praising God? We are to pray incessently. Isn't that ritualized? Are you suggesting a DIY "Church?" Do you suggest reading the Bible standing or sitting or lying down? How do you suggest we show praise to the Lord? Waving your hands in the air as if saying "Can You see me now?"

7,006 posted on 09/22/2007 8:27:34 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6999 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; Forest Keeper; wmfights; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; xzins
We are clay in the Potter's hands. "Equality" seems right to a man, but God's way is just

And why is this news being repeated? If you read my entire post 6,995 you would have found the following:

God is not "partial" to those who "worketh good," but just. He is also just to those who "worketh evil." God is always just to everyone.

7,007 posted on 09/22/2007 8:33:19 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7002 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; Forest Keeper; wmfights; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; xzins
God is not "partial" to those who "worketh good," but just. He is also just to those who "worketh evil." God is always just to everyone.

We are just branches. Only God is good. (Matt 19:17)

Whatever good comes of our lives is not us, but God doing His will through us. The works we do on our own are as filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6)

Man taking any credit - seeking any kind of "equitable treatment" for his own works - is a deep spiritual error (emphasis mine:)

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. – I Cor 1:30-31

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 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 15:1-5

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. - Gal 5:22-23

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - Matt 7:15-20

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. – Matthew 7:21-23

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. – I Cor 3:13-15

Our task is to deny ourselves, pick up our cross and follow Christ.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. – Matthew 16:24-25

Love God surpassingly above all else, believe Him, trust Him. Let go and let God.

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Colossians 3:3

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. – Galatians 2:20

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit... For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his... – excerpts from Romans 8

To God be the glory!!!

7,008 posted on 09/22/2007 9:13:02 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7007 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; Forest Keeper; wmfights; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; xzins
Kosta: God is not "partial" to those who "worketh good," but just. He is also just to those who "worketh evil." God is always just to everyone.

A-G: We are just branches. Only God is good. (Matt 19:17) Whatever good comes of our lives is not us, but God doing His will through us. The works we do on our own are as filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6)

I didn't say we "worketh good." It's in Rom 2:10. If you have an issue with "worketh good" work it out with +Paul. He authored that expression.

7,009 posted on 09/22/2007 10:47:42 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7008 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; MarkBsnr; kosta50; Kolokotronis
What I should have said is there are some truths that are far more fundamental to the faith than others. Some truths are the milk, some are the meat. Each of us has to decide where that line is.

As a matter of practicality, the decisions needs to be congruous. If not, the line itself becomes a point of contention.

[...what will you advise them to do? Get sprinkled?]
That's a very fair question and one of the reasons I have not become a Presbyterian.

Ok. What's the other reason?

However, it all goes back to that line. To me the issue of free will is so paramount to the understanding of our faith. This heresy can be traced to just about every major error people hold today or ever held-and that's not an exaggeration.

Free will is the root of most heresies? That's fantastic! No doubt in my mind, the RP are going to love you.

Pick a heresy or a problem the church faces today and I'll trace it back to the idea that man is free; eschatology included.

Ok. I pick chiliasm. :) Knock yourself out.

The church realized for 1900 years that we were the new Israel until someone got some looney idea that God just loves people who rejected His Son and worship a god that is totally foreign to the God revealed in scripture.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could post a reference?

I would rather have a person be sprinkled and to understand God's glorious election and purpose for their life, than to watch people go through life being baptized thinking they were free to bounce around trying to do things to please God.

Is there something else you'd rather they be doing?

7,010 posted on 09/23/2007 5:44:41 AM PDT by monkfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6982 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Looks like you hit a soft spot of the self-defined “elect”.

But then, maybe I’m just partial...


7,011 posted on 09/23/2007 5:54:53 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7003 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Is there anything that says one cannot have a highly ritualized practice when it comes to praising God?

As usual you have missed the point.

Something about vain repetitions.

History has also shown us that those sects which have the most rigid ritualistic practices are also the same sects which were the quickest to persecute Christians who refused to follow their ritualistic practices, or submit to their authority. Also, it seems that the more rigid and ritualistic the sects practices are the less Scriptural knowledge the congregation possess.

7,012 posted on 09/23/2007 6:10:08 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7006 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
History has also shown us that those sects which have the most rigid ritualistic practices are also the same sects which were the quickest to persecute Christians who refused to follow their ritualistic practices

Such as Calvin, Luther, the English "reformers", and the Puritans in America? How many thousands of priests, nuns and ordinary Catholics were killed in Protestant lands during the "Protestant Reformation" by mobs or by the will of the prince? Persecution in England was PARTICULARLY harsh. Ever hear of being "drawn and quartered"? English protesters were especially "fond" of that. Only recently have Catholics been allowed to worship freely there. In ENGLAND, for heaven's sake!

Oh, those loving Protestants...

Be careful of your accusations, brother.

Regards

7,013 posted on 09/23/2007 9:09:33 AM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7012 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
It seems that the more rigid and ritualistic the sects practices are the less Scriptural knowledge the congregation possess.

Apparently, by this formula, the Quakers and the Salvation Army possess the most "Scriptural knowledge" and the Jews knew very little about the Old Testament...

Wow.

7,014 posted on 09/23/2007 9:14:32 AM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7012 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; Forest Keeper; wmfights; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; xzins
I didn't say we "worketh good." It's in Rom 2:10. If you have an issue with "worketh good" work it out with +Paul. He authored that expression.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But your claim requires a thorough revelation from the words of God. Emphasis mine.

First, God’s judgment towards those in the Law v those outside of the Law from Romans 2:

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; For there is no respect of persons with God.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. – Romans 2:1-16

Judgment for those who are under the Law:

Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his [righteousness] in the day that he sinneth.

When I shall say to the righteous, [that] he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; [If] the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.

When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways. – Ezekiel 33:12-20

Those who are in Christ are free from the Law of sin and death:

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9

There is no inconsistency in Scripture!

The bottom line is this: if we try to live by the Law, God will let us and we will fail. The ones who never heard of Christ or the Law will be judged by the law written in their hearts. The ones who are in Christ Jesus are free from the Law.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me]. Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.Romans 7:1-25

Again, Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death:

For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. – Hebrews 9:16-17

No one can be “good enough” – if even one could, then Christ died for nothing:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. – Galatians 2:20-21

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. – Romans 3:1-12

Only Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the Lamb of God, is worthy for the final judgments:

And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four [and] twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four [and] twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. – Revelation 5

Only God is good. The fruits are His not ours. The light is His not ours.

But if anyone wants to try to do good by his own efforts, He'll let him and he will fail because of the Law.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matt 5:18

To God be the glory!

7,015 posted on 09/23/2007 9:36:20 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7009 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
No one can be "good enough" – if even one could, then Christ died for nothing

The bottom line is this: if we try to live by the Law, God will let us and we will fail. The ones who never heard of Christ or the Law will be judged by the law written in their hearts. The ones who are in Christ Jesus are free from the Law.

Only God is good. The fruits are His not ours. The light is His not ours. But if anyone wants to try to do good by his own efforts, He'll let him and he will fail because of the Law.

Amen, A-G! Enough meat for a Sunday sermon! 8~)

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21

7,016 posted on 09/23/2007 9:55:16 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7015 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
The Scripture you chose perfectly sums it up, dear sister in Christ! Thank you! And thank you for your encouragements.
7,017 posted on 09/23/2007 10:22:00 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7016 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl; HarleyD; wmfights; Forest Keeper; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; ...
You know, Kosta, it's just a guess, but maybe you're used to discussing things with people who take your word at face value even when common sense and Scripture say otherwise.

Maybe that's because this is what you've been taught by your church hierarchy -- do as we say and don't question it.

But the funny thing is I didn't find your definition of "partial" as you presented it at dictionary.com.

Imagine that.

PARTIAL (per dictionary.com)

Dictionary.com Unbridged biased or prejudiced in favor of a person, group, side

But you didn't finished that sentence. Surprisingly, you left off half the definition...

"biased or prejudiced in favor of a person, group, side, etc., over another, as in a controversy: a partial witness.

So "partial" is a good thing. Just as Christ is a very partial witness for those who are His.

For emphasis, dictionary.com adds...

"Favoring one person or side over another or others; biased or prejudiced: a decision that was partial to the plaintiff."

So again we see that to be "partial towards someone," even under the rubric of "bias and prejudice," is still a good thing for those who have been so favored.

(Interestingly, also note the judicial context of both examples. Exactly like Scripture and God's perfect judgment of His children by the acquittal won for them by Christ on the cross.)

Further, I didn't find words like "unfair" or "unjust" to define "partial." Those words were used, however, under "Related Forms" for the word "partialness."

Not quite the same thing...

Related forms
par·tial·ly, adverb
par·tial·ness, noun
"Synonyms 1. unfinished, imperfect, limited. 2. one-sided, unfair, unjust.

As you can see, this is referring to a different word -- partialness.

The fact remains that to be "partial" toward someone means to favor them, as God has favored His children by redeeming them from their sins through the blood of Christ.

How does one experience true gratitude if one does not rightly understand God's gift of unmerited grace?

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." -- 1 John 4:10

7,018 posted on 09/23/2007 10:45:36 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7003 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
We know who used his faith to boast, and we know who corrected him.

Your first post regarding James supposed correction of Paul was speculation. It's now morphed into fact.

Hilarious.

7,019 posted on 09/23/2007 10:48:05 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7001 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Alamo-Girl; kosta50

I think he’s not used to dealing with scripture educated Bereans


7,020 posted on 09/23/2007 10:49:05 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7018 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 6,981-7,0007,001-7,0207,021-7,040 ... 13,161-13,166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson