The Catholic Dogma of Infallibility by Moisés Pinedo

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1521

The Catholic Dogma of Infallibility

by	Moisés Pinedo

When the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA...he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable (Vatican I, 1869b, chap. 4, s. 9).

This is the dogma declared by Pope Pius IX, and approved by the Vatican I Council, in regard to the alleged infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff.
For more than a century, this dogma has pressed greatly upon the shoulders of Catholics, who have worked feverishly to try to harmonize the nature of the infallible dogma with the declarations, teachings, and revelations of the popes who lived before and after the establishment of such a dogma. The truth is that the faithful Catholic does not have the option of rejecting the doctrine firmly imposed by Vatican I, because the canonical condemnation concerning its rejection is also firm. The canon warns:

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema [condemned—MP] (Vatican I, 1869b, chap. 4, s. 9, emp. added).

Thus, the curse is set upon those who reject the dogma, and the dogma has the approval of the Vatican I Council; thus, the pope is deemed infallible. However, the definitions, implications, and applications of the dogma are questionable to the point that even within the whole hierarchical and ordinary body of the Catholic Church, consensus does not exist.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOGMA

In order to speak of this dogma, we first need to understand certain related subjects. And, since many antagonists of infallibility have been accused of ignorance and manipulation of both the concept and its implications, it is my purpose here to use only those definitions and explanations suggested by the same supporters of the doctrine postulated by Pius IX.
Unlike the commonly publicized idea that only the pope posses infallibility, Catholicism teaches that the Catholic Church, completely represented by its body of bishops, also is infallible. Therefore Vatican II declared:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held (Lumen Gentium, 1964, chap. 3, s. 25, emp. added).

It must be noted here that, according to Catholicism, the infallibility of the bishops is subordinated to the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, and it is he who gives the final sentence. Consequently, the thesis of the dogma of infallibility may be summarized in this way:

Infallibility is divine assistance for the Church that protects the Pope of any error in matters of faith and moral.... Infallibility only applies to acts in which the Pope uses his apostolic duty completely; when he defines a dogma in virtue of his supreme authority and in his capacity as pastor of the universal Church. In these cases he speaks ex cathedra (see SCTJM, 1999b, emp. added).

Since the proclamation of the dogma has left many religious people (including Catholics themselves) with a dissatisfied feeling of not being able to conclude rationally by themselves when the pope is fallible and when he is not, Catholicism has found it necessary to set up the following conditions under which infallibility may “work.” According to Catechism of the Catholic Church, three conditions must be filled:

(1) The Pope must speak “as supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful that he confirms [strengthens] his brethren”... (2) The Pope “proclaims the doctrine through a definitive act”... (3) The Pope speaks “in matters of faith and morals” (SCTJM, 1999a, emp. in orig.).

Therefore, with this more “systematized” explanation, Catholicism has “stopped” (or, more accurately, ignored) the endless charges against the popes of both past and modern times. However, is the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility true? Are its “structured” explanations coherent and valid? Should the faithful Christian agree with, or oppose, this doctrine?

REASONS WHY THE DOGMA OF INFALLIBILITY SHOULD BE REJECTED

 

It is Inconsistent with Biblical Truth
The Vatican I Council, in its Pastor Aeternus, declares about the basis of infallibility:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter.... This See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren (Vatican I, 1869b, chap. 4, s. 6, emp. added).

So then, according to Catholic doctrine, papal infallibility is based on the fact that in Luke 22:32 Jesus promised Peter that his “faith” (i.e., his declarations of divine truths concerning “faith and morals”) would not fail. But a brief analysis of the biblical passage and its context reveals a completely different conclusion. Consider the following.
First, the contextual disposition of Luke 22:32 does not establish the basis for the dogma of infallibility. That is to say, there is no indication in the biblical text that suggests a papal primacy or a type of special “petrine prerogative.” The subject under consideration is the coming temptation of the disciples—and, more specifically, Peter’s impending denial of Jesus.
Second, the expression, “I have prayed for you,” does not impose a special dignity upon Peter; nor does it exclude some prayer in favor of the rest of the disciples. John 17:9-19 clarifies that Jesus had prayed, not only for Peter, but also for His other disciples. The reason why Jesus mentioned (in Luke 22) the prayer in favor of Peter finds its logical explanation in the fact that Peter would be one of the disciples who would confront a major “sifting” at the hand of Satan (Luke 22:31; cf. 22:34,54-62). Jesus, in telling Peter that He had prayed for him, showed him that a speedy recovery after the fall was His desire.
Third, when Jesus spoke of the faith of Peter, He used the Greek term pistis, which means “principally, firm persuasion, conviction based on hearing” (Vine, 1999, p. 374). There is no biblical sign in the text of Luke to suggest that Peter’s faith should be interpreted as his “future declarations of divine truths concerning faith and morals.” Rather, Peter’s faith could be contrasted with the fear of his own physical death—which ultimately would lead him to actually deny his Lord (Luke 22:54-61; cf. Mark 4:35-40). Here, the word “faith” emphasizes Peter’s faith as indicated by his trust in God, not his faith in the sense of “revelations of the truth.”
Fourth, when Jesus told Peter that He had prayed that his faith might not fail, He used the Greek term ekleipo, which can be translated as “leave,” “fail,” or “lack” (Vine, p. 371). A more exact translation would indicate that Peter’s faith would neither dim nor fade. While the faith (trust) that Peter had in Jesus might have failed (since he denied Him, Luke 22:54-61), it did not dim or fade, as evinced by the fact that Peter repented of his failure (Luke 22:62). Those in Catholicism who interpret Peter’s faith as his “infallible testimony of faith and moral dogmas,” fail to realize that Peter’s faith failed him at Annas’ courtyard. Therefore, this faith cannot account for any kind of alleged infallibility given to Peter, much less to Roman bishops.
Fifth, the phrase “when you have turned again” (Luke 22:32) denotes the tragic reality that Peter’s faith was going to fail. The Greek term for “turn” is epistrepho, which expresses the idea of being converted. Peter needed to turn back from his way of denial, repent, and confess Jesus (see Lacueva, 1984, p. 339). In fact, Peter’s personal disloyalty to his Master certainly does not offer any proof for “petrine infallibility”—but quite the opposite.
Finally, Catholicism also affirms that part of the evidence for the dogma of infallibility lies inherently in the text of Matthew 16:18-19, although, a correct exegesis of the text of Matthew shows that such a claim is untenable. [For an explanation of the text in Matthew, see Pinedo, 2005.] The truth is that there is nothing in the whole of the biblical text that would establish the dogma of papal infallibility.

It is Inconsistent with Itself

Papal infallibility also should be rejected because it cannot remain consistent with its own dogmatic presentation. By this, I mean that the dogma of infallibility is self-contradictory. A few examples will be enough to document this fact. For example, the following statement may be found in an explanatory article about papal infallibility:

[T]he Vatican I Council does not directly say that the Pope, when addressing matters ex cathedra of faith and moral, is infallible. It restricts itself to say that, in those cases (and only in those), the Pope enjoys the same infallibility which the Church is endowed with. Therefore, the Church’s infallibility is not defined by the one of the Pope, but the last by the first. And it seems to us to have a profound theological sense (Logos, 1996, emp. added).

Perhaps after reading this quotation it will seem to you that declarations with “profound theological sense” are so “profound” that they become incomprehensible. Catholicism states as a defense that Vatican I (the council that established papal infallibility) does not declare directly that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. But if that is the case, the question becomes, why, for more than a century, has Catholicism insisted on imposing a doctrine that was not even declared directly? If it is said that the Catholic Church is infallible, and that this infallibility also is enjoyed by the pope, is it not an equivalent operation of: if A is equal to B, and if B is equal to C, then A is equal to C? And if it is a dogmatic implication, what kind of “theologically profound” defense is this?
I will let Catholicism continue explaining its own dogmas. In an article titled, “¿Puede el Papa Caer en Error o Herejía?” (“Can the Pope Fall Into Error and Heresy?”), the following declaration can be found:

Therefore, the Pope can err when he speaks about politics, medicine, physics, economy, history, etc. In anything except in religious matters. But he can also err in religious matters, if he speaks in table talk, or in a walk with friends, or a private discussion about religion. And also when he speaks as Mr. So-and-so and states his own personal theories, even in a publicly sold book, he can err (see Cristiandad, 2005, emp. added).

It is interesting to note the concept that this particular supporter of Catholicism has about “in anything except.” If the pope “also” can err in religious matters, can it be said that he can err “in anything except” in religious matters? If the Holy Spirit assists the pope as He assisted Peter and the other apostles of the first century, why, since the Holy Spirit never abandoned them, would the Spirit abandon the pope when he is not on his throne, in his council, or using his title of pontiff? Actually there is no biblical analogy for the dogma of infallibility as presented by Catholicism. Jesus not only spoke infallibly when He appealed to His Father’s authority (John 7:16-18), but also in His private conversations (John 4) or in His walk with friends (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit led the disciples to all the truth, not just part of it (John 16:13). The Bible is inerrant in religious and secular matters; it does not contain wheat and weed. Rather, all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).
Addressing the unavoidable reality of pontific heresy, a Catholic Web page declares about the pope:

And if he is a heretic, at least he is not going to declare his heresies as part of the doctrine of the profession, that is, things which we are required to believe and observe. It was never permitted by the Holy Spirit (see Apologética, n.d., emp. added).

That is to say, the pope can fall into heresy and even teach it, but in his heresy (since according to Catholicism he does not declare it ex cathedra), he must not be obeyed. This, of course, gives rise to a tedious problem of investigating whether or not the pope is speaking infallibly, and whether or not he must be obeyed. Ironically it also is declared:

Obedience to the Sumo Pontiff should not be limited to when he speaks ex cathedra. Neither should the disciplinary decree of the Pope be rejected with the pretext that they were not promulgated ex cathedra (SCTJM, 1999b, emp. added).

However, if the pope is both infallible and fallible in religious matters, and if Catholics are called to obey him in both areas, does that not represent a danger to the heart of many Catholic doctrines? The truth is that Catholicism cannot teach and defend papal infallibility as it does, and remain consistent.

It is Inconsistent in Its Application

Catholicism declares:

The possessors of infallibility are: (a) the Pope (the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra), (b) the complete Episcopacy (the totality of the bishops is infallible when proposing a teaching of faith and moral as belief for all the faithful, either assembled together in a general council or scattered around the earth) [see Pivarunas, 1996, parenthetical items in orig., emp. added].

Therefore, it can be said that “infallibility” reaches its highest degree in ecumenical councils, where the pope, along with the body of bishops, offer up a seal of approval to dogmas of faith that Catholics must obey. Additionally Catholicism confirms:

Yes, it is truth that certain popes have contradicted other popes, in their private opinions or concerning disciplinary dogmas; but there was never a Pope who would officially contradict what a previous Pope officially taught about faith and moral matters. The same could be said about ecumenical councils, which also teach with infallibility. There was not an ecumenical council that would contradict the teaching of a previous ecumenical council concerning faith and morals (Keating, n.d., emp. added).

The Catholic defense can be summarized as follows: the pope can be a heretic, but he will not officially teach heresy; and the councils, which allegedly use infallibility, never contradict each other. But is such a concept true? What do the councils, which teach “infallibly,” say? A few examples will be enough to arrive at the conclusion that ecumenical councils, in application of their so-called infallibility, fail completely.
Vatican I Council, in its dogmatic constitution Filius-Dei on the Catholic faith, expressed the following:

The abandonment and rejection of the Christian religion, and the denial of God and his Christ, has plunged the minds of many into the abyss of pantheism, materialism and atheism, and the consequence is that they strive to destroy rational nature itself, to deny any criterion of what is right and just.... And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines (Vatican I, 1869b, s. 7-10, emp. added).

However, while Vatican I condemns erroneous doctrines such as the denial of Christ, Vatican II declares:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth.... Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet”(Nostra Aetate, 1965, s. 3, emp. added).

But since Muslims do not acknowledge Jesus as the prophesied Messiah (that is, the Christ), would that not be a denial of Christ, and thus the heresy condemned by Vatican I? Most assuredly!
Vatican I, in its canonic sentence on written revelation, states:

If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired: let him be anathema (Vatican I, 1869a, Can. 2, s. 4, emp. added).

However, Vatican II, in speaking about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions that discard much of canonical Scripture, declared that these religions

[t]ry to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men (Nostra Aetate 1965, s. 2, emp. added).

On the permanence of the petrine primacy of the roman pontiffs, Vatican I, in its Pastor Aeternus, condemns.

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema (Vatican I, 1969b, chap. 2, s. 5, parenthectical item in orig., emp. added).

However, Vatican II beatifies:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter [that is to say, they don’t accept the proposed papal hierarchy—MP]. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ (Lumen Gentium, 1964, chap. 2, s. 15, emp. added).

Now Vatican II has united to Christ the same people who, for not accepting petrine hierarchy, were condemned by Vatican I as anathema. Truth be told, the Vatican I Council, which allegedly taught with infallibility, cannot coexist with the Vatican II Council that allegedly employed the same infallibility.
There are many other contradictions that could be added if space allowed, but the few presented in this article are enough to permit a definitive conclusion: the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility is not consistent with the truth. The Vatican II Council invoked by Pope John XXIII stands in strong opposition to the Vatican I Council invoked by Pope Pius IX (the father of the dogma of papal infallibility). On the other hand, there is only one infallible truth—the Word of God (John 17:17). It is this truth to which we need to come to learn about the salvation of our souls and to keep us away from error and apostasy. In the end, when our Savior comes back in the clouds to reward and punish in a universal judgment, it will not be the words of men’s fallible councils, but the Word of God that will be open, and then, the Lord will give the “canonic” sentence.

REFERENCES

Apologética (no date), Reflexiones en Torno a la Infalibilidad de la Iglesia [On-line], URL: http://apologetica.org/infalibilidad.htm.

Cristiandad (2005), ¿Puede el Papa Caer en Error o Herejía? [On-line], URL: http://es.catholic.net/conocetufe/358/1780/articulo.php?id=3324.

Keating, Kart (no date), La Infalibilidad Papal [On-line], URL: http://apologetica.org/infalibilidad-keating.htm.

Lacueva, Francisco (1984), Nuevo Testamento Interlineal Griego-Español (CLIE, Villadecavalls, Barcelona, España).

Logos (1996), Llamado de Atención Sobre la Infalibilidad [On-line], URL: http://www.sjsocial.org/logos/logos6.htm.

Lumen Gentium (1964), Dogmatic Constitution of the Church [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/
vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.

Nostra Aetate (1965), Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/
vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.

Pinedo, Moisés (2005), The Pope, the Papacy, and the Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2724.

Pivarunas, Mark A. (1996),La Infalibilidad de la Iglesia Católica [On-line], URL: http://www.cmri.org/font-96prog5.html.

SCTJM (1999a), Ex Cathedra, Tres Condiciones Deben Reunirse Para que una Definición Pontificia Sea Ex Cathedra [On-line], URL: http://www.corazones.org/diccionario/excathedra.htm.

SCTJM (1999b), Infalibilidad [On-line], URL: http://www.corazones.org/diccionario/infalibilidad.htm#Infalibilidad%20Episcopa.

Vatican I (1869a), Canon On Revelation [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5.

Vatican I (1869b), First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6.

Vine, W.E. (1999), Diccionario Expositivo de Palabras del Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento Exhaustivo, (Colombia, Editorial Caribe, Inc.).

From Mark Copeland... The First Disciples (John 1:35-51)

                          "THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

                     The First Disciples (1:35-51)

INTRODUCTION

1. The ministry of John the Baptist was to prepare the way to Jesus...
   a. He came to bear witness of the Light, that all might believe - Jn 1:6-8
   b. John indeed did bear witness of Jesus
      1) As the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world - Jn 1:29
      2) As the Son of God who baptizes with the Holy Spirit - Jn 1:
         32-34

2. Due to the testimony of John the Baptist, Jesus began to attract
   disciples...
   a. The first disciples were those who had been disciples of John -Jn 1:35-36
   b. Because of John's testimony, they began to follow Jesus - Jn 1:37-39

[In his gospel, John the apostle describes those who were "The First
Disciples", beginning with...]

I. TWO BROTHERS

   A. ANDREW...
      1. His background
         a. From Bethsaida of Galilee - cf. Jn 1:44
         b. Brother of Simon Peter, sons of Jonah - cf. Jn 1:42
         c. A fisherman - cf. Mt 4:18
      2. His call to discipleship and then apostleship
         a. He was first a disciple of John the Baptist, who pointed him
            to Jesus - Jn 1:35-40
            1) This happened in Bethabara beyond the Jordan - cf. Jn 1:28
            2) Some think the other disciple was John the apostle
            3) He stayed with Jesus that day and then found his brother
               Simon - Jn 1:39-41
         b.  Later, Jesus officially called them to be His disciples 
             - Mt 4:18-20
            1) This occurred by the Sea of Galilee
            2) After John the Baptist was cast into prison - cf. Mt 4:12
         c. Then he was selected to be one of the twelve apostles - Mt 10:2
            1) Pointed Jesus to the lad with five loaves and two fish 
               - Jn 6:8-9
            2) Assisted Philip in introducing some Greeks to Jesus - Jn 12:20-22
            3) Among those who questioned Jesus about the destruction of
               Jerusalem - Mk 13:1-4
            4) Listed among those in Jerusalem after the ascension of
               Christ - Ac 1:12-13
      3. According to apocryphal (doubtful) literature (cf. ISBE)
         a. His mother was Joanna, and was of the tribe of Reuben
         b. Like Thomas, compelled to believe in the resurrection of
            Jesus by touching His feet
         c. Various sources attribute missionary work in Bithynia,
            Scythia, Greece, Ephesus
         d. Thought to have been crucified in Greece, on a cross in the
            form of an X
      -- A disciple first of John the Baptist, then of Jesus, reveals
         his spiritual character as one devoted to serving the will of
         God
         
   B. SIMON...
      1. His background
         a. From Bethsaida of Galilee - cf. Jn 1:44
         b. Brother of Andrew, sons of Jonah - cf. Jn 1:42
         c. A fisherman - cf. Mt 4:18
      2. His call to discipleship and then apostleship
         a. Introduced to Jesus by his brother Andrew - Jn 1:40-42
            1) In Bethabara beyond the Jordan - cf. Jn 1:28
            2) Jesus named him "Cephas" (Aramaic), "Peter" (Greek),
               meaning "a rock"
         b. Later, Jesus officially called him to be His disciple
            1) As he was fishing by the Sea of Galilee - Lk 5:1-9
            2) Along with his partners, James and John - Lk 5:10-11
         c. Then he was selected to be one of the twelve apostles - Lk 6:13-14
            1) His prominence evident by his name mentioned first in the
               lists
            2) Included among the "inner circle" - cf. Mt 17:1-2; 26:37
            3) Known for his denial of Christ, and subsequent
               restoration - cf. Jn 18:25; 21:15
            4) A key figure in the first half of the book of Acts
      3. According to apocryphal (doubtful) literature (cf. ISBE)
         a. Supposedly died a martyr at Rome about 67 AD
         b. Purported to have been crucified by Nero, upside down at his
            own request
      -- The wealth of information about Peter in the Gospels and Acts
         reveal the power of the gospel to transform a simple, flawed
         man into a true rock of discipleship

[With two brothers now as His disciples, Jesus next calls...]

II. TWO FRIENDS

   A. PHILIP...
      1. His background
         a. From Bethsaida of Galilee - Jn 1:44; 12:21
         b. Greek name suggests Greek connections - cf. also Jn 12:20-22
      2. His call to discipleship and then apostleship
         a. Initial call to follow Jesus occurs here in Bethabara beyond
            the Jordan - Jn 1:43-44
         b. He immediately tells Nathanael about Jesus - Jn 1:45-46
            1) That he has found Him of whom Moses and the prophets
               wrote
            2) Inviting skeptical Nathanael to "Come and see"
         c. Selected to be one of the twelve apostles - Lk 6:13-14
            1) Asked by Jesus about bread in feeding the 5,000 - Jn 6:5-7
            2) Approached by Greeks who wished to see Jesus - Jn 12:
               20-22
            3) It was he who asked, "Lord, show us the Father" - Jn 14:8
      3. According to apocryphal (doubtful) literature (cf. ISBE)
         a. Supposedly of the tribe of Zebulun
         b. Some identify him as the one who wanted to first bury his
            father - cf. Mt 8:21
         c. Spent latter part of his life in Phrygia, crucified there
      -- Philip's invitation for Nathanael to "Come and see" is an
         illustration of personal evangelism

   B. NATHANAEL...
      1. His background
         a. Of Cana in Galilee - Jn 21:2
         b. Probably a fisherman also - cf. Jn 21:1-3
      2. His call to discipleship, and (possibly) apostleship
         a. Approached by Philip, who told him of Jesus - Jn 1:45
         b. Nathanael was at first skeptical, because Jesus was of
            Nazareth - Jn 1:46
            1) "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
            2) Cf. "Will the Christ come out of Galilee?" - Jn 7:41
            3) Cf. "Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of
               Galilee" - Jn 7:52
            -- People were not expecting anything good coming from
               Nazareth of Galilee
         c. Jesus convinces Nathanael - Jn 1:47-51
            1) Identifying him as an Israel in whom is no deceit
            2) Telling how He saw him under the fig tree before Philip
               called him
            -- Perhaps Jesus saw him engaged in private devotion
         d. Prompting Nathanael to proclaim...
            1) "Rabbi, You are the Son of God!" - cf. Mt 14:33
            2) "You are the King of Israel!" - cf. Mt 21:5; 27:11
            -- Nathanael is convinced that this teacher (Rabbi) is the
               Messiah
         e. Jesus Promises Nathanael greater blessings due to his faith
            1) Greater evidences of His Messiahship
            2) E.g., heaven opening and angels of God ascending and
               descending upon Him
               a) An allusion to Jacob's dream? - Gen 28:12
               b) An implication that Jesus was the way (ladder) to
                  heaven? - cf. Jn 14:6
               c) A reference to the day of Judgment, when Jesus comes
                  with His angels? - cf. Mt 16:27; 25:31; 26:64; 2 Th 1:7
            -- Note that Jesus refers to Himself as "the Son of Man"
               (which the gospel writers never do), emphasizing His 
               humility and humanity
         f. Nathanael may have been Bartholomew, one of the apostles 
            - cf. Mt 10:3; Lk 6:14
            1) Cf. Bartholomew's connection with Philip in the apostolic
               lists
            2) The synoptists never mention Nathanael, and John never
               mentions Bartholomew
            3) Bartholomew ("son of Ptolemy") is not a proper name;
               perhaps it was Nathanael
            -- Leading many to conclude they are one and the same
      3. According to apocryphal (doubtful) literature
         a. He was Simon, son of Cleopas (not Bartholomew), and one of
            the Twelve (ISBE)
         b. He was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana, to which he
            belonged (Fausett's Bible Dictionary)
      -- The call of Nathanael reveals more about Jesus than Nathanael
         himself (see below)

CONCLUSION

1. "The First Disciples" offered their testimony concerning Jesus...
   a. "We have found the Messiah" - Jn 1:41
   b. "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the
      prophets, wrote" - Jn 1:45
   c. "You are the Son of God!  You are the King of Israel!" - Jn 1:49
   -- As they continued to follow Jesus, their initial affirmations of
      faith would be confirmed

2. From His initial contacts with these new disciples, we learn...
   a. That Jesus knows the heart of men - cf. Jn 2:25
   b. That if we have faith in Jesus, it will be continually
      strengthened; the evidence will grow brighter and brighter - cf.
      Jn 1:50-51
   c. That if we believe his word, we shall yet see full proof that his
      word is true - cf. Jn 7:17

Does anyone wonder if Jesus is truly the Son of God, and that His words
are true?  Perhaps the best response one can offer to the honest skeptic
is the invitation offered by Philip:  "Come and see." 

Come to Jesus as revealed in the gospels and see who He is...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... An unexpected blessing

Today, I went for some blood-work, so here it is 10 in the morning and I am just finishing breakfast. So, food has been on my mind, as I broke from my usual first-thing-in-the-morning breakfast routine. And then there is this picture... Cadbury Eggs for breakfast??? That struck me as a bit humorous, so I wondered, why do we laugh at what we do any why? One answer that seemed obvious is the unexpected- because it is so out-of-place- you know, like Cadbury Eggs in the morning. And following this, my thoughts turned to the book of Romans...

Romans 8:28-39 NASB
(28)  And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
(29)  For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
(30)  and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
(31)  What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
(32)  He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
(33)  Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;
(34)  who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
(35)  Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
(36)  Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED."
(37)  But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.
(38)  For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
(39)  nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Laughter can happen because of humor and also because of security.  If a two year old came up to you, tugged on your clothing and said with a straight face, something like: give me some candy or I will take you out. Then, depending on the look on the child's face- you just might break out in laughter. Why? Because you KNOW THE UNREALITY OF THAT STATEMENT. Again, the unexpected. But, for Christians, we have the blessing of being able to laugh at the really serious things in life, like those in verse 38f. above. Why? Because of verses 28 and 37- that's why!!!  Today, go ahead- laugh all you like, enjoy life. Also, dear friend, realize that with Jesus all things must inevitably work out for our good. Therefore, we who follow HIM can rejoice in every day of life- and because of this- EVERY DAY ABOVE GROUND IS A GOOD ONE AND EVERY DAY WAY ABOVE GROUND WILL BE A BETTER ONE!!!

From Jim McGuiggan... THE GALATIAN PROBLEM

THE GALATIAN PROBLEM

1. It seems very clear that while Paul had problems with some non-Christian Jews [see Acts 13:45-46, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and elsewhere] he was not addressing them when he wrote his scathing letter to the Galatians.

2. The people he was so angry with were Christian Jews; that is, Jews who had received Jesus as the Messiah and committed themselves to him.

3. The proof of that is that they were offering “a gospel” to Galatians who were already in Jesus Christ [Galatians 3:1-5]. In addition, Paul becomes specific in 2:4-14 and levels an accusation against his fellow Christian Jews [including Peter and Barnabas].

4. So what exactly was Paul enraged about? It’s clear that Paul was called by God to a mission peculiarly [not exclusively] to Gentiles as surely as Peter [and others] were commissioned with the gospel to the Jews [Galatians 2.7-8]. What troubled Paul was that some Christian Jews came into the region where he had established churches among the Gentiles and they were demanding that these Gentiles live as Jews. That is, to be Torah observant [including being circumcised] if they were to be saved and blessed in Jesus [Galatians 2:14b, 5:11-5 and compare Acts 15:1].

5. And what was wrong with that? It’s usual for us to say that these Christian Jews were teaching salvation by keeping “the moral law” rather than requiring membership in the Jewish community. It’s usual to hear that they were teaching salvation by personal virtue and merit but neither of those proposals is what Paul talks about. Read again the entire second chapter and see that it is about binding on Gentiles the Torah, the Jewish law with the food laws, circumcision and all that goes with it [compare also 4:17, 21-31 and 5:1-2].

6. Yes, we’re told, but since the Mosaic Law required sinlessness then to bring Gentiles under the Mosaic Law was in effect laying on them the demand for sinlessness. [See 3:10-12 which is used to support this claim that the Mosaic Law demanded sinlessness. Click here for a related piece.]

7. But did these Christian Jews believe they were sinless? Did they believe they were required to be sinless? Did they not believe that they were sinners and aren’t the psalms filled with people who confessed sin and asked for forgiveness and thanked God for graciously granting it? The notion that the OT demanded sinlessness is false. Note Acts 15:11 and note again that Peter was indicted in Galatians 2.

8. So when the Jewish Christians who were disturbing the churches Paul had established independent of Jewish law observance demanded that Gentile Christians become Jews they were not asking the Gentiles to earn their salvation by good works; they were not trying to bring Gentiles under a law that demanded sinlessness. That wasn’t what enraged Paul.

9. Let me repeat, the Jews that Paul is angry with in Galatians are Christian Jews who believed in forgiveness of sins in Jesus. The problem was that they believed that everyone had to be a Torah-observant Jew or turn to Judaism in order to get forgiveness and blessing in the Messiah [see again Acts 15.1].

10. This implied that all that God had been doing through Paul [and others] among the Gentiles had not brought salvation or blessing. Paul’s divine commission to the Gentiles [see again Galatians 2:7-8] was being undermined and the Gentile saving relationship to Jesus was denied. In effect, God had not and was not saving these people by the gospel Paul proclaimed. The “true” gospel, these people claimed, was not Paul’s—it was the gospel with an exclusively Jewish twist; a gospel Paul said was no gospel at all [Galatians 1:6-9].

11. There was no necessity for Jews to cease being Jews to find forgiveness and life in Jesus [see Romans 10:9-10, Acts 21:18-26 and 1 Corinthians 9:20 but note Galatians 2:14].Nevertheless there was something fundamentally wrong about Jews demanding that Gentiles become Jew in order to find life in the Messiah.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

The Consequences of Divorce and Remarriage by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4188

The Consequences of Divorce and Remarriage

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Christians increasingly find themselves faced with the dilemma of dealing with individuals (usually non-Christian) who divorce and remarry any number of times for any number of reasons, and who come wishing to become part of the local church. The tendency is to permit the couple to remain in the marriage relationship they are in when they become Christians—though the marriage was contracted in violation of Matthew 19:9. This position usually cloaks itself in feigned compassion for the couple when, more often than not, members simply lack the spiritual courage to press the biblical position. One argument posed in defense of this stance is the notion that if the couple cannot continue their marriage after baptism, then baptism did not really cleanse them and adultery becomes the “unpardonable sin.” Several points which show the error of this position are in order:
First, much is accomplished at the point of biblical baptism, but baptism was never designed to change a sinful practice into an acceptable one, or to transform a sinful relationship into a righteous one. Prostitutes, homosexuals, polygamists, bisexuals, bigamists, and adulterers must sever their relationships.
Second, the biblical doctrine of forgiveness must not be confused with the equally biblical doctrine of the consequences of sin. Being forgiven never implies that all of the consequences of sin will be erased. Past sin may be blotted out, but the consequences of past sin generally remain. For example:

1. Syphilis of the brain is a lasting consequence of a promiscuous lifestyle;
2. Permanent removal from the garden was a lasting penalty and consequence of the sin of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3);
3. Being banned from Canaan was a lasting penalty of Moses’ sin (Deuteronomy 32:51-52), though he could be forgiven and one day be in heaven (Revelation 15:3);
4. God pardoned the murmurers (Numbers 14:20)—but the negative effects of their sin were lasting and disastrous (Numbers 14:29-35);
5. Esau’s mistake of selling his inheritance rights could not be rectified—“though he sought it diligently with tears” (Hebrews 12:17).

This biblical principle simply does not square with the notion that if anyone has to break up a marriage, too much is expected of them and forgiveness is not really what it’s “cracked up” to be. If biblical history teaches us anything, it teaches us that people cannot sin and then expect to have things the way they were before. More often than not, much suffering comes upon those who violate God’s will, even though they may be forgiven and have the hope of heaven.
So it is with marriage. People may reject God’s laws of marriage and fly in the face of His will. They may then be forgiven, but they may also have gotten their lives into such a fix that they will have no choice but to live single and celibate the rest of their lives. Such is not a reflection upon God’s justice or mercy. Rather, such is a reflection of man’s own stubborn disobedience and rejection of what God designed to be for man’s good. Just as a person can sin and in so doing lose his physical life without God intervening to prevent the effect of the sin (e.g., rob a bank and be killed by the police), likewise a person can so sin in the marital realm that he or she forfeits marital life without God intervening.
Third, baptism is not biblical immersion if it is not preceded by repentance. We often forget this, so anxious are we to get people into the baptistery. Repentance is not simply being sorry. Godly sorrow precedes genuine repentance which is, in turn, followed by a reformation of life (2 Corinthians 7:9-10). Reformation of life entails the cessation of sinful practices and the severance of sinful relationships (Matthew 3:8; 1 Corinthians 6:11). Paul put it this way in Romans 6:2—a person must not “live any longer therein.”
What did those who practiced sorcery do to show repentance in Acts 19:19? They burned their scrolls, showing that they were ceasing their former practices. Simply vowing to refrain from buying any further books, while insisting on keeping the books they already had, would manifest a lack of true repentance. If they held membership in a sorcery society, repentance would mean that they would sever that relationship. Simon’s repentance and baptism in Acts 8 demanded the cessation of his former relationship with sorcery. What did repentance and baptism mean to the Corinthians? Consider the following chart:

Whether the Corinthians had been practicing adultery, homosexuality, male prostitution, thievery, or swindling (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), repentance prior to baptism would mean that they would have ceased living in illicit sexual unions—whether adulterous or homosexual. They would have ceased stealing and would have severed their relationship with ill-gotten gain. They would have given up any business arrangement that would call for swindling others. Repentance, by definition, would demand such. And those who continue to live in such relationships have not really repented.
One final point merits attention. Some attempt to justify adulterous unions by comparing the sin of adultery to murder. They say that there are some wrongs which cannot be righted. In the case of murder, a man may repent but he cannot raise his victim to life. They say that an unscriptural marriage fits in the same category.
This is a false analogy. In the first place, severing an illicit relationship is not an attempt to rectify past divorces or restore past marriages. Rather, it is what is demanded by repentance and God’s laws of marriage. Second, the basic principle which does apply to both murder and adultery is that repentance demands that the individual cease committing murder and that he cease living in adultery (Colossians 3:7). Can a penitent murderer continue to murder? No. He will cease the relationship which he once had with the murderous life he once lived. Likewise, one who is living in a state of adultery will be lost if he or she dies in that state (Revelation 21:8). Just saying, “I’m sorry,” will not change that state or change that relationship into a righteous one so that it may be continued. Nowhere has God ever dealt with sin in such a way. He always demands the cessation of the sinful practice or relationship before He abundantly pardons. John the Baptizer was not asking Herod to simply acknowledge his sin, say he was sorry and ask forgiveness, and then continue to live with Herodias. Herod had married her (Mark 6:17). What did repentance demand? That they break up their marriage. Why? Because, as John declared, “It [was] not lawful for [Herod] to have her” (Mark 6:18)! There wasn’t anything that Herod could merely verbalize that would change the status of the marital relationship. It had to be terminated.

From Mark Copeland... The Testimony Of John The Baptist (John 1:19-34)

                          "THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

              The Testimony Of John The Baptist (1:19-34)

INTRODUCTION

1. In the prologue to John's gospel, we were introduced to John the
   Baptist...
   a. A man sent from God - Jn 1:6
   b. Who came to bear witness of the Light - Jn 1:7-8
   c. Who bore witness to the preeminence and preexistence of the Light
      - Jn 1:15

2. As John begins the narrative portion of his gospel, he starts with
   John the Baptist...
   a. His testimony to priests and Levites from the Pharisees in
      Jerusalem - Jn 1:19-28
   b. His testimony the next day when he saw Jesus - Jn 1:29-34

[What did John the Baptist testify concerning Jesus?  What lessons might
we glean from his testimony?  We note first of all that John the Baptist
proclaimed...]

I. I AM NOT THE CHRIST

   A. HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT HIMSELF...
      1. He confessed he was not the Christ - Jn 1:19-20
         a. Many people wondered if he were the Christ - cf. Lk 3:15
         b. John clearly asserts that he was not the Christ
      2. He was not literally Elijah as foretold by Malachi - Jn 1:21a
         a. Some thought Elijah would return in person, which John
            denies - cf. Mal 4:5
         b. John did fulfill the prophecy, which was figurative
            1) As foretold by the angel Gabriel - cf. Lk 1:l7
            2) As testified by Jesus - cf. Mt 11:11-15; Mt 17:10-13
      3. He was not the Prophet foretold by Moses - Jn 1:21b
         a. Moses foretold a Prophet like him would come - cf. Deut 18:
            15-18
         b. Many people were anticipating the arrival of this Prophet 
            - cf. Jn 6:14; 7:40
         c. This Prophet was indeed Jesus, not John - cf. Ac 3:22-26
      4. He was the one foretold by Isaiah - Jn 1:22-23
         a. The voice of one crying in the wilderness - cf. Isa 40:1-3
         b. Sent to prepare the way of the Lord - cf. Lk 1:16-17;
            2:76-79

   B. LESSONS FROM HIS TESTIMONY...
      1. John's example is a powerful one for all Christians, especially
         ministers
      2. As followers of Christ, our task is similar to his role as
         forerunner
         a. To deflect attention away from ourselves, and point people
            to Christ!
         b. Let us never forget, no matter how honored we may be, we are
            not the Christ!

[As John continues with his testimony, he proclaims concerning Jesus...]

II. HE IS PREFERRED BEFORE ME

   A. HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT CHRIST...
      1. Given in response to those from the Pharisees - Jn 1:24-25,28
         a. Why did he baptize, if not Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet?
         b. For he had been baptizing in Bethabara (or Bethany) beyond
            the Jordan
      2. The One coming after him is preferred before him - Jn 1:26-27
         a. Even One who was in their midst as he spoke!
         b. Whose sandal strap not even John was not worthy to loose!
      3. The reason Jesus was preferred before him?
         a. "For He was before me" (i.e., because of His preexistence) 
            - cf. Jn 1:15,30
         b. "Who is mightier than I" (i.e., because of His power) - cf.
            Mk 1:7
      4. John would later reaffirm Jesus' preference over himself
         a. "He must increase, but I must decrease" - Jn 3:30
         b. He is "above all" - Jn 3:31

   B. LESSONS FROM HIS TESTIMONY...
      1. We should not hesitate to exalt Jesus over self - cf. Lk 9:
         23-24
         a. He is preferred before us
         b. While we may be the body of Christ, He is the head! - cf. Ep 1:22-23
      2. Jesus deserves our humble service and adoration
         a. Because of His power - cf. Col 1:16
         b. Because of His preexistence - cf. Col 1:17
         c. Because of His headship over the body, the church - cf. Co 1:18

[On the next day, John the Baptist had another opportunity to testify
concerning Jesus, in which he declared...]

III. BEHOLD! THE LAMB OF GOD

   A. HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT CHRIST...
      1. Declaring Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of
         the world!" - Jn 1:29
         a. As foretold by Isaiah - cf. Isa 53:4-7,10-12
         b. As later proclaimed by the apostles - cf. 1Co 15:3; 1 Pe 2:24; 1Jn 2:2
      2. Identifying Jesus as the "Man who is preferred before me" - Jn 1:30
         a. Because He was before John (i.e., His preexistence)
         b. Even more so now as the Savior of the world!

   B. LESSONS FROM HIS TESTIMONY...
      1. We should never forget the basis of our salvation!
         a. We are not saved on the basis of our good deeds - cf. Tit 3:5
         b. We are saved by the blood of the Lamb! - cf. Re 1:5; 5:9; Ro 5:1
      2. We should ever point the world to Jesus!
         a. He is their only hope for forgiveness of sins! - cf. 1Ti 2:
            5-6
         b. We should proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified! - cf.
            1Co 2:2

[If Jesus is truly "preferred before" us, we will never hesitate to
offer Him as the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.  Finally, we
note John's testimony concerning Jesus that...]

IV. THIS IS THE SON OF GOD

   A. HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT CHRIST...
      1. "I did not know Him" - Jn 1:31,33
         a. Though related, Jesus lived in Nazareth, John in the Judean
            desert
         b. Even if there had been a casual acquaintance, John did not
            know Jesus as the Messiah
         c. Yet John came baptizing with water
            1) That the Christ might be revealed to Israel
            2) For upon whom the Spirit would descend, would be the One
               who baptizes with the Holy Spirit - cf. Mt 3:11
      2. "I saw the Spirit descending...and He remained upon Him" - Jn 1:32
         a. Just as John was told to anticipate - Jn 1:33
         b. Which occurred when Jesus was baptized by John - cf. Mt 3:16
      3. "I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God." - Jn 1:34
         a. John saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus like a dove - cf. Mt 3:16
         b. John testified to the same truth as spoken from above: "This
            is My beloved Son" - cf. Mt 3:17

   B. LESSONS FROM HIS TESTIMONY...
      1. We must be willing to confess Jesus as did John - cf. Mt 10:
         32-33
      2. We must confess Him to be the Son of God
         a. As did Nathanael - cf. Jn 1:49
         b. As did Peter - cf. Jn 6:68-69
         c. As did Martha - cf. Jn 11:27
      3. We must believe Jesus to be the Son of God in order to be saved
         a. As John declares in his gospel - Jn 20:31
         b. As the Ethiopian eunuch confessed in order to be baptized 
            - cf. Ac 8:37

CONCLUSION

1. Jesus would later describe the testimony of John...
   a. He bore witness to the truth - Jn 5:33
   b. He was the burning and shining light - Jn 5:35
   c. In which some were willing to rejoice - Jn 5:35

2. Are we willing to rejoice in the testimony of John...?
   a. Knowing that John was not the Christ?
   b. Understanding that Jesus is preferred above John and all others?
   c. Accepting Jesus to be the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin
      of the world?
   d. Willing to confess along with John that Jesus is the Son of God?

If we are willing to accept the testimony of John the Baptist and obey
the Son of God, eternal life can be ours! - cf.. Jn 3:36; He 5:9; Mk
16:16

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... Heliocentric Vortex Theology

 

 Heliocentric or Vortex?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU#t=12

For Harry...

When I was a boy in grade school, I was taught that the planets revolve around the sun- and so they do.  However, as the second of the two pictures above points out, the Sun is also moving and so the concept of a Vortex is quite valid and technically, I suppose, more accurate than the old Heliocentric model.  However, even though I find the Vortex concept to be a better understanding, I take issue with the concept of the Sun being like a comet.  Sol does not exist by itself in the universe, but rather is part of a grander scheme of galaxies, local groups of galaxies, etc..  What is really important here is our thinking.  Are we so "old school" that we cannot conceive of previously learned concepts in new ways (even if we have more than a few years under our belt)?...  

Now, it is a good thing to rethink the things previously taught us, but, what about the practical lessons of life?  You know, the day to day stuff- how we live, how we think and what do we actually do because of these two things.  I probably shouldn't have, but nevertheless, I chose the title for today's post "Heliocentric Vortex Theology". Why? Because these words describe my thinking about the practical application of that subtle change in thinking from the Heliocentric to the vortex in regards to thinking about God and then applying that to our ordinary life.  Lets begin with to seemingly unrelated passages from the Scriptures...

Matthew 5:1-16 NASB
(1)  When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.
(2)  He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
(3)  "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(4)  "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
(5)  "Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
(6)  "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
(7)  "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
(8)  "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
(9)  "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
(10)  "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(11)  "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
(12)  "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
(13)  "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
(14)  "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;
(15)  nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
(16)  "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

 And

2 Peter 1:1-8 NASB
(1)  Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
(2)  Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
(3)  seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
(4)  For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
(5)  Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
(6)  and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
(7)  and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
(8)  For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus and Peter; two very different individuals!!!  First, the passage from Jesus' "Sermon on the mount".  Please notice the progression within the "Beatitudes". First his "Blessed" statements concern themselves with our thinking about ourselves and progress to our relationship with God, to others and finally the results of those things. So, the one who follows Jesus would change the focus of their life (one dimensional - everything is about me) to a more inclusive perspective (What would God [and of course, Jesus] wish me to do for him?). Secondly, Peter's writing. Notice, that everything pertaining to life and godliness is though the true knowledge of HIM who called us.  That would be God and his prophet, priest and king- Jesus.  Specifically, though his words- and that would include the "Beatitudes". Applying them would have been something Peter would have called discipleship.

The point of this entire post is that of change.  Change from thinking as the world does, with its emphasis on self-gratification to discipleship of the God of Heaven. If we are willing to do this, then our lives will be enriched, empowered and molded by Jesus. Also, the words of growth penned by Peter will transform our brief existence into something wonderful. It is like our view of the Solar System changing from a Heliocentric to a Vortex concept, but applied to the Almighty. And that is life-changing!!!! You could almost call it a theology- Wait, I did that!!!