1 John 2:23

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Are you saying Paul was wrong? Read Romans 9.

A blanket statement such as this is not a response. I did read Romans 9, I cited it in an earlier post, and I quoted the passages which dealt with what I was talking about. If you believe I mishandled it, please demonstrate how.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Might I ask where in scripture does it speak of “not knowing” or “not recognizing”? Where does it say a person may receive forgiveness for rejection of God and denying Him based on this?

See Cheezey’s post. Not knowing and not recognizing do not equal rejection and denial. That’s a reality in relationships.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

See Cheezey’s post. Not knowing and not recognizing do not equal rejection and denial. That’s a reality in relationships.

I saw Cheezey’s post. The problem is, nowhere in scripture is such a distinction ever made - such a human invented argument demands we find gray areas where scripture says there is black and white. Again, scripture is clear that rejection of Christ is rejection of God in toto, because Christ is God the Son, and rejection of him and failing to worship him is failure to worship God. Jews and Muslims of today worship a Unitarian God and deny Jesus, God the Son - ergo, they are not worshiping the same God.

 

[CopticChristian]

"No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

Bible says: Reject the Son = Reject the Father
Bible DOES NOT say: If you accept the Father but you’re understanding of the Trinity and who God is is not correct and you deny Jesus, you are still worshiping the same God.

So…Muslims and present day Jews who flat out reject the Son who made Himself known to the world are indeed not worshiping the same True God. For the Word of God says so.

Kristin,

Wow…you have stumbled onto something here…Muslims and present day Jews do not worship the same God. You believe that, you found a passage and it makes sense to you. You know I sometimes wonder about the Muslims and the Jews. You know I sometimes wonder about lots of things…I gave this some thought and I know that many have suggested other than your premise. I thought I might share a different perspective.

You do realize that as Catholics we don’t trade verse for verse to prove a point. If you were to look at the Catechism you would find it is organized into 4 parts…

Profession of Faith
Sacramental Life
Life in Christ
Prayer

Now if you happen to pick up the USA Catechism for Adults or listen to it Audio you would discover that it teaches…

in many and various ways God spoke to us through Prophets in part and in these last days through His Son…and the full Revellation of the deposit of Faith is Christ…so far so good?

Now, here at this ol Catholic Answer Forum…I am not much of an arguing kind of guy and I know much less than most, I am kind of practical…but look here…this is recorded in Luke and Mark however in Matthew something is added…

15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because **flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. **18“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Now we here Catholics are taught and believe that we can do nothing on our own and even the ascent to God is because God calls us and we respond. God wants us to know Him but with our measly little abiility to reason we need help and for that God gives us Theologic Virtues, of which one is Faith…notice how this coincides with “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you”…it kind of speaks to what we know and believe is nothing we did on our own…we needed a little help with the Virtue of Faith…Ok…

In the Catechism you will find the following…

SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”
CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN
ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

Ya gotta wonder why in the world the OHCAC wants us to proclaim this, perhaps it is because many have not heard of what it is we want to proclaim…and if that is true, knowing what you know and knowing what you have posted how can you believe or deny what you have not heard? Kind of make sense…?

Now, I took a stab at putting a verse in perspective for you however I have to tell you that mother Church is not in the business of letting a guy like me provide you any interpretation of what we believe to be the word of God, that we venerate as we venerate the Body of Christ…

The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

So, here is what I think…get on yer horse…get a goin and start a preachin what it is that those that have not heard what it is you want them to know so that we can be sure that if they know we can be sure that we did our best to tell em…

Oh and don’t forget…tell everyone you know…

14Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

get em all baptized sooner than later…Ok…

 

[AbideWithMe]

A blanket statement such as this is not a response. I did read Romans 9, I cited it in an earlier post, and I quoted the passages which dealt with what I was talking about. If you believe I mishandled it, please demonstrate how.

This is from Romans 11, but it’s a continuation of the same theme of Romans 9:

“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.”

Who are the Jews Paul is talking about here—the ones who followed Jesus? No–he’s talking about the ones who “as far as the gospel is concerned, are enemies…”. God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable to them as well.

The whole of Romans 9-11 needs to read together, along with the OT prophets.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I saw Cheezey’s post. The problem is, nowhere in scripture is such a distinction ever made - such a human invented argument demands we find gray areas where scripture says there is black and white.

Many things which seem grey, confusing and mysterious to us are as clear as day to God. He will be the judge, not us.

 

[CopticChristian]

So you’re saying the apostle Paul was wrong? Because, if you read my original post, I cited scriptural text to verify what I was saying. In case you missed it:

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

This is from Romans 11, but it’s a continuation of the same theme of Romans 9:

“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.”

Who are the Jews Paul is talking about here—the ones who followed Jesus? No–he’s talking about the ones who “as far as the gospel is concerned, are enemies…”. God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable to them as well.

The whole of Romans 9-11 needs to read together, along with the OT prophets.

I agree Romans 9-11 should be read together, however we have here a bit of confusion. For one, the “theme” of Romans 9 stems from Romans 8, where Paul has just given a great exposition on the surety of God’s salvation. However, because he knows it might be a long while before he gets to Rome and can answer any questions, he has to preemptively answer any objections (as he often does during the epistle) that someone might have. The main contention he’s dealing with at the beginning of Romans 9 is this: “If God’s salvation is so assured, why then do so many Jews reject Christ?” This leads Paul into his discussion about how the Law, the prophets, and the lineage of Christ came from the Jews as a people…however, he then goes into these verses, which you have yet to really address, and which I’d like you to address rather than jumping two chapters:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. [Romans 9:6-8]

Now you quote a passage from Romans 11 (specifically verses 28-29), but we must again look at the immediate context. Paul is not talking about what makes a true Jew and what makes a true Gentile, but rather on how God has caused a hardening upon the Jews to bring in the Gentiles and cause Jews to be jealous, so that some might be saved. To look at the full context (with my notes in brackets):

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel [the rejection of Christ mentioned earlier], until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in [not referring to literally all Gentiles, obviously, but the fullness of those Gentiles set apart to believe]. And in this way all Israel [that is, God’s people among the Jews] will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers [that is, those who previously believed, as Abraham & Co.]. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy [that is, the mercy shown to Gentile believers will be used by God to bring His true people out among the unbelieving Jews]. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all [not “all” as in everyone everywhere, but “all” as in Jews and Gentiles, given the full discussion]. [Rom 11:25-32]

Again, this isn’t talking about whether or not true “Jews” are those who worship Christ, therefore going to it is irrelevant. I also return back to the passage I cited from Galatians earlier, which hasn’t been addressed.

AbideWithMe:

Many things which seem grey, confusing and mysterious to us are as clear as day to God. He will be the judge, not us.

No one in this thread has passed any kind of direct judgment against any one - they have simply given scriptural truths. Salvation is not gray - it is one of the most well explained topics in scripture. It is only when men bring in their own presuppositions or desires, driven by emotion and human reasoning and not by the word of God, that it becomes gray.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Byzantine_Wolf;10239311:

Byzantine,

This is sort of correct. The Jews of today are not the Jews of the OT…on the other hand if we are to understand Paul correctly…

28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

What was true then is true now…Ok…

Firstly, I must point out you are ignoring the verses I cited, and therefore you are quoting Paul against Paul, even if unintentionally.

Secondly, that’s a misunderstanding of the verses. If you review the entirety of chapter two, Paul is addressing self-righteous Jews who believed - because they were Jewish, circumcised, and had the Law - that they were justified before God. Paul’s building up to his overall point in chapter three, where he’s states that all men - Jews and Gentiles - are sinners and have fallen short of God’s glory, hence require a savior. In fact, Paul’s brief reference here in these two verses is, in fact, to believers, for he states that the circumcision is one on the inside (on the heart, not by deeds, like Jews today rely upon), and is done not by our own will, but by the Spirit of God (ie., regeneration and second birth). The apostle’s point is that it’s not your lineage nor your circumcision that makes you right before God, but the mark of the Spirit given by God upon your heart.

Paul is not saying that some Jews outside of Christ are proper believers - if he were, that would completely contradict his point in chapter three, in which case he would be a very poor writer.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;10239443:

Firstly, I must point out you are ignoring the verses I cited, and therefore you are quoting Paul against Paul, even if unintentionally.

Secondly, that’s a misunderstanding of the verses. Paul is addressing self-righteous Jews who believed, because they were Jewish and had the Law, that they were justified before God. Paul’s building up to his overall point in chapter three, where he’s states that all men - Jews and Gentiles - are sinners and have fallen short of God’s glory, hence require a savior. In fact, Paul’s brief reference here in these two verses is, in fact, to believers, for he states that the circumcision is one on the inside (on the heart, not by deeds, like Jews today rely upon), and is done not by our own will, but by the Spirit of God (ie., regeneration and second birth). The apostle’s point is that it’s not your lineage nor your circumcision that makes you right before God, but the mark of the Spirit given by God upon your heart.

Paul is not saying that some Jews outside of Christ are proper believers - if he were, that would completely contradict his point in chapter three, in which case he would be a very poor writer.

Byzantine,

Paul was making the point that the Jews were putting their Faith in Abraham and in reality the lineage was to Adam…for by one man’s sin…yes all sinners because of Adam…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Byzantine,

Paul was making the point that the Jews were putting their Faith in Abraham and in reality the lineage was to Adam…for by one man’s sin…yes all sinners because of Adam…

How does that contradict my overall point in this thread? My apologies, I’m confused.

 

[CopticChristian]

How does that contradict my overall point in this thread? My apologies, I’m confused.

Byzantine,

The greater message of Romans is obedient Faith stated in the beginning and end of the letter. While Abide wants to look at Romans 9-11 as a continuum the continuum is from Romans 3-11. Paul here takes a zig to discuss the issue of the Judaizing Christians attempting to impose the Old Covenant on the Christians in Rome…and that is the reason for expressing this dicontent…

The apostle’s point is that it’s not your lineage nor your circumcision that makes you right before God, but the mark of the Spirit given by God upon your heart.

While Paul makes the point of circumcision of the heart he goes on to make the point in Romans 5/6 that in Baptism we are buried with Him and raised with Him as a means of doing away with that old life…for by one man’s sin we were made sinners and by one man’s obedience we were made righteous…and we become children of God.

4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin.

and the OHCAC teaches as Paul says that we are a new creation with Baptism…

he goes on to make the point of no necessity of the Old Covenant as it is dead likening the Old Covenant to a spouse in Romans 7

1Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

you may disagree however this is the Catholic perspective…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

CopticChristian;

I’m still somewhat confused. Can you show me where in Romans 3-11 has Paul talking about “Judaizing Christians attempting to impose the Old Covenant on the Christians in Rome”? Are you certain you are not confusing this with Paul’s epistle to the Galatians?

Also, you do realize the topic here is whether or not unbelieving Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians, right? I’m afraid as it stands our conversation is itself posing itself to go in different zigs and zags.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;

I’m still somewhat confused. Can you show me where in Romans 3-11 has Paul talking about “Judaizing Christians attempting to impose the Old Covenant on the Christians in Rome”? Are you certain you are not confusing this with Paul’s epistle to the Galatians?

Also, you do realize the topic here is whether or not unbelieving Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians, right? I’m afraid as it stands our conversation is itself posing itself to go in different zigs and zags.

Byzantine,

Read Romans 2 and notice how Paul uses the word doing good and good works and then transitions into circumcision 25-29 and how many times he uses that word and then notice in Romans 3…notice “first of all”

1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

when someone says let me tell you something, first there is this, then there is that or first then second…look and see if Paul outlines first, second, third…what he does is take a zag here and addresses the Judaizing Christians and their attempt to impose the Old Covenant through Circumcision and does not surface from this dialogue until he get to Romans 11…

1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Were you not aware that this letter is written to dispute the attempt of the Judaizing Christians to impose circumcision and the Old Covenant in Rome. John Chrysosotom has written on the Judaizing Christians and references this letter.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;

I’m still somewhat confused. Can you show me where in Romans 3-11 has Paul talking about “Judaizing Christians attempting to impose the Old Covenant on the Christians in Rome”? Are you certain you are not confusing this with Paul’s epistle to the Galatians?

Also, you do realize the topic here is whether or not unbelieving Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians, right? I’m afraid as it stands our conversation is itself posing itself to go in different zigs and zags.

Byzantine,

The problem with Judaizing Christians can be seen here

newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

and the work of Chrysostom here…

Discourses Against Judaizing Christians (The Fathers of the Church,

 

[fbl9]

I saw Cheezey’s post. The problem is, nowhere in scripture is such a distinction ever made - such a human invented argument demands we find gray areas where scripture says there is black and white. Again, scripture is clear that rejection of Christ is rejection of God in toto, because Christ is God the Son, and rejection of him and failing to worship him is failure to worship God. Jews and Muslims of today worship a Unitarian God and deny Jesus, God the Son - ergo, they are not worshiping the same God.

The gospel according to St.John 9:40-41"And some of the Pharisees who where with Him heard ths,and they said to him’are we blind also" And Jesus said to them “if you were blind you would not have sin.But now that you say “we see” your sin remains”.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The gospel according to St.John 9:40-41"And some of the Pharisees who where with Him heard ths,and they said to him’are we blind also" And Jesus said to them “if you were blind you would not have sin.But now that you say “we see” your sin remains”.

This is also misunderstanding the purpose of these verses. Christ had just spoken of part of his purpose for coming into the world, which was for judgment, meaning: “that those who do not see may see [spiritually], and those who see may become blind [spiritually]” (v. 39). The Pharisees, hearing this, and having condemned the man born (literally) blind earlier in the story, ask if they are blind. Christ states, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt,” meaning, of course, the guilt of rejecting him as they were, but “now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.” That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ’s own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.

It is not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

 

[cheezey]

The passage is addressing gnostic beliefs…it has nothing to do with rejecting Jesus as God’s Son in the sense the posts indicated…if read from the view point of some of the Gnostic beliefs…the passage makes a lot more sense…the writer of 1 John was addressing Gnositcism not Muslim or Jewish belief.

thank you for the clarification…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It is true that in John’s gospel and writings, he was often addressing Gnostic presuppositions. That does not, however, deny his overall point (especially as the verses progress). The root of his theology is that the Father and Son are unified in the Trinity, and hence to deny one is to deny the other (see the verses I cited from his gospel earlier in this thread). It’s a bit like those who try to take Paul’s words in Galatians 1:8-9 and say that he’s only speaking about Judaizers, not realizing that Paul clearly branches out in those verses to anyone who might teach a contrary gospel.

 

[fbl9]

This is also misunderstanding the purpose of these verses. Christ had just spoken of part of his purpose for coming into the world, which was for judgment, meaning: “that those who do not see may see [spiritually], and those who see may become blind [spiritually]” (v. 39). The Pharisees, hearing this, and having condemned the man born (literally) blind earlier in the story, ask if they are blind. Christ states, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt,” meaning, of course, the guilt of rejecting him as they were, but “now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.” That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ’s own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.

It is not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

Your own word contradict you conclusions, read ,their claims of sight made them guilty,not their blindness.
no St.Paul does not use the word everyone in these verses, just certain men. those that know the truth of God the same truth which God made mainfest to them.