Are Jews saved?

[Della]

Byzantine_Wolf:

Now you might tell me “I’m not suggesting, and the Church is not teaching, that we can be saved of our own works or without faith,” but when you create a loophole such as this, that is precisely what you are introducing. As I told Della earlier (and which they didn’t respond to), if people could be saved by not knowing God, why the Great Commission? If people could be saved outside of Christ, why did Christ die? Why the Incarnation at all? It might feel horrible in our post-modern mindset that unbelief of a “good” person would send them to hell, but that is what scripture teaches - righteousness is found only in Christ, and our life is hidden with Him in God (Col 3:3). That is why the Great Commission happened, and that is all the more reason for us to evangelize and reach out to those of unbelief.

I did not quote your responses to the Bible verses cited by Robbinson precisely for the reason I stated in my last post–quoting verses only leads to each person citing other verses and analyzing and picking them apart. As I stated before and have to state again (although it does make me pedantic) the whole of Scripture needs to be taken into account, not this verse and that verse and how each one interprets it.

As to your statement above, I never indicated that we are not to evangelize people on the strength that God saves whom he pleases. We cannot assume anyone’s salvation, especially not our own. We most emphatically must preach the Gospel to all creatures, just as Christ commanded.

The difference between the Catholic approach and yours is how the Church defines redemption and salvation. They are not one and the same thing. Christ’s death on the cross brought about our redemption and made salvation possible, therefore, Jesus is both our redeemer and our savior, but first he was the redeemer and now he is the savior. The redemption has been accomplished, the salvation is being accomplished.

The redemption makes possible the outpouring of God’s grace upon the whole world, which is why we Gentiles were able to be grafted onto Israel. That means all Gentiles, not just those who have had the good fortune to have heard the Good News. God’s grace reaches every human heart now, not just those of the Jews who had the first covenant. All who seek God are acceptable to God. Many a Hindu who truly seeks God and has never heard of Christ will be saved over apostate Christians who give themselves over to hedonism and so reject him. All the more should we be bringing the message that in Christ he can have all the graces God intended us to have to that pious Hindu.

I could go on and on here, attempting to explain in my own poor words, but it is much better to get it from the source. It’s why I quoted the Catechism and recommend those who wish to understand the Church’s stance read it and the surrounding sections that reference the biblical texts cited in support (not that “prove”) the Church’s teaching.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

*To Della: *

Let me with begin with your comment, “Many a Hindu who truly seeks God and has never heard of Christ will be saved.” I’m sorry, but that’s against everything taught in scripture. You have yet to show me anything to the contrary. Again, what Paul said in Acts 17: these times of ignorance God in the past overlooked, but now calls on all men to repent and believe in Christ. You also say, “I never indicated that we are not to evangelize people,” but that’s what you suggest when you say that the very purpose of evangelism is unnecessary. Why would God send His lesser shepherds out into the world to bring together His sheep if His sheep can find the shepherd on their, or any shepherd other than the Good Shepherd would do? The reason, I believe, you keep making these arguments that contradict what has been brought into the discussion before is because you simply keep ignoring the scripture cited and keep replying from personal opinion.

To this extent, you keep saying what amounts to, “I don’t want to go into a game of scripture swapping,” but you haven’t even offered any, and if need be you can simply respond to the scripture already cited (that would be better preferred any way). You say “the whole of Scripture needs to be taken into account,” but you have yet to show how you have taken the whole of Scripture into account - not to mention you won’t even deal with a part of scripture! You might notice that I did not respond to Robbinson’s verses by jumping to other verses - I dealt with the verses he had cited, then went to the verses I had cited before to return to the train of thought and show what the entirety of scripture teaches. You have yet to attempt this. You haven’t even dealt with this accusation. You just keep repeating, “I don’t wanna quote scripture,” and “Well I just go by what the Church teaches.” I say again, repeating an argument is not the same as demonstrating an argument. Robbinson has at least taken the time to discuss this from scripture.

Again, your arguments may earn you points with people who already want to agree with you, but I think the discerning reader will see that you haven’t presented any real argument. If you’re going to present a circular logic of, “There’s scripture that agrees with my argument, but I’m not going to quote it,” then there’s no reason for you to contribute to this discussion.

 

[Robbinson]

Thanks again for your response, Robbinson.

Thank you as well Byzantine - I appreciate your thoughtful and charitable response - even if we disagree on the application and intepretation of those verses.

Perhaps our disagreement on this issues stems from a larger theological disagreement. I see you are “Reformed” and imagine, therefore you might believe in “predestination” of the elect. Correct me if I’m wrong.

A great difficulty to me with that perspective is that God told us he desires that all be saved. We are told in the Hebrew scriptures and the NT to “repent” (a volutnary act) and “choose” (a voluntary act) life, over death.

From a reformed perspective, when Jesus died and ushered in the new coveannt, only those who confess Jesus by name can be saved - but at the moment of His death only small percentage (probably less than 1%) of the world’s population even knew that He had existed. The gospel had not yet spread yet even within the entire region in which he lived and preached, let alone other continents. So, do you believe then that salvation was not possible to 99% of the world at that time (though it was available a nanosecond before Christ’s birth or death?)?

To me, and I think this is Della’s point as well (again - I LOVE your posts Della - both in tone and substance)), the larger story of scripture points to God’s mercy, desire we come to know him. Yet we read of his “supernaturally blinding” Israel in large part - to harmonize those two perspectives, we see verses in scripture pointing to being held accountable to what is revealed to us - and that “reasonable” interpretation is consistent with this larger bible theme. Yes, I could sincerely read the verses without that larger context in another way (e.g. your way).

This is the larger problem, with love and respect, with reformation theology generally - a re-interpretation 1600 years after the time of the apostles of verses historically (I’d say from the time of the apostles) interpreted differently. To be fair, we could all read scripture, wtihout historical context, and come to remarkably different conclusions (thus the fruit of the reformation being 40,000 denominaitons). And while we are guided by the Holy Spirit - each denominaiton claims this guidance yet disagree often on core doctrines of faith.

Hebrews tells us that the Old covenant was a “shadow” of things to come, which had their greater fulfillment in the new covenant. So we would expect to see parallels between the covenants, and we do.

The temple is replaced with Jesus, the new Temple; The Levitical priesthood is replaced with Jesus as priest (in the order of Melchzedek); the law written on stone tablets is written in our hearts, etc.

Interestingly/significantly - in the Old Covenant, God saw our need of earthly authority - Moses (though God was the ultimate authority). And Moses delegated to others limited authority subject to his supervision. Jesus acknowledged this “authority” by telling the Jews to listen to the Pharasees because they sit in the “chair of moses” (though he criticized the Pharasees for hypocracy). Not surprising, Jesus re-created this structure, expressly, in the new covenant, giving Peter and the apostles (12 - representing by number the 12 tribes of Israel - another “shadow” of the Old reflecteld in the new) express “authority”. The early history of the chrisitan believers shows us that authority was respected and that authority was passed down with the laying of hands (the first instance being the replacement of Judas).

I believe we need this “authority” to maintain the historical undersanding and teaching of the apostles - Less we all become our “own interpreters of scripture” - which contrary to common protestant belief, does not interpret itself (thus these constant debates ).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’m sorry, Robbinson, but with all due respect you’ve gone off on a non sequitor. Reformed theology and it’s interpretation of salvation is not the topic of this discussion. I haven’t even said, “Well I’m Reformed, so I go by this.” The only people who did anything similar to that that was Della with, “Well I’m Catholic, so I go by this.” The topic was in relation to the salvation of disbelieving Jews specifically (and disbelieving non-Jews in general, at least by extension of the conversation). I have been arguing from scripture and, if accused of taking scripture out of context, asking others to do the same. I took the time to respond to the texts you cited me. It would be at least respectful to continue engage in discussion of the texts you cited and I responded to, or at the very least the texts I have responded to as well.

 

[Della]

*To Della: *

Let me with begin with your comment, “Many a Hindu who truly seeks God and has never heard of Christ will be saved.” I’m sorry, but that’s against everything taught in scripture. You have yet to show me anything to the contrary. Again, what Paul said in Acts 17: these times of ignorance God in the past overlooked, but now calls on all men to repent and believe in Christ. You also say, “I never indicated that we are not to evangelize people,” but that’s what you suggest when you say that the very purpose of evangelism is unnecessary. Why would God send His lesser shepherds out into the world to bring together His sheep if His sheep can find the shepherd on their, or any shepherd other than the Good Shepherd would do? The reason, I believe, you keep making these arguments that contradict what has been brought into the discussion before is because you simply keep ignoring the scripture cited and keep replying from personal opinion.

I’m sorry to have disappointed you so. Truly, I’m not giving my opinion, but frankly, I gave up cherrypicking Bible verses a long time ago and simply don’t want to go to my online Bible to search out the verses the Church has already cited that supports its teaching. Call me lazy, but we Catholics (I’ve been a Catholic for 20+ years now) simply don’t go searching through Scripture, hunting up verses to try to do what the Church has already done–define doctrine and dogma. That’s a Protestant preoccupation I no longer find challenging or necessary. Again, sorry to disappoint.

To this extent, you keep saying what amounts to, “I don’t want to go into a game of scripture swapping,” but you haven’t even offered any, and if need be you can simply respond to the scripture already cited (that would be better preferred any way). You say “the whole of Scripture needs to be taken into account,” but you have yet to show how you have taken the whole of Scripture into account - not to mention you won’t even deal with a part of scripture! You might notice that I did not respond to Robbinson’s verses by jumping to other verses - I dealt with the verses he had cited, then went to the verses I had cited before to return to the train of thought and show what the entirety of scripture teaches. You have yet to attempt this. You haven’t even dealt with this accusation. You just keep repeating, “I don’t wanna quote scripture,” and “Well I just go by what the Church teaches.” I say again, repeating an argument is not the same as demonstrating an argument. Robbinson has at least taken the time to discuss this from scripture.

On this issue Robbinson has a better bead on the scriptural supports for the Church’s position, so I’m letting him do the “leg work”. Again, call me lazy, but I don’t see the need to keep on swapping Bible verses nor parsing them nor looking to them as the final authority when I don’t see them as the final authority, but rather the witness to the Church that wrote them, compiled them, and put them into the canon of Scripture. It’s a matter of authority for me, you see, not which verses support my particular theological constructs.

Again, your arguments may earn you points with people who already want to agree with you, but I think the discerning reader will see that you haven’t presented any real argument. If you’re going to present a circular logic of, “There’s scripture that agrees with my argument, but I’m not going to quote it,” then there’s no reason for you to contribute to this discussion.

I understand your frustration, truly I do. You want a debate and I see no need for one. I’m not trying to earn points with anyone, Catholic or otherwise–truly. I’m just encouraging you and others to look into the matter by looking into the Church’s own words on the subject–into the Catechism. For Catholics the Bible isn’t the end-all and be-all of our faith. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth”, so I will look to the Church. All the best and God bless.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To Della:

My frustration is simply that I am hearing accusations, but when I ask for a demonstration of those accusations, I’m either given bluster or the accusation is simply repeated. I’m told that verse swapping is a bad idea, yet I’ve already said countless times I’m not even expecting that. I’m told that there is scripture to support the Catholic Church’s teachings, yet when I ask for the verses they’re not given. I’m told I’m taking verses out of context, but when I ask for a demonstration of that, I’m simply told again I’m taking them out of context. Basically, there’s been almost no counterargument in this entire post against my position. The unfortunate truth is because there is no counterargument to be made from scripture, only from personal opinion and man-made theology.

I will say this: the apostle Paul did not tell his spiritual son Timothy: “The infallible teaching magisterium of the Roman Church is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” He gave that credit to scripture. Any one who says “I’m just going to ignore what scripture says and listen to my church” is opening up the door for heresy and deceiving themselves. They are no better than the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons who have the exact same philosophy.

 

[Della]

To Della:

My frustration is simply that I am hearing accusations, but when I ask for a demonstration of those accusations, I’m either given bluster or the accusation is simply repeated. I’m told that verse swapping is a bad idea, yet I’ve already said countless times I’m not even expecting that. I’m told that there is scripture to support the Catholic Church’s teachings, yet when I ask for the verses they’re not given. I’m told I’m taking verses out of context, but when I ask for a demonstration of that, I’m simply told again I’m taking them out of context. Basically, there’s been almost no counterargument in this entire post against my position. The unfortunate truth is because there is no counterargument to be made from scripture, only from personal opinion and man-made theology.

Again, I intended no accusations, only observations. I truly apologize that I came across that way. And I have known, intimately, what real “man-made theology” can do to the human heart, mind, soul, spirit, psyche. In my former sect I was manipulated by those who were self-styled, self-appointed interpreters of Scripture and it wasn’t pretty. I wholeheartedly agree with you that man-made theology is a very, very bad thing.

You wish to argue from the Bible, and I don’t. I see no need for it, and you do. So, we’ll have to leave it at that, I’m afraid. I think you will find Robbinson more up to that task than me.

I will say this: the apostle Paul did not tell his spiritual son Timothy: “The infallible teaching magisterium of the Roman Church is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” He gave that credit to scripture. Any one who says “I’m just going to ignore what scripture says and listen to my church” is opening up the door for heresy and deceiving themselves. They are no better than the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons who have the exact same philosophy.

Nor did St. Paul say that the Scripture was the whole of our faith nor the only source from which the Church was to derive sound doctrine. If that were the case, it would have been impossible given that the NT didn’t exist when St. Paul wrote that and we would be relying solely on the OT–by that line of reasoning.

I will satisfy your desire for a Bible (RSV) verse here, just as a support for the Church’s authority, not to “prove” it (the distinction is vitally important): 1Tim.3[15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in** the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth (bolding mine).

Jesus never founded a book or any writings, he founded a Church–a Church to which he gave authority to decide matters of faith and morals. That is the biblical model, not individuals sorting out Bible verses on their own authority. St. Peter, the first pope admonished us: 2Pet.1:[20 **First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. Jesus left us his Church. We don’t have to go searching for it, nor hope we just happen to have been born and brought up in the right one. The sad divisions of the Reformation have left every man his own pope, his own authority, interpreting the Bible however each pleases to suit himself. That is NOT the model Christ left us, nor what he established. He said:

Matt.16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Matt.18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Strong words from the Lord himself. Words that must be seriously heeded. Again, I don’t offer these verses for debate or parsing or as “proof”, but as support. To go hunting for verses is not a viable way to “prove” anything since anyone can cite verses to support any position. It must be taken as a whole. That is proper exegesis. Always was and always will be–that’s not my opinion, but merely how it is.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Ah, suddenly when the topic of Roman Catholic supremacy returns, we willingly throw in scriptural quotations.

Forgive me if that sounds sarcastic, but I can’t help but notice the constant shying away from the topic in one form or another, and the now revealed inconsistent argumentation. One would think that the organization of believers would be just as important as the topic of salvation and being reunited with God. Yet we are expected to conclude, from the lack of argumentation and the simple refusal to deal with the relevant passages, that scripture says nothing about this. If you are going to now turn around and say that’s not true, then bring forward scripture to prove your case. If you’re going to then turn back around and say you don’t want to, then you’ve now proven yourself inconsistent with that line of argumentation, having now just cited scripture to try to prove an irrelevant topic. Otherwise, again, it is not worth contributing to the subject.

 

[Robbinson]

I’m sorry, Robbinson, but with all due respect you’ve gone off on a non sequitor. Reformed theology and it’s interpretation of salvation is not the topic of this discussion. I haven’t even said, “Well I’m Reformed, so I go by this.” The only people who did anything similar to that that was Della with, “Well I’m Catholic, so I go by this.” The topic was in relation to the salvation of disbelieving Jews specifically (and disbelieving non-Jews in general, at least by extension of the conversation). I have been arguing from scripture and, if accused of taking scripture out of context, asking others to do the same. I took the time to respond to the texts you cited me. It would be at least respectful to continue engage in discussion of the texts you cited and I responded to, or at the very least the texts I have responded to as well.

Apologies Byzantine if you were offended - I made an “assumption” (asking for confirmation) on your view because your status indicated you are “reformed” and I was merely making the point that your view on salvation only under the name of Christ (and irrespective of what has or has not been revealed to someone) is more consistent, and understandable, perhaps, with someone with a calvinisit perspective on scripture, and less so, on someone who believes in free will and choice.

I did not mean disrespect and certainly didn’t think my response was disrespectful - having identified that your interpreation of those verses would be “reasonable” without a “free will” context, I identified the difficulty I have with the pre-destination perspective which drives me to my “also reasonable” interpretation of the same verses.

I have tremendous respect for the Reform tradition and for all our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Apologies Byzantine if you were offended - I made an “assumption” (asking for confirmation) on your view because your status indicated you are “reformed” and I was merely making the point that your view on salvation only under the name of Christ (and irrespective of what has or has not been revealed to someone) is more consistent, and understandable, perhaps, with someone with a calvinisit perspective on scripture, and less so, on someone who believes in free will and choice.

Actually I wasn’t offended at all, so no need to apologize. However, my argumentation has not at all been from Calvinistic sources or arguments - I’ve simply been quoting scripture the entire time in this thread. You’ve been the first person to respond with any kind of scripture, and when I replied within the context of the scripture you presented as well as bringing in other verses that would further prove my point, you went off on a tangent about Reformed theology - something that hadn’t even been discussed. Again, Reformed theology isn’t the topic, you have brought it in. The only source that has been brought into the fold has been scripture untarnished and unchanged.

I did not quote from the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, John Calvin’s exegesis, or any one else - I have quoted nothing but scripture. Ironically, it seems to be this that offends some people.

 

[Della]

Ah, suddenly when the topic of Roman Catholic supremacy returns, we willingly throw in scriptural quotations.

Forgive me if that sounds sarcastic, but I can’t help but notice the constant shying away from the topic in one form or another, and the now revealed inconsistent argumentation. One would think that the organization of believers would be just as important as the topic of salvation and being reunited with God. Yet we are expected to conclude, from the lack of argumentation and the simple refusal to deal with the relevant passages, that scripture says nothing about this. If you are going to now turn around and say that’s not true, then bring forward scripture to prove your case. If you’re going to then turn back around and say you don’t want to, then you’ve now proven yourself inconsistent with that line of argumentation, having now just cited scripture to try to prove an irrelevant topic. Otherwise, again, it is not worth contributing to the subject.

Since nothing I write is helpful to you, but apparently just the opposite, I will bow out of the discussion. Truly, I could take the time to look up verse after verse, and there are resources in which others have already done that, that I could cite, if I could remember just where they are online–probably on this very website. Ha! on me! The other verses sprang readily to mind–call it having a senior moment, if you will. I turn 62 the beginning of Sept. and am finding my memory retains some things quite well and others not at all. So, I beg your indulgence and repeat my intentions weren’t to frustrate you or make things harder, so I apologize for that and wish you joy in your researches. God bless!

 

[GerardMajella]

KathleenGee wrote: Acknowledge your reference to my Hebrew Catholic friend…he is conjecturing and we assume the number fact will never be known as to what happened to the 4 million Jews.

Robbinson wrote: I have no idea what percentage of Jews were in disaspora or what percentage of jews accepted Christ at his coming - I know that (i) 3,000 came to faith per the gospels at Pentacost and (ii) God has taught us throughout the Hebrew scriptures that through history, the jewish people, while chosen, were largely in rebellion and only a “faithful remnant” were His. In Elijah’s time, that was about 7,000 as I recall. So there was a faithful remnant in Jesus day so there is now.

Interestingly enough, I found this article in my Inbox this afternoon, from Jewish World, entitled, “Jesus Lives on in Jerusalem”, which discusses the Messianic Judaism movement:

ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3939336,00.html

According to the article, 15,000 Messianic Jews currently live in Israel, and another 350,000 live in the United States. Fascinating article.

 

[Nine_Two]

To Nine_Two:

In regards to the language of the verse, I was referring to the idea of a state of repentance being changed from our judgment at death to our judgment at the day of resurrection. Nowhere in scripture is it said that it can change between the two points - that is merely read into scripture.

In regards to the identification of two states of time, again that is not an issue because I do not deny it. What I would argue is what this means, and as I said it is speaking of eternity - from here onto the ages of ages. Let me present an example to show what I mean: if I make the statement, “I’ll be out of town tomorrow (Thursday) and Friday,” I’m identifying two different points of time - however, I’m not identifying them for separate reasons. I’ll still be out of town those two days. My comment doesn’t mean that I’ll be in town tomorrow but out of town Friday. Now if someone in Greece were to argue with someone “Well he signifies the next day and the day after that” as if my context had changed, that would be illogical and irrelevant.

You say that sometimes there are additional meanings and that Christ taught parables - yes, all that is true, but nowhere is that being seen here. The context is unmistakable when one studies the entire passage. Christ is responding to those who are accusing Him of casting out demons with demons, to which Christ identifies it as the work of the Spirit of God (12:28). He then goes on to identify that “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (12:31), followed up with stating that “whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (12:32). Again, the emphasis is on the Spirit of God and the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit. There is nothing about postmortem repentance, nor can we believe that is what Christ is even touching on the subject without isolating 12:31 and moving the text in that direction. It would also contradict what scripture elsewhere says about judgment and the way repentance before death works, such as the writer to the Hebrews said: “just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb 9:27).

If you want to look at the Church Fathers, you can look at John Chrysostom’s take on it - you will find that he says nothing of postmortem repentance, and in fact likewise says that Christ is merely emphasizing the seriousness of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

So am I to assume then, that are misunderstanding comes from you identification with the “ages” to the two judgements, while I am identifying them with “lives” so to speak?

 

[Nine_Two]

And thank you for that link. Sadly the university doesn’t have nearly as good a religion section here as it did in my old city. It will save me some time.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

So am I to assume then, that are misunderstanding comes from you identification with the “ages” to the two judgements, while I am identifying them with “lives” so to speak?

From what I understand (feel free to correct me), you are arguing that the identification of two points in time in the verse, suggesting that there will be forgiveness “in the age to come” if there isn’t any in this present age. In order for that to work, there has to be two judgments - the judgment God has upon a man when he dies, and the judgment God has on a man after he dies. Scripture, however, attests that the end of a man’s life is the end of his growth, both spiritual and (obviously) physical. This is why I made the case that in order for it to work God has to “change His mind,” as if somehow God decides a different judgment after the person dies.

Furthermore, the forgiveness is not that attested to in the separation of two points in time. Rather, it is the unforgiven nature of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (which I have already shown is the emphasis Christ is making, because that is the subject our Lord is speaking about) which is identified in this present age and the age to come. The emphasis is on eternity, because nothing in this present age and the age to come is going to change. To return to my metaphor, if I said I was going to be out of town tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to be in town tomorrow but out of town the day after tomorrow. Likewise, if a guy I didn’t like applied for a job and asked if he got it, and I said, “I wouldn’t hire you today or in a year!” it doesn’t mean that he can get hired somewhere in between there. Again, the emphasis is on the eternity of the consequences of blaspheming the Spirit. That is the full context of the passage.

I might add that I know you are Eastern Orthodox, and what you are arguing is exactly what Roman Catholics argue to support Purgatory (the Catechism, in fact, cites the same verse you do).

EDIT:

And thank you for that link. Sadly the university doesn’t have nearly as good a religion section here as it did in my old city. It will save me some time.

No problem. Let me know if you want more.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ahh, but why must forgiveness be accompanied by judgement? Certainly one can be forgiven to good effect at any time prior to judgement.

As to my use of the verse being the same one that Catholics mention in regards to purgatory, as I said this has been on my mind lately, and yes it came from a discussion at work which involved one of my Catholic colleagues.
However you know well that Orthodoxy condemns teaching purgatory as either doctrine or dogma, but it does not condemn the idea itself. Why must I therefore deny the idea simply because the Catholics accept it?

However you are falling into the trap that Catholics often fall into when they accuse Orthodox of believing in purgatory, the false dilemma that one must either believe in purgatory (and that the soul does not go to final judgement immediately) or the accepted protestant belief that when one dies one goes to their final judgement immediately - denying any need for prayer for the dead.
But I have had late night conversations with you on other alternatives that are out there, and some of them do include a later judgement, which would require forgiveness in the afterlife - such as apocatastasis, a great many of the Early Church Fathers believed in it, such as Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa. St. Basil says the majority of the Church of his time believed it.

That said, as ever I hold no faith in what happens immediately after death, although I have certain thoughts.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The question is, is any such teaching found in Matthew 12:32 (or any moment of scripture for that matter)? The answer is…no. Unless one reads into the passage and ignores what comes before and after it, it cannot possibly be talking about postmortem repentance or anything similar. You ask, “why must forgiveness be accompanied by judgment?” Because the passage is dealing with an eternal condemnation - a person who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, for their judgment is already decided. Having “thoughts” on the afterlife can be entertaining, but it is best to ground it in the lessons of Christ and the apostles.

 

[BryanM27]

Just for fun:

How about the 144,000 from the tribes of Israel that are marked with the saving seal in Rev 7.1-8?

And lets not forget that God chose the Jewish people first. Have they made mistakes? Yes. But let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Almighty God who can save whomever he chooses already chose to make the Jewish people special. He chose to save them from slavery in Egypt. He chose to provide for them when they were wandering the wilderness. He chose to guide them in reclaiming their lands. He chose them to raise his only Son who has become our salvation.

They are very special in the eyes of God. It is, in my opinion, foolish to believe that God has now abandonded them completely and will not offer them any more chance at salvation. If you turn away from your church for years and realize how wrong you were, do you expect them to turn their backs on you? Or do you expect that they will welcome you back with open arms? God, who is all-loving, would never turn his back on anyone.

 

[BryanM27]

Ahh, but why must forgiveness be accompanied by judgement? Certainly one can be forgiven to good effect at any time prior to judgement.

As to my use of the verse being the same one that Catholics mention in regards to purgatory, as I said this has been on my mind lately, and yes it came from a discussion at work which involved one of my Catholic colleagues.
However you know well that Orthodoxy condemns teaching purgatory as either doctrine or dogma, but it does not condemn the idea itself. Why must I therefore deny the idea simply because the Catholics accept it?

However you are falling into the trap that Catholics often fall into when they accuse Orthodox of believing in purgatory, the false dilemma that one must either believe in purgatory (and that the soul does not go to final judgement immediately) or the accepted protestant belief that when one dies one goes to their final judgement immediately - denying any need for prayer for the dead.
But I have had late night conversations with you on other alternatives that are out there, and some of them do include a later judgement, which would require forgiveness in the afterlife - such as apocatastasis, a great many of the Early Church Fathers believed in it, such as Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa. St. Basil says the majority of the Church of his time believed it.

That said, as ever I hold no faith in what happens immediately after death, although I have certain thoughts.

I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of purgatory. Maybe i’m wrong on that point, but purgatory is part of the final judgment. Think about Purgatory not as a punishment, but as the final cleansing before we enter Heaven. Just as Baptism cleansed us of the stain of Original Sin, Purgatory cleanses us of the stains of our sins. Nothing that is unclean can enter the Kingdom of God.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

They are very special in the eyes of God. It is, in my opinion, foolish to believe that God has now abandonded them completely and will not offer them any more chance at salvation.

Entire sections of Paul’s epistle to the Romans detail that many Jews have turned their back on God. Paul even compares the remnant of believing Jews during the time of Ahab to the remnant of believing (aka Christian) Jews in the early Church (Romans 11). Everything done in the Old Testament, furthermore, is irrelevant to the matter, because we are under the new covenant, and the old covenant has been done away with (Hebrews 8). Under the new covenant, the “seed of Abraham” are no longer simply the Semitic people, but all who believe in Christ and become Sons of God (Galatians 3).

God has offered them a chance for salvation - it is called the gospel.