Are Jews saved?

[Della]

Okay, I ask one further indulgence by posting these verses with a very brief comment or two for all to consider:

John.15[22] If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

God does not impute guilt upon those who are ignorant of sin.

Matt.7[8] For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Everyone–not just those who already believe.

Luke.17[33] Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.

All who do this are employing the graces gained by Christ through his redemptive sacrifice.

Luke.19[10] For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost."

All of us are “the lost” without Christ’s redemptive death and resurrection. Jesus seeks all who wish to be saved, even those who cannot put that longing into theological constructs.

Heb.11[6] And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
[14] For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.

Faith isn’t merely mental assent to the divinity of Christ, it is belief in God and the willingness to seek him and to serve him.

Acts.10[34] And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality,
[35] but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

This is the crux of the matter. No Catholic is saying anyone is saved apart from Christ. We are saying that only God determines who has saving faith and who doesn’t. Christ made this possible through his redemptive sacrifice. In the end, only God can judge, is all we are saying, not that taking the Gospel to all men is not necessary nor that all who have not heard/are under invincible ignorance will be saved. If we were to be as strict in judging others’ possible salvation as some, we would have to condemn them for not being in full communion with the Catholic Church for salvation is through Christ’s Church–through its sacraments, especially baptism. It is possible for non-Christians to be saved, it is not likely, though, considering that each of us is a sinner already under condemnation for being a sinner. But, God can save whomever he pleases, whenever he pleases, however he pleases. We simply will not play God and judge who will and who won’t be saved based solely on their profession (or lack thereof) of faith.

Now I bow out. I only posted this for our seekers and lurkers lest they think there is no scriptural support for the Church’s position. God bless you all.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 1/2)

John.15[22] If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

God does not impute guilt upon those who are ignorant of sin.

This verse was already discussed in this post. If you’re going to use it again, please respond first to what was previously discussed about it.

Matt.7[8] For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Everyone–not just those who already believe.

I’m sorry, but that’s fallacious argumentation basing itself on the literal interpretation of words like “all” and “everyone.” According to this logic, when our Lord says, “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14), that means that I can say, “Well, he says ANYTHING, so I can pray to rob a bank in Jesus’s name and He’ll make it happen!” You know fully well that’s not the case.

In any case, a person would have to be a believer in order to ask Christ, which is exactly what our Lord is talking about in that entire section of Matthew 7. He’s talking about people going to Him - not Vishnu, not Allah, not Buddha, not any one else. A person can’t ask anything of Christ if they aren’t going to him any more than a person can get help from a doctor if they never go see a doctor.

Luke.17[33] Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.

All who do this are employing the graces gained by Christ through his redemptive sacrifice.

With all due respect, are you reading these passages from study or are you taking them from second-hand sources? I ask because most of them are out of the context of which they are taken. This one is a glaring example: you say that this is an act of grace gained by Christ through His redemptive sacrifice, but in actuality it is Christ talking about the coming of the Kingdom of God, and the comparisons with Lot’s life (Luke 17:32) who missed the sins of the city and so was turned into a pillar of salt. I would agree that some of God’s grace is at work in a person turning away from the world, but this is completely irrelevant to the topic of unbelieving Jews being saved and universalism in general.

Luke.19[10] For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost."

All of us are “the lost” without Christ’s redemptive death and resurrection. Jesus seeks all who wish to be saved, even those who cannot put that longing into theological constructs.

Yes, and those who are saved are those in Christ’s flock. Sheep who don’t follow him outside the gate are not part of His flock. We don’t get to say, “Well they just don’t know He’s their shepherd!” and let them get away with it.

Again, this verse is irrelevant to the subject matter.

Heb.11[6] And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
[14] For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.

Faith isn’t merely mental assent to the divinity of Christ, it is belief in God and the willingness to seek him and to serve him.

And what is seeking Him and serving Him? When the early disciples in Capernaum asked our Lord: “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” (John 6:28), what was our Lord’s response? “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (6:29). Yes - faith is assent to the divinity of Christ (to say it isn’t would contradict virtually all of John’s gospel).

In fact, to argue that faith isn’t mental assent to the divinity of Christ and then say it is belief in God is a grand theological contradiction that would have the Church Fathers rolling over in their graves. Christ is God - men have died affirming that fact. Christ spent His entire earthly ministry affirming that. Each Person in the Trinity represents the fullness of God, which has been orthodox Christian doctrine for over 2000 years, and to deny otherwise is heresy. That is what separates Christ from men like Buddha, Ghandi, Mohammad, or any other well meaning or religious teacher. To deny Christ is to deny God. Q.E.D.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 2/2)

Acts.10[34] And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality,
[35] but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Peter is hear speaking about the selection of the Gentiles along with the Jews (that’s the context of “God shows no partiality” throughout the entire New Testament). In fact, did you read what Peter says after he says that? He preaches Christ crucified and then ends it with: “And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:42-43). In other words, belief in Christ, the judge of the living and the dead, will allow a person to receive forgiveness of sins through His name.

What you’re doing with this passage (and many others) is taking verses that speak about serving God and then broadening the context, saying, “Oh! This means any way of serving a type of god wins salvation!” No where is that taught in scripture. The context is always the Trinitarian God of the Old and New Testaments, and reverence of Him alone.

This is the crux of the matter. No Catholic is saying anyone is saved apart from Christ.

Yes…you…are! To say, “Well if someone doesn’t believe in Christ or follow Him, they can still be saved,” and then turn around and say, “But that doesn’t mean we’re saying there’s salvation outside of Christ!” is to state a contradiction.

We are saying that only God determines who has saving faith and who doesn’t. Christ made this possible through his redemptive sacrifice. In the end, only God can judge, is all we are saying, not that taking the Gospel to all men is not necessary nor that all who have not heard/are under invincible ignorance will be saved…We simply will not play God and judge who will and who won’t be saved based solely on their profession (or lack thereof) of faith.

Again, that’s a strawman, something I already addressed (and I’m really beginning to wonder if my posts are being read). No one is saying that we’re judging who’s going to hell and who isn’t as if it’s definite. I don’t walk into a mosque and point around the room going, “Well, he’s going to hell, he’s going to hell, he’s going to hell, he’s going to hell…”

I don’t know who’s going to hell…but one thing I do know is what sends a person to hell. As I said before, though we are not called to be God we are called to be ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20). In the Middle Ages, if an ambassador changed the message of his king or felt ashamed of what he had to deliver, he usually got executed. Perhaps this is why Christ warned us: “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26). I am not ashamed to teach that faith in Christ brings about a person’s salvation, because that is what is taught in scripture. I am not afraid to warn people of unbelief that they have a spiritual disease which leads to death. I am not afraid to tell someone who has not repented and come to Christ that He is the only way to the Father and the only source of eternal life. Why? Out of love, because, like our Lord, I would love to see all men saved, though I recognize not all men will be saved. I recognize what does not save and so I educate people on what does not.

This is not passing judgment. This is gospel.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Oh, something else I had missed before (probably because I was writing late at night as well).

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.

I’m aware of what apocatastasis is - it’s the belief that hell is a hospital rather than a jail, and that nature will be restored in due time. It was also condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council as heresy.

If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema. [Anathemas Against Origen, XIV; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html”]link]

It’s therefore a poor example to give.

 

[KathleenGee]

Gerard,

Thanks for the link…my past sources said that the Zionists were purely atheistic. So, Messianic Jews are part of this…

My friend from Hebrew Catholic also stated that the Messianic Jews have their own share of sufferings…more so than they…he thinks all Jews should go to Israel…I don’t know if he meant to remain there, though,.

But he did say, that a Jew who willfully rejects Jesus ‘knowing’ his message will be face the same as others who reject Him.

A Hebrew Catholic priest acknowledged the special relationship Jews have with God, but we are to continue to pray for their conversion. Many Hebrew Catholic Jews went to priests who refused to baptize them saying they were already with God…they wanted baptism like the early Jews…and to go through the initiation into His Church just like everyone else. But they want to hold on to their own cultural/spiritual heritage. So we continue to pray for the Jewish people and their conversion to Christ and to their fulfillment in the Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

Oh, something else I had missed before (probably because I was writing late at night as well).

I’m aware of what apocatastasis is - it’s the belief that hell is a hospital rather than a jail, and that nature will be restored in due time. It was also condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council as heresy.

If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema. [Anathemas Against Origen, XIV; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html”]link

]

It’s therefore a poor example to give.

Not really, that is condemning a particular view of apocatastasis as held by Origin, one which denies the resurection, and suggests that the entirety of the knowledge of God shall be known. It does not condemn the belief itself that all may one day find salvation.

The use of the word “apocatastasis” itself doesn’t mean much in that, the term simply means “restoration”.

When doctrines are condemned they are done so in no uncertain terms, that is not a condemnation of the doctrine, or of the Fathers who held to it.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Not really, that is condemning a particular view of apocatastasis as held by Origin, one which denies the resurection, and suggests that the entirety of the knowledge of God shall be known. It does not condemn the belief itself that all may one day find salvation.

The use of the word “apocatastasis” itself doesn’t mean much in that, the term simply means “restoration”.

When doctrines are condemned they are done so in no uncertain terms, that is not a condemnation of the doctrine, or of the Fathers who held to it.

Most of the time the context of apocatastasis is held in the view of Origen and nothing else. Even Gregory of Nyssa is said to have held the same view of Origen, unless you can show me a patristic scholar that says otherwise.

But that gets off the topic - which is that there is no such teaching in scripture, in Matthew 12:32 or otherwise.

 

[BryanM27]

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.

So according to your logic, which is that the old covenant has been completely done away with, that means that I do NOT have to do obey any of the following:

1.) have no other gods before the Lord
2.) do not create and worship idols
3.) do not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord
4.) remember and keep holy the sabbath
5.) honor your father and your mother
6.) do not murder
7.) do not commit adultery
8.) do not steal
9.) do not bear false witness against your neighbor
10.) do not covet thy neighbors possessions

(full versions can be found in Exodus 20:2-17 NRSV)

We cannot use the logic that says the old covenant was COMPLETELY erased. Yes, Christ established the new covenant. I will not argue that. I will argue that we cannot deal in absolutes with ANYTHING pertaining to the Bible. At the end of the day, it is not our judgment of what is right and wrong (no matter how clear scripture may be) that matters. We are called to be like Christ, who endured suffering for ALL MANKIND, not just a select group of people.

And while I agree that the religious Jews who denied Christ in the first century certainly had a tough time when they came to judgment, who are we to say that God did not forgive them? And who are we to say that the Jews that live now and still worship Him are absolutely guilty of the sins of their ancestors? When we do we become guilty of something that Christ warned us not to do. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.” Lk 6:37 (NRSV)

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m going to take a wild guess at this and imagine and not know, that the jews you speak of don’t really loose too much sleep over this.
Why should they?

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m going to take a wild guess at this and imagine and not know, that the jews you speak of don’t really loose too much sleep over this.

Not the slightest.

The genius of Christianity - invent an illness and proclaim itself the only cure.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

So according to your logic, which is that the old covenant has been completely done away with, that means that I do NOT have to do obey any of the following:

[Ten Commandments]

(full versions can be found in Exodus 20:2-17 NRSV)

We cannot use the logic that says the old covenant was COMPLETELY erased.

I’m sorry, but that’s an absurd argument. No one is saying throw out the Old Testament, only that the covenant made by Moses in the desert has been replaced by the covenant with Christ. If you want to argue that point, your argument is not against me but against the writers of the New Testament.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [Hebrews 8:7-13; ESV; emphasis mine]

The covenant between God and the Jews as a people is over. The covenant between Christ and His people is here. We follow the terms of the new covenant. There is no “grandfather clause” when it comes to Biblical covenants.

At the end of the day, it is not our judgment of what is right and wrong (no matter how clear scripture may be) that matters.

Oye…I really am beginning to wonder if my posts are being read, because this accusation has been answered perhaps four or five times now, if not more. The issue not that we’re passing judgment - the issue is we’re not changing the message of the gospel to fit a post-modern mindset that feels guilty that there will be people in the end going to hell. As I said before, we don’t know who’s going to hell - but we do know what sends a person to hell.

And while I agree that the religious Jews who denied Christ in the first century certainly had a tough time when they came to judgment, who are we to say that God did not forgive them? And who are we to say that the Jews that live now and still worship Him are absolutely guilty of the sins of their ancestors? When we do we become guilty of something that Christ warned us not to do. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.” Lk 6:37 (NRSV)

In that case, a lot of apostles went to hell for condemning people - Peter for the unbelieving Jews, and Paul for the unbelieving Gentiles. No they didn’t pull a Westboro Baptist Church, but they said openly that salvation was in Christ only. Again, this “divine loophole” that people keep repeating is not in scripture, and to keep falling back on “Well we can’t judge people” is simply a strawman to avoid responding to what scripture says about unbelief.

Unbelieving Jews and Gentiles alike have just as much accountability now as did the unbelieving neighbors of Israel centuries after the settlement of Canaan. Scripture means as much now as it did back then - if it didn’t, then we could just throw out the Bible.

 

[BryanM27]

I’m sorry, but that’s an absurd argument. No one is saying throw out the Old Testament, only that the covenant made by Moses in the desert has been replaced by the covenant with Christ. If you want to argue that point, your argument is not against me but against the writers of the New Testament.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [Hebrews 8:7-13; ESV; emphasis mine]

The covenant between God and the Jews as a people is over. The covenant between Christ and His people is here. We follow the terms of the new covenant. There is no “grandfather clause” when it comes to Biblical covenants.

Oye…I really am beginning to wonder if my posts are being read, because this accusation has been answered perhaps four or five times now, if not more. The issue not that we’re passing judgment - the issue is we’re not changing the message of the gospel to fit a post-modern mindset that feels guilty that there will be people in the end going to hell. As I said before, we don’t know who’s going to hell - but we do know what sends a person to hell.

In that case, a lot of apostles went to hell for condemning people - Peter for the unbelieving Jews, and Paul for the unbelieving Gentiles. No they didn’t pull a Westboro Baptist Church, but they said openly that salvation was in Christ only. Again, this “divine loophole” that people keep repeating is not in scripture, and to keep falling back on “Well we can’t judge people” is simply a strawman to avoid responding to what scripture says about unbelief.

Unbelieving Jews and Gentiles alike have just as much accountability now as did the unbelieving neighbors of Israel centuries after the settlement of Canaan. Scripture means as much now as it did back then - if it didn’t, then we could just throw out the Bible.

And what was that first covenant? The Law! So the law is what is being made obsolete. Under the argument that you have made, either the entire Law (including the commandments) is now void, or else none of it is void and we are all as guilty for disobeying the Law as the Jews are for not following Christ.

And as for the “divine loophole,” there are numerous passages in the Gospel where CHRIST says that the Father is the one with the authority to pass judgment. Through the power of the Holy Spirit he gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins on earth, but not to pass judgment. That is His province.

And whether a person is condemned to Hell or not, nothing excuses us from the one commandment the Christ gave us before he left. “Love one another as I have loved you.”

As for posts not being read, I can relate. No one has responded to what I said about Rev. 7:1-8.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

And what was that first covenant? The Law! So the law is what is being made obsolete. Under the argument that you have made, either the entire Law (including the commandments) is now void, or else none of it is void and we are all as guilty for disobeying the Law as the Jews are for not following Christ.

Again, your argument is not against me, but the writers of the New Testament, who have said the old covenant is now obsolete. The first covenant was that made with the Hebrews in Sinai between Moses and the people, with the sprinkling of the blood on the people. The new covenant is that made with Christ on the cross and the seed of Abraham, whom Paul identifies over and over again as those who believe in Christ, not simply the ethnic Jews. You can be upset with me all you like, but I am merely repeating what is expounded upon in scripture.

And as for the “divine loophole,” there are numerous passages in the Gospel where CHRIST says that the Father is the one with the authority to pass judgment. Through the power of the Holy Spirit he gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins on earth, but not to pass judgment. That is His province.

That’s repeating the argument made in this thread ad nauseum again. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to say this, but no one is saying we have to pass God-like judgment. I say again: we don’t know who’s going to hell, but we know what sends a person to hell - and unbelief is what sends a person to hell. When Christ states that He is the resurrection and the life, that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that He is the only way to the Father…well, I have to adhere to that. I can’t brush that under the surface and say, “Weeeeell, we don’t wanna sound so mean, do we? We’ll just say that people who don’t know any better go to heaven and call it a day.” That’s falling into post-modernism. That’s introducing the camel’s nose of universalism. That’s creating a new gospel. Even worse, it’s simply lying to people.

And whether a person is condemned to Hell or not, nothing excuses us from the one commandment the Christ gave us before he left. “Love one another as I have loved you.”

Oh I agree. But because I love an unsaved person, I tell them the truth of the Gospel. If you were a cancer survivor and recognized that a good friend of yours had the same symptoms you did before you found out you had cancer, out of love you would tell them, would you not? You wouldn’t say, “Well, I don’t wanna play doctor, and it’s not my right to judge their mental health…” No, of course not.

The apostles dearly loved all they preached too - but note that they preached to all the people that Christ was their sole source of salvation.

As for posts not being read, I can relate. No one has responded to what I said about Rev. 7:1-8.

Actually, I did respond to your post, but to redirect it to verses that were more relevant, especially to the topic at hand.

 

[Robbinson]

Again, your argument is not against me, but the writers of the New Testament, who have said the old covenant is now obsolete. The first covenant was that made with the Hebrews in Sinai between Moses and the people, with the sprinkling of the blood on the people. The new covenant is that made with Christ on the cross and the seed of Abraham, whom Paul identifies over and over again as those who believe in Christ, not simply the ethnic Jews. You can be upset with me all you like, but I am merely repeating what is expounded upon in scripture.

That’s repeating the argument made in this thread ad nauseum again. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to say this, but no one is saying we have to pass God-like judgment. I say again: we don’t know who’s going to hell, but we know what sends a person to hell - and unbelief is what sends a person to hell. When Christ states that He is the resurrection and the life, that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that He is the only way to the Father…well, I have to adhere to that. I can’t brush that under the surface and say, “Weeeeell, we don’t wanna sound so mean, do we? We’ll just say that people who don’t know any better go to heaven and call it a day.” That’s falling into post-modernism. That’s introducing the camel’s nose of universalism. That’s creating a new gospel. Even worse, it’s simply lying to people.

Oh I agree. But because I love an unsaved person, I tell them the truth of the Gospel. If you were a cancer survivor and recognized that a good friend of yours had the same symptoms you did before you found out you had cancer, out of love you would tell them, would you not? You wouldn’t say, “Well, I don’t wanna play doctor, and it’s not my right to judge their mental health…” No, of course not.

The apostles dearly loved all they preached too - but note that they preached to all the people that Christ was their sole source of salvation.

Actually, I did respond to your post, but to redirect it to verses that were more relevant, especially to the topic at hand.

Perhaps to state the obvious - there is disagreement over interpretation of these various verses. I understand your perspective (and its one of many potential “reasonable” interpretations of several verses), but ultimately disagree with it because of its inconsistency with what I see as the “larger” message that God desires all be saved, that he supernaturally blinds some and that some just don’t hear the gospel - so incline towards an interpretation that shows that salvation is “possible” without the benefit of full revelation.

You disagree - I respect that - You objected to talking about larger theological differences - but to me that inform our mutual understanding and interpretation of these verses.

But I thank you for the posts - I’ve found them very educational and certainly helps me understand “where you are coming from” and I hope, that while you disagree with the alternative interpretaitons shared with you here by many posters - you have found it educational and have developed a better understanding of where we are coming from

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To Robbinson:

I appreciate your compliments, however I’m at a lost about certain things. For one, I don’t understand the “disagreement over interpretation of these various verses,” when I haven’t really received why people disagree over these verses. Some have told me over and over again, “You’re taking these verses out of context,” but despite my earnest requests I have yet to see anyone show me how these passages have been taken out of context. I’ve been told it’s “inconsistent,” but can’t see how when they all agree with one another and from these passages we can come to one conclusion.

The fact is when we say we incline to one interpretation of salvation, we mean that we create within our minds a theology of salvation - one unscriptural - and suit theology to fit our need. If scripture seems to contradict that…well, we’ll just not let the facts confuse us and accuse the other person either of taking them out of context or not understanding the gospel. It is like an astronomer declaring the planets to revolve around the earth and, hearing someone proclaim that the planets revolve around the sun with scientific proof, simply discredits the findings and declares that they are following the facts. We can’t let our theology influence how we read scripture; we should allow scripture to influence our theology.

As such, I agree that God desires all men to be saved - that is why God brought about our salvation through the man Christ Jesus, who is not only the gate of His sheep but the Good Shepherd who leads them out as well. That is why Christ sent out His apostles, so that all with ears to hear and eyes to see will come to know Him. That is why scripture beats the drum over and over and over again: “Christ is our salvation and Christ alone.” That is consistent theology. Not proclaiming: “Well, Christ is our only way to salvation, unless you maybe just didn’t read the Bible enough, then he might go easy on you…” That’s waffling the facts.

Again, with passages like John 14:6, Matthew 10:32-33, and many others, one cannot twist this fact around without first twisting what scripture says. Christ is our only salvation - to believe anything else is to insult the deed of His crucifixion.

 

[Robbinson]

To Robbinson:

I appreciate your compliments, however I’m at a lost about certain things. For one, I don’t understand the “disagreement over interpretation of these various verses,” when I haven’t really received why people disagree over these verses. Some have told me over and over again, “You’re taking these verses out of context,” but despite my earnest requests I have yet to see anyone show me how these passages have been taken out of context. I’ve been told it’s “inconsistent,” but can’t see how when they all agree with one another and from these passages we can come to one conclusion.

The fact is when we say we incline to one interpretation of salvation, we mean that we create within our minds a theology of salvation - one unscriptural - and suit theology to fit our need. If scripture seems to contradict that…well, we’ll just not let the facts confuse us and accuse the other person either of taking them out of context or not understanding the gospel. It is like an astronomer declaring the planets to revolve around the earth and, hearing someone proclaim that the planets revolve around the sun with scientific proof, simply discredits the findings and declares that they are following the facts. We can’t let our theology influence how we read scripture; we should allow scripture to influence our theology.

As such, I agree that God desires all men to be saved - that is why God brought about our salvation through the man Christ Jesus, who is not only the gate of His sheep but the Good Shepherd who leads them out as well. That is why Christ sent out His apostles, so that all with ears to hear and eyes to see will come to know Him. That is why scripture beats the drum over and over and over again: “Christ is our salvation and Christ alone.” That is consistent theology. Not proclaiming: “Well, Christ is our only way to salvation, unless you maybe just didn’t read the Bible enough, then he might go easy on you…” That’s waffling the facts.

Again, with passages like John 14:6, Matthew 10:32-33, and many others, one cannot twist this fact around without first twisting what scripture says. Christ is our only salvation - to believe anything else is to insult the deed of His crucifixion.

Byzantine_Wolf - Let me be more specific. There are verses, as you cited, which tell us we are saved through faith in Christ. And I agree with that. We are discussing what that means.

I, and others, have stated that we believe those who don’t know Christ, or who are “supernaturally blinded by God from recognizing him” (God’s scripture reveled plan for Israel as a collective) are nevertheless potentially “saved through Christ” even though they don’t (i) know his name (haven’t heard the Gospel) or (ii) can’t recognize Him (through God’s intervention) and I cited several verses supporting that perspective (e.g., those where Jesus told the Pharasees they would not have guild if they “could see” but as they say they “see” they have guilt, and the verse where Jesus said some would not have had guild/sin if He had not performed miracles for them.

You looked at the same verses and interpreted them differently, more narrowly, as not standing for this proposition at all. That is a “disagreement” in interpretation that is affected, I believe, by our larger theological perspective (which you still decline to address - which is fine). As I believe God gives us all 'choice" - urges us to “repent” (a voluntary act" and desires that “all be saved” - I can’t see how God could then create large classes of people who “can’t be saved” due to (i) ignorance of the existance of Christ or the gospel or (ii) supernatural blinding.

Reform tradition - for better or worse - resolves this issue by adopting divine election - We don’t need to talk about it here, but yes, if I believed in that doctrine, I would have no difficulting interpreting theses verses as you have

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Actually, you did not cite “several verses,” you cited about two, and when I responded to your quotations with exegesis you simply went off on a tangent about Reformed theology. I’d like to reiterate that at no point did I bring my Reformed theology into this (heck I was even trying to avoid name-dropping Roman Catholicism). I didn’t quote the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession of 1689, nor any of John Calvin’s exegetical work - rather, I simply quoted scripture and showed the context of which it was talking about. We’re not talking about Reformed theology - we’re talking about what scripture teaches.

You begin your post with a statement that I think sums up the real problem here - you say “we believe.” Exactly. You believe. I am simply following scripture. I have been simply quoting scripture. I’ve been told over and over again “That’s not in context” with no attempt to demonstrate how I have done so. To me, there is nothing more insulting than telling a person “You’re wrong” and then not being able to show them why they’re wrong. That is the greatest sign of a man-made theology. When you rely more on personal opinion than scripture, and either run away from quoting scripture or examining it when it comes under question, that too is the sign of a man-made theology.

If you want to blame it on Reformed tradition, well fine, you can keep running to that straw man…but that’ll mean that Christians up until maybe about 100 years ago all followed Reformed tradition.

 

[Robbinson]

Actually, you did not cite “several verses,” you cited about two, and when I responded to your quotations with exegesis you simply went off on a tangent about Reformed theology. I’d like to reiterate that at no point did I bring my Reformed theology into this (heck I was even trying to avoid name-dropping Roman Catholicism). I didn’t quote the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession of 1689, nor any of John Calvin’s exegetical work - rather, I simply quoted scripture and showed the context of which it was talking about. We’re not talking about Reformed theology - we’re talking about what scripture teaches.

You begin your post with a statement that I think sums up the real problem here - you say “we believe.” Exactly. You believe. I am simply following scripture. I have been simply quoting scripture. I’ve been told over and over again “That’s not in context” with no attempt to demonstrate how I have done so. To me, there is nothing more insulting than telling a person “You’re wrong” and then not being able to show them why they’re wrong. That is the greatest sign of a man-made theology. When you rely more on personal opinion than scripture, and either run away from quoting scripture or examining it when it comes under question, that too is the sign of a man-made theology.

If you want to blame it on Reformed tradition, well fine, you can keep running to that straw man…but that’ll mean that Christians up until maybe about 100 years ago all followed Reformed tradition.

Byzantine - I don’t understand the hostility in your replies. Yes, I cited “two” verses in particular - I didn’t mean to offend by shorthanding “several” which implies 3 or more - my bad there. I could find dozerns of verses in scripture that I feel support the idea that God wants us to “choose” life which therefore “informs” my interpretation of these two particular verses I cited relating to being held accountable to the level of revelation made available to us. But I can’t/wouldn’t read those two verses in a vacuum without harmonizing them with other verses in scripture.

I’m not looking for a staw man - I’m explaining why we (you and I) might reasonably have different interpretations of the same verses. Scripture does not interpret itself - if it did, then we wouldnt have 40,000 plus denominations, all Holy Spirit filled, claiming their interpretations of the same verses are correct. By definition, we interpret verses, not in isolation, but by reference to other verses and our understanding of what they are teaching us. That is the only point I’m trying to establish by referencing my belief/interpretation of scripture verses consistent with a “choise” to cooperate with the Holy Spirit and I’m merely recognizing an alternative perspective (divine eleciton - irresitable grace) which would lead us to a different interpretation. That is a fact - we are all affected in interpreting any given verse by our understanding of other related verses.

Please don’t take anything I have written as intended to be critical of your perspective (whatever it is) - but only as explaining why I interpret these verses the way that I do.

The “we” was reference to other posters in this thread with a similar perspective and, yes, the Catholic Church teaches that we cooperate with the Holy Spirit rather than irresitable grace.

BTW - I’ve read the Westminster Catechism - long and short - think its a wonderful spirit field work, even though I don’t agree with some of the doctrine. I never intended to suggest otherwise and I’ve participated in, and been a guest speaker at, several pryspeterian study groups - not because we are “agreeing” on these issues, but so that each can have a better understanding of the other’s perspectives. That is the first step in Jesus’s prayer for us - unity in the body of Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’m not hostile at all. I don’t mind contrary opinion. What’s frustrating, however, is, as I said in my previous post, when I’m told I’m wrong and, after asking sincerely to be shown how, I’m given bluster and non sequitors - which, unfortunately, you provided again by leaping to anti-Protestant argumentation. However, as with Reformed theology, I haven’t even argued from any specific Protestant mindset. I haven’t even used any kind of argumentation similar to, “Well you’re saying that because you’re a Roman Catholic!” Again, I’ve only been arguing from scripture.

And again, the fact a person has to either run away from scripture the minute they’re asked to give some examples, or they refuse to respond to exegesis that reviews the scripture they believe proves their point and in fact leap to another discussion, is telling of someone’s theology. If there is indeed a consistent theology present, it should be seen in scripture rather than in personal opinion.

 

[BryanM27]

I’m not hostile at all. I don’t mind contrary opinion. QUOTE]

And that, Byantine, is why I love having you here on CAF. It is refreshing to have someone come in and say this is what I believe and why, without adding that everyone else is wrong for believing different.

Sorry I missed your response to my post about Revelation…I’m going back and looking for it now that I’m all caught up on today’s action