Are Jews saved?

[Nine_Two]

We were debating Honorius and his being a Monothelite heretic. Arguing with some of these folks an issue that has obvious facts and historical records they deny reality and I feel like Abbott and Costello with Who’s on First? LOL…

I avoid the topic of Honorius, it makes me lose faith in the human ability to reason.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Possible? I’d say it is impossible not to, and the multitude of “churches” seems to prove that. While I mostly agree with your point, there is room for interpretation there - though the more extreme universalist positions clearly have no basis in scripture or Tradition.

If there is interpretation - that is, I am not letting scripture speak - please show me how I have done so.

We were debating Honorius and his being a Monothelite heretic. Arguing with some of these folks an issue that has obvious facts and historical records they deny reality and I feel like Abbott and Costello with Who’s on First? LOL…

You should’ve seen me on another forum. I was debating a Monolist (people who believe in a “middle knowledge” where God creates alternate universes and chooses the best one) regarding grace. Every time I pointed out a flaw in his argument he would say, “Well I’m a Molinist, I don’t care about that!” Then if I quoted someone to prove my point, he would say, “But that guy doesn’t believe in irresistible grace, so you can’t use it!” If he had kept arguing (he gave up finally) I would have pointed out to him, “Well the people you’re quoting don’t believe in a middle knowledge either, so let’s be consistent here.” The ability of some people to hold double standards is simply amazing. :whacky:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Honorius argument is just THAT bad. You can point out the fact that the guy actually sent a papal legate to the Cyprus synod and officially had the legate advocate the Monothelite position! He had a legate, in his stead, fight for a heresy and these folks tell me that that doesn’t make him a heretic because he wasn’t there? LOL!

My that logic Hitler wasn’t responsible for the Final Solution since he wasn’t at the death camps?

The guy wrote letters to Sergius advocating Monothelitism then he had a legate fight for it, died believing it. The dude was a heretic.

The problem is that he totally negates the entire infallibility argument. That “failure to teach” approach is a cheesy way out, semantical nonsense, to try and skirt the fact that this guy was a pope, was a heretic, and officially taught it thus negating the notion of infallibility from the Chair. He was and is a huge stumbling block for me accepting Catholic teachings about infallibility.

And yet when you point this stuff out they accuse you of being “anti Catholic” and one guy said, but he’s the Rock, he can’t err!

I’m thinking HE DID I just showed ya he did! AAAAGh LOL

If there is interpretation - that is, I am not letting scripture speak - please show me how I have done so.

You should’ve seen me on another forum. I was debating a Monolist (people who believe in a “middle knowledge” where God creates alternate universes and chooses the best one) regarding grace. Every time I pointed out a flaw in his argument he would say, “Well I’m a Molinist, I don’t care about that!” Then if I quoted someone to prove my point, he would say, “But that guy doesn’t believe in irresistible grace, so you can’t use it!” If he had kept arguing (he gave up finally) I would have pointed out to him, “Well the people you’re quoting don’t believe in a middle knowledge either, so let’s be consistent here.” The ability of some people to hold double standards is simply amazing. :whacky:

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The Honorius argument is just THAT bad. You can point out the fact that the guy actually sent a papal legate to the Cyprus synod and officially had the legate advocate the Monothelite position! He had a legate, in his stead, fight for a heresy and these folks tell me that that doesn’t make him a heretic because he wasn’t there? LOL!

My that logic Hitler wasn’t responsible for the Final Solution since he wasn’t at the death camps?

The guy wrote letters to Sergius advocating Monothelitism then he had a legate fight for it, died believing it. The dude was a heretic.

The problem is that he totally negates the entire infallibility argument. That “failure to teach” approach is a cheesy way out, semantical nonsense, to try and skirt the fact that this guy was a pope, was a heretic, and officially taught it thus negating the notion of infallibility from the Chair. He was and is a huge stumbling block for me accepting Catholic teachings about infallibility.

And yet when you point this stuff out they accuse you of being “anti Catholic” and one guy said, but he’s the Rock, he can’t err!

I’m thinking HE DID I just showed ya he did! AAAAGh LOL

Admittedly a lot of people can’t properly define the term “papal infallibility” (“Duuuh this pope said it would rain and it didn’t lawl he ain’t no infallible”), but even when I recognize and go about by the proper definition of papal infallibility, I still can’t accept it for reasons such as this. But I guess that’s straying from “Are Jews Saved?” to “Is the Pope Saved?”

 

[Nine_Two]

If there is interpretation - that is, I am not letting scripture speak - please show me how I have done so.

We already had a discussion on a certain verse.

You interpreted a clause one way, you another.

I haven’t gone through every verse you posted, but on a quick note your interpretation of Rom 11:7 completely ignores free will, a concept which is mentioned foremost through the institution of “freewill offerings” in the Law of Moses, but throughout scripture. In the NT many verses, 2 Timothy 2:25-26 notably among them indicate that one must come of choice, for of what value is it to trade the tyranny of Satan for the tyranny of God? As you yourself acknowledged once, it seems to be cheating to make the claim that all will be saved when “all” only means a preselected elect.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Honorius argument is just THAT bad. You can point out the fact that the guy actually sent a papal legate to the Cyprus synod and officially had the legate advocate the Monothelite position! He had a legate, in his stead, fight for a heresy and these folks tell me that that doesn’t make him a heretic because he wasn’t there? LOL!

My that logic Hitler wasn’t responsible for the Final Solution since he wasn’t at the death camps?

The guy wrote letters to Sergius advocating Monothelitism then he had a legate fight for it, died believing it. The dude was a heretic.

The problem is that he totally negates the entire infallibility argument. That “failure to teach” approach is a cheesy way out, semantical nonsense, to try and skirt the fact that this guy was a pope, was a heretic, and officially taught it thus negating the notion of infallibility from the Chair. He was and is a huge stumbling block for me accepting Catholic teachings about infallibility.

And yet when you point this stuff out they accuse you of being “anti Catholic” and one guy said, but he’s the Rock, he can’t err!

I’m thinking HE DID I just showed ya he did! AAAAGh LOL

Just think of the arguments we’d be having had Valentinius been elected pope.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

We already had a discussion on a certain verse.

You interpreted a clause one way, you another.

You stopped talking about it, so how can you conclude on that?

The argument over Romans 11:7 (which stemmed from a non sequitor to begin with) ignores the context of the verses I’ve argued with this entire thread, which deal with salvation. If those have been interpreted in some way, show me how.

 

[Nine_Two]

You stopped talking about it, so how can you conclude on that?

Yep. I was moving into my new apartment. When I came back it seemed the overarching argument in the thread had not moved in that time. I didn’t bother to look back to see that particular argument because it had been simple back and forth for some time without advancement.

The argument over Romans 11:7 (which stemmed from a non sequitor to begin with) ignores the context of the verses I’ve argued with this entire thread, which deal with salvation. If those have been interpreted in some way, show me how.

The origin of the argument is irrelevant, however your request is fair.

I would like clarification on “interpretation”, by the definition of the word, any exercise of semiotics is by nature interpretation. I will assume that you mean that you have provided verses which can only be legitimately read to mean one thing without eisegesis, If I’m wrong on this correct me.
I warn you up front that you asked me to show you where you are interpreting, all I’m looking for is alternate legitimate interpretations. I make no guarantee I agree with them, and in some cases I may not have a concrete opinion.

“So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” [Matthew 10:32-33]

This particular verse makes no mention of what happens to those who know nothing of Christ. It would be silly to accuse someone of denying what they don’t even know exists, but they certainly haven’t acknowledged it. I believe your point here was that one must actively acknowledge or be at fault for denying.

“…and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.” [John 5:38]

Same alternate interpretation can be made, he only mentions those who actively don’t believe, not those who haven’t heard.

“Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” [John 5:45-46]

Of the three I found in my brief search, this is the only one where I can’t figure out any other way it can be legitimately interpreted, although again noteworthy it is aimed at Jews alone. Strangely it does seem to validate the belief that Jesus himself won’t condemn his fellow Jews (that’ll be Moses).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Refresh my memory, Nine, are you GREEK orthodox or…?

I find it pretty intimidating, daunting, and nerve-wracking the thought of visiting an Orthodox church. They’re so ethnically-oriented that I’d find it weird to be hanging out with a goggle of Greeks or Serbians when I’m from an Anglo-Irish-German background! LOL…eating things wrapped in grape leaves, goat cheese, gyros, and humus, and lamb LOL…yuckola! That ethnic dancing and culture stuff would be as weird to me as the ethnic pandering in the Catholic Church here is. I feel uncomfortable a lot in the Catholic settings here. I can’t imagine how isolated my wife, kids and I might feel? My wife is filipino and I’m anglo. Talk about sticking out like sore thumbs!

Were you a convert to Orthodoxy? Did you ever feel that way?

Just think of the arguments we’d be having had Valentinius been elected pope.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I would like clarification on “interpretation”, by the definition of the word, any exercise of semiotics is by nature interpretation. I will assume that you mean that you have provided verses which can only be legitimately read to mean one thing without eisegesis, If I’m wrong on this correct me.
I warn you up front that you asked me to show you where you are interpreting, all I’m looking for is alternate legitimate interpretations. I make no guarantee I agree with them, and in some cases I may not have a concrete opinion.

When I say “interpretation,” I refer to eisegesis being implanted onto the verses, so that the verses mean something different from the context. In that regard…

This particular verse makes no mention of what happens to those who know nothing of Christ. It would be silly to accuse someone of denying what they don’t even know exists, but they certainly haven’t acknowledged it. I believe your point here was that one must actively acknowledge or be at fault for denying.

Same alternate interpretation can be made, he only mentions those who actively don’t believe, not those who haven’t heard.

I will ask you exactly what I asked Robbinson: where in the passages does it says something similar to “people who don’t know any better will get off the hook.” When scripture beats the drum of “Salvation through Christ, salvation through Christ, salvation through Christ,” it becomes obvious that there is no salvation elsewhere (this, too, is spoken of in scripture, in the other verses I cited). It doesn’t say “If you don’t know, you get the divine loophole” - that has to be read into scripture, ie. eisegesis.

Of the three I found in my brief search, this is the only one where I can’t figure out any other way it can be legitimately interpreted, although again noteworthy it is aimed at Jews alone. Strangely it does seem to validate the belief that Jesus himself won’t condemn his fellow Jews (that’ll be Moses).

I used it because it was aimed at Jews, based on the idea that Jews will be saved besides Jesus. In regards to Moses condemning the Jews but not Christ, that would be nonsensical with the passages throughout scripture where Christ says He is given all judgment by the Fathers. Rather, what He means is that the condemnation of unbelieving Jews will be based on the idea that they rejected the writings of Moses, who wrote of Christ. The Jews had been arguing the entire section that Jesus was bearing His own witness (in other words, a guy just saying they were wrong by his own accord), and Christ concludes the section with the statement that, in fact, they will bring about their own condemnation because of their rejection of the Messianic prophecies.

 

[Nine_Two]

Refresh my memory, Nine, are you GREEK orthodox or…?

I find it pretty intimidating, daunting, and nerve-wracking the thought of visiting an Orthodox church. They’re so ethnically-oriented that I’d find it weird to be hanging out with a goggle of Greeks or Serbians when I’m from an Anglo-Irish-German background! LOL…eating things wrapped in grape leaves, goat cheese, gyros, and humus, and lamb LOL…yuckola! That ethnic dancing and culture stuff would be as weird to me as the ethnic pandering in the Catholic Church here is. I feel uncomfortable a lot in the Catholic settings here. I can’t imagine how isolated my wife, kids and I might feel? My wife is filipino and I’m anglo. Talk about sticking out like sore thumbs!

Were you a convert to Orthodoxy? Did you ever feel that way?

I’m a member of the OCA, and a convert, technically from Anglicanism, although in reality before my conversion I’d have described myself as “Christian Nihlist”, I believed in God, I believed Jesus probably came, but beyond that I didn’t think there was much purpose to existence beyond existence itself.
Of the two churches I’ve regularly attended, both have been multi-ethnic with English by far the most common spoken language. I’m from an Anglo-Celtic (Scottish/Irish) background and I feel at home in an OCA church now, but I’ve also never had a priest who wasn’t a convert.
I can’t disagree with you on the food, I’m a picky eater and getting used to some of it was odd. Strangely it was through my current Orthodox (convert) boss, and not my local parish that gave me a taste for humus.
The ethnic stuff can be a handicap, it’s why I don’t feel comfortable going to the Greek Orthodox parish down the street from me as opposed to the OCA church (also not far from me… I should mention the city I live in was one of few to have an actual diocese of its own back when St. Tikon was metropolitan, we’re even mentioned in the Tomos of Autocephaly for the OCA. )
Going to an Orthodox Church for the first time was something I felt harrowing, and it took a bit of time to feel comfortable, I actually went twice, then stopped for several months, only going back because I realized it was necessary.

But other experiences may differ.

Oh, and while I do eat lamb, I did so before I was Orthodox, and mostly just when my sister is around to get that same reaction out of her.

 

[Nine_Two]

When I say “interpretation,” I refer to eisegesis being implanted onto the verses, so that the verses mean something different from the context. In that regard…

Then it is quite possible to have two readings without interpretation.

I will ask you exactly what I asked Robbinson: where in the passages does it says something similar to “people who don’t know any better will get off the hook.” When scripture beats the drum of “Salvation through Christ, salvation through Christ, salvation through Christ,” it becomes obvious that there is no salvation elsewhere (this, too, is spoken of in scripture, in the other verses I cited). It doesn’t say “If you don’t know, you get the divine loophole” - that has to be read into scripture, ie. eisegesis.

It doesn’t say anything like that in the verse. It also doesn’t say lions are a type of cat - holding a positivistic view of scripture is eisegesis. The verse itself gives two alternatives when there are three available.

I used it because it was aimed at Jews, based on the idea that Jews will be saved besides Jesus. In regards to Moses condemning the Jews but not Christ, that would be nonsensical with the passages throughout scripture where Christ says He is given all judgment by the Fathers. Rather, what He means is that the condemnation of unbelieving Jews will be based on the idea that they rejected the writings of Moses, who wrote of Christ. The Jews had been arguing the entire section that Jesus was bearing His own witness (in other words, a guy just saying they were wrong by his own accord), and Christ concludes the section with the statement that, in fact, they will bring about their own condemnation because of their rejection of the Messianic prophecies.

I would read judgement and condemnation as two very different things. The Pantocrator may judge, but he does not necessarily condemn. Paul wrote in Romans (2:1) that anyone who judges another condemns themselves (note that it doesn’t say Christ no longer judges them, just that they bring the condemnation themselves).

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Then it is quite possible to have two readings without interpretation.

I believe it is possible to, say, find a parable and have two people emphasize two different aspects of it but at the same time not take anything out of context. At the same time, I also believe that it is possible to read into a passage.

It doesn’t say anything like that in the verse. It also doesn’t say lions are a type of cat - holding a positivistic view of scripture is eisegesis. The verse itself gives two alternatives when there are three available.

Nowhere is a third option made. That is my point. You say “there are three available” but these verses only mention two, as you say. The problem is, scripture only ever gives two options. Never is a third given. If it were given in scripture as much as it was for two, I would support your case - but as it stands, nowhere is a third option given. The third option is inserted my eisegesis.

Likewise, I’m sorry, but the “lions are a type of cat” argument doesn’t work. You’re talking about an argument that isn’t even related to the verse or what the verse is talking about, and as such is irrelevant.

I would read judgement and condemnation as two very different things. The Pantocrator may judge, but he does not necessarily condemn. Paul wrote in Romans (2:1) that anyone who judges another condemns themselves (note that it doesn’t say Christ no longer judges them, just that they bring the condemnation themselves).

I agree that judgment and condemnation are by themselves two different things - one brings about the other. However, that’s not the point of what I was trying to say. Christ tells the unbelieving Jews that their condemnation will be sourced to their refusal to accept the messianic prophecies of Moses, and as such will come their judgment from that rejection. Moses does not hold the judgment seat - only Christ is given that. The unbelieving Jews, believing they are justified by their acceptance of Moses and following his teachings, are told by Christ that, in actuality, it will bring about that condemnation they believe they do not deserve.

 

[Nine_Two]

I believe it is possible to, say, find a parable and have two people emphasize two different aspects of it but at the same time not take anything out of context. At the same time, I also believe that it is possible to read into a passage.

Nope, you can certainly have multiple interpretations without eisegesis.

Nowhere is a third option made. That is my point. You say “there are three available” but these verses only mention two, as you say. The problem is, scripture only ever gives two options. Never is a third given. If it were given in scripture as much as it was for two, I would support your case - but as it stands, nowhere is a third option given. The third option is inserted my eisegesis.

The third opinion comes about by exegesis. If one must apply a positivist view to scripture, then you are faced with the troubling occasion of Christ committing a logical fallacy, of creating a false dilemma, something which does not bode well for his claim to being a perfect sacrifice.

Likewise, I’m sorry, but the “lions are a type of cat” argument doesn’t work. You’re talking about an argument that isn’t even related to the verse or what the verse is talking about, and as such is irrelevant.

As I said, the point was just because the verse doesn’t explicitly say something doesn’t mean that such a statement being false can be derived from there.

I agree that judgment and condemnation are by themselves two different things - one brings about the other. However, that’s not the point of what I was trying to say. Christ tells the unbelieving Jews that their condemnation will be sourced to their refusal to accept the messianic prophecies of Moses, and as such will come their judgment from that rejection. Moses does not hold the judgment seat - only Christ is given that. The unbelieving Jews, believing they are justified by their acceptance of Moses and following his teachings, are told by Christ that, in actuality, it will bring about that condemnation they believe they do not deserve.

So what’s the argument?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Nope, you can certainly have multiple interpretations without eisegesis.

Er, no, you cannot, but that’s leading astray to another argument.

The third opinion comes about by exegesis. If one must apply a positivist view to scripture, then you are faced with the troubling occasion of Christ committing a logical fallacy, of creating a false dilemma, something which does not bode well for his claim to being a perfect sacrifice.

As I said, the point was just because the verse doesn’t explicitly say something doesn’t mean that such a statement being false can be derived from there.

Your point was still illogical, because you made a case that wouldn’t obviously be found in that passage, and therefore is straining gnats. It also ignored that no third option is anywhere presented in scripture. You say the third option comes from exegesis, but nowhere is it taught in scripture or even hinted at, and thus far you haven’t examined the text well enough to even give a case for it within the passages. It is read into the verses. It does not create a false dilemma because of the lessons in scripture regarding the mode of salvation, which is through Christ. If a third option was even hinted at, as I said, then you would have an argument, but the words of Christ and the apostles are clear and nowhere does it become confusing or illogical except when we go to the passages with presupposition.

So what’s the argument?

The argument is that Christ will still judge - the judgment is from the rejection of the Messianic prophecies of Moses, which point to Christ - this was the “testimony” which the Jews sought. In other words, unbelieving Jews who go before God on the Day of Judgment will be judged on their rejection of the Messianic prophecies pointing to Christ. In this manner, Moses will judge them.

 

[Nine_Two]

Er, no, you cannot, but that’s leading astray to another argument.

You’re right it is another argument, but when you’re saying you don’t interpret and others do, it becomes pertinent.

Your point was still illogical, because you made a case that wouldn’t obviously be found in that passage, and therefore is straining gnats. It also ignored that no third option is anywhere presented in scripture. You say the third option comes from exegesis, but nowhere is it taught in scripture or even hinted at, and thus far you haven’t examined the text well enough to even give a case for it within the passages. It is read into the verses. It does not create a false dilemma because of the lessons in scripture regarding the mode of salvation, which is through Christ. If a third option was even hinted at, as I said, then you would have an argument, but the words of Christ and the apostles are clear and nowhere does it become confusing or illogical except when we go to the passages with presupposition.

Interesting… because it would obviously not be found in that passage its absence is then excused… in that case why would Christ have mentioned the third option to those who were faced with only two of the choices - those he was speaking to had to either accept or reject him - since they could not very well not know him. Βy your own argument any opponents to the idea that those who don’t believe those who have never heard the message end up in hell are released from the obligation to find scriptural support, since scripture only speaks to those who are faced with the choice of acceptance or rejection of Christ. Its very presence eliminates the third possibility from the conclusion.

As for the third option not coming through exegesis of scripture… there is more than just scripture to exegete from.

The argument is that Christ will still judge - the judgment is from the rejection of the Messianic prophecies of Moses, which point to Christ - this was the “testimony” which the Jews sought. In other words, unbelieving Jews who go before God on the Day of Judgment will be judged on their rejection of the Messianic prophecies pointing to Christ. In this manner, Moses will judge them.

I’ve not argued against this.

This reminds me of old times
Except now I’ve studied rhetoric.

At any rate, I’m off to bed.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

You’re right it is another argument, but when you’re saying you don’t interpret and others do, it becomes pertinent.

I don’t mean that I specifically don’t, as if I’m the most perfect exegete in the world. What I mean is that in this thread one side has been simply repeating what is said in scripture while the other side opens up posts or supposed exegesis with “Well I believe…” I have been on the side of the former.

Interesting… because it would obviously not be found in that passage its absence is then excused… in that case why would Christ have mentioned the third option to those who were faced with only two of the choices - those he was speaking to had to either accept or reject him - since they could not very well not know him. Βy your own argument any opponents to the idea that those who don’t believe those who have never heard the message end up in hell are released from the obligation to find scriptural support, since scripture only speaks to those who are faced with the choice of acceptance or rejection of Christ. Its very presence eliminates the third possibility from the conclusion.

If there was a third option in salvation, it would be obvious that at some point either Christ or an apostle would have touched upon it, because salvation is the highest topic within scripture and the most important, as Christianity is a faith pertaining to the life in the hereafter. As it stands, it is never touched upon, and therefore must be concluded to be unscriptural and man-made. In that regard, the third possibility is eliminated.

To say that because something isn’t specifically mentioned doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists can be true in some isolated circumstances, but by that logic anything can be added into a verse. In many ways, that leads to the logical fallacy of proving a negative: “Well, it doesn’t say there ISN’T a third option!” That is not how scripture is reviewed and how we form doctrine from scripture, and in fact it is often how heretical sects or false religions argue. Scripture, again, is clear that, yes, there are two options. If you can show me even an iota of a third option anywhere in scripture or one verse that says there is salvation outside of Christ, I will concede. As it stands, we are only able to read into it based on a presupposition that such a third option exists (let alone is even needed)

As for the third option not coming through exegesis of scripture… there is more than just scripture to exegete from.

However, I’ve have asked for a review of the passages presented, and until now and perhaps a page ago or so have had to fight just to get people to consider the relevant passages or even respond with scripture. Scripture is the topic here, because it is through the God-breathed written word that the Incarnate Word speaks.

 

[look3467]

I am following both your arguments of which time and energy is spent on details and I believe not on the whole picture.

If there was a picture to look at with many objects in the picture, in and around the main object, which in this case would be a cross. There would be arguments about the objects whether they should be in the picture, or how those objects are/were to be interpreted, viewed and or looked at and completely loosing site of the main object, being the cross.

What is the theme of the whole in the big picture, the cross?

Why the cross? A stake, a stick or a real cross?

One thing that has to be kept in mind and that is when Jesus had not gone to the cross yet, things remained as they were.

Jesus addressed things as they still were but with an eye towards the coming change.

That was the hope He was giving, that much He knew for the Father had revealed it to Him.

Where they do the Jews fit in the big picture of which the cross is the center piece?

Where do all the stories, the prophecies, character similitude’s, events, the Romans, the Gentiles all fit in, in making up the picture leading to the centerpiece as the final definition of what the picture is all about?

The center piece of the whole bible is Jesus.

Life begins with Him, not with the Adam.

All, meaning all, and not some, or just a few, but all, like in nothing short of absolutely nothing left, but all, is what and where Jesus becomes the beginning of life.

Prior to Jesus, the tree of life with-held, was introduced to the world way past human advancement, at a point predetermined by God to be the most effective point in time.

There was no life except for the life in the flesh, which was of Adam, termed sons of man, and not sons of God.

Therefore, we see the picture painted with many objects in and around the main object in the picture leading and or pointing to the cross.

After the cross, life begins and are now called/termed, sons of God.

See the difference?

If one should take Jesus out of the picture/cross, what would you have left in the picture?

Everything arguable, as to what is the point of any of it, and where would any of it be leading to without a center piece?

I am over simplifying my explanation because I am not a scholar as some of you are, but simply one , I believe in the simplicity of the word of God.

I do admire scholarship, but unfortunately, I was not smart enough to take advantage of the education availed me.

So I have to settle for simplicity.

If my post doesn’t add anything to this discussion, please feel free to hit the ignore button?

Blessings, AJ

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t mean that I specifically don’t, as if I’m the most perfect exegete in the world. What I mean is that in this thread one side has been simply repeating what is said in scripture while the other side opens up posts or supposed exegesis with “Well I believe…” I have been on the side of the former.

Which was my point when I came back

If there was a third option in salvation, it would be obvious that at some point either Christ or an apostle would have touched upon it, because salvation is the highest topic within scripture and the most important, as Christianity is a faith pertaining to the life in the hereafter. As it stands, it is never touched upon, and therefore must be concluded to be unscriptural and man-made. In that regard, the third possibility is eliminated.

Is everything Christ and the Apostles said and did recorded in the scriptures? John blatantly says otherwise, only that which is pertinent to the gospel is recorded in scripture, and I would argue the subject of this discourse is not.

To say that because something isn’t specifically mentioned doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists can be true in some isolated circumstances, but by that logic anything can be added into a verse. In many ways, that leads to the logical fallacy of proving a negative: “Well, it doesn’t say there ISN’T a third option!” That is not how scripture is reviewed and how we form doctrine from scripture, and in fact it is often how heretical sects or false religions argue. Scripture, again, is clear that, yes, there are two options. If you can show me even an iota of a third option anywhere in scripture or one verse that says there is salvation outside of Christ, I will concede. As it stands, we are only able to read into it based on a presupposition that such a third option exists (let alone is even needed)

So what other possible options can exist that aren’t touched upon, Christ stated you can accept, or you deny, another possibility is that one can have no idea the question exists… what is another option? After all if anything can be added certainly there must be something. Otherwise we’re left, once again, with a false dilemma - that those actively faced with the choice automatically lose the third option, creating a true dilemma - does not change this when looking at the quotes as applying to the totality of thought.

However, I’ve have asked for a review of the passages presented, and until now and perhaps a page ago or so have had to fight just to get people to consider the relevant passages or even respond with scripture. Scripture is the topic here, because it is through the God-breathed written word that the Incarnate Word speaks.

Scripture is the subject here because you’ve decided it should be. The OP was asking if Jews are saved, given that this is a Roman Catholic forum it must be assumed they’re looking for the Roman Catholic view, which includes tradition, and the Catechism says that the ignorant could be saved, but that we don’t have any idea in reality. Of course this contradicts past positions of the Catholic Church, but that was not the question either.

Anyway, I need to run back to work. Just thought I’d take a look at what was here.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Is everything Christ and the Apostles said and did recorded in the scriptures? John blatantly says otherwise, only that which is pertinent to the gospel is recorded in scripture, and I would argue the subject of this discourse is not.

If you are asking for a day-by-day life story, of course nothing is recorded, but they wrote down what they wished to be remembered for the churches to come. But that is an over-arching argument which even heretics can use, and can be used to defend anything.

Commands and instructions are given in the gospels and epistles. To defend an idea with, “Well not EVERYTHING is written in scripture!” is simply asking for justification of eisegesis and heresy.

So what other possible options can exist that aren’t touched upon, Christ stated you can accept, or you deny, another possibility is that one can have no idea the question exists… what is another option? After all if anything can be added certainly there must be something. Otherwise we’re left, once again, with a false dilemma - that those actively faced with the choice automatically lose the third option, creating a true dilemma - does not change this when looking at the quotes as applying to the totality of thought.

That is simply repeating the argument that a false dilemma exists - as a matter of fact, if such a false dilemma exists, it is brought about by scripture. Again, the topic of salvation is touched upon heavily throughout the New Testament. Nowhere is this third option presented or even hinted at. That is read into it. That is assumed. Yet nowhere is it justified. This third option is inserted by people who want to believe it. The truth told in the Gospel and the epistles is that Christ is the source of our salvation, and outside of Him we are but children of wrath and enemies of God.

The fact is, the true dilemma comes from the theological implications of such a third option. If take Christ’s statements that He is the only source of salvation (something affirmed by the apostles) and His command to go and make disciples of all nations - yet we then introduced that none of this is necessary given certain circumstances, we negate everything they are worth. Why did Christ die if belief in the crucifixion is not necessary? Why was Christ resurrected if disbelief in the resurrection - even if from supposed ignorance - still leads one to be resurrected in glory, why have the resurrection at all? If people don’t have to be preached to so that they may see God, why be preached to at all? I have had people respond to this argument simply with, “No, we don’t deny any of that,” but by saying a person can be saved outside of Christ and that a person can be saved even when not hearing the Word and being convicted…yes, that is precisely what you are saying, like it or not. Inevitably, it leads to the heresy of universalism and the Emergent Church concept that the crucifixion was a nice thing for Jesus to do, not a salvific thing for Him to do.

Again, even if there was a hint of a third option in scripture, I would agree that you at least had a fair point. But there is no such thing as this third option. The only place I have seen it is in the forum posts of those who believe it. I have not seen it in the words of Peter, the words of Paul, the words of John, nor the words of our Lord. It simply does not exist.

Scripture is the subject here because you’ve decided it should be.

There is no other standard to be held than the commands of the Incarnate Word and His apostles through the written word. Everything else is man-made tradition.