Do Jews need to covert to be saved?

[EasterJoy]

Pax,
You keep making the argument that the Mosaic Law does not save…that’s a straw man, I’ve never EVER said that the Mosaic law has the power to save.

As to St. Paul, he remained faithful to the covenant while at the same time preaching that it didn’t apply to GENTILES…Paul himself observed the Law, as far as we can tell, up to his death. In Acts we find James speaking to Paul and stating: Acts 21:24b
Why did Paul continue to observe the law if it was revoked?

And let’s be clear about what we’re talking about here.

It is my contention that God’s covenant with Israel remains in force, i.e. that the Jews are STILL God’s chosen people. Do you deny this?
Second, it’s my contention that JEWS (not Christians) are still bound to follow the law inasmuch as that is possible without a temple…Paul seemed to think it was important.

“Although I am not bound to anyone, I made myself the slave of all so as to win over as many as possible. I became like a Jew to the Jews in order to win the Jews. To those bound by the law I became like one bound by the law (although in fact I am not bound by it), that I might win those bound by the law. To those not subject to the law, I became like one not subject to it (not that I am free from the law of God, for I am subject to the law of Christ) that I might win those not subject to the law. To the weak I became a weak person with a view to winning the weak. I have made myself all things to all men in order to save at least some of them. In fact, I do all that I do for the sake of the gospel in the hope of having a share of its blessings…What I do is discipline my own body and master it, for fear that after having preached to others I myself should be rejected.” 1 Cor 9:19-23,27

According to the Church, we are all bound to follow the dictates of faith, of God’s call, as we receive it, it being taken for granted that we are not lax in pursuing a rightly-formed conscience. A Jew who sees that the Gospel is true is morally bound to be converted, in spite of personal difficulties. On the other hand, a Jew (or anyone else) who, in spite of an honest pursuit of the truth, is not given the gift of faith and so cannot in good conscience convert is covered under the doctrine of “invincible ignorance.” They are saved by the blood of Christ, as all are, but are not excluded on the grounds of their unbelief, for the gift of belief was not given to them. Those who do not pursue truth because we prefer our own way, though, are not “invincibly ignorant”, for the effort that was possible was not made. This is the general doctrine. As to the destiny of any particular soul, the Church teaches that God alone may judge.

As for Paul, he was bound to preach the Gospel with all the diligence to which he was called. It did not matter that he had done more than anyone else. What mattered was that he held nothing back from God. To those whom much is given, much is expected.

You are bound to inquire after the truth and pursue it with all the strength and honesty you have been given. You cannot do any more than that. After that, we are all in need of the mercy of God.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

as all are, but are not excluded on the grounds of their unbelief, for the gift of belief was not given to them.

That needs a little adjustment. Firstly, the term invincible ignorance means ignorance that cannot be overcome, for example, by study. A person who has been shown the truht, but for whatever reason cannot accept it, is not “invincibly ignorance”. In fact, they are not ignorance at all. The truth has been made known to them, but they reject it. That makes them an unbeliever.

Secondly, a person’s unbelief cannot be excused by saying they do not believe because they were not given the gift of faith. Every person is given, what is called, actual grace, in order to help them believe the truth. If a person is shown the truth, yet refuses to believe (for whatever reason), the fault is with themselves, not do to their not receiving the gift of faith.

Invincible ignorance can excuse, but refusal to believe does not.

 

[sodak]

Ok, I’ve been doing a lot of searching on this one. I can’t find in the CCC what I previously said. Knowing that I read it, I’m pretty sure that if not in the CCC, it is a footnote in my NAB Bible. I don’t want to go searching through it page by page, is there an on-line edition?

My question is this. Pax, you’ve given a pretty solid argument. The problem that I have is that the footnote that I read says something about the Jews still having a covenant with God, and being offered salvation in a mysterious way that is hidden from us. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing quite a bit.

How can this be? This directly contradicts the CCC and Council of Florence, but it has an Imprimatur. Are Imprimaturs infallible? Apparently not…

If I can find it and it is in direct contradiction to what you’ve presented, I’m throwing the NAB in the trash where it belongs. This really upsets me…

 

[Dauphin]

If I can find it and it is in direct contradiction to what you’ve presented, I’m throwing the NAB in the trash where it belongs. This really upsets me…

I’m not sure it would be entirely appropriate to thow a Bible in the garbage because of a bad footnote…

 

[SemperFidelis]

I’m throwing the NAB in the trash where it belongs.

That’s probably the best place for it…

Here’s an exhaustive article on why the NAB does in fact belong in the trash:

web.archive.org/web/20060827093004/http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/nabprint.htm

 

[sodak]

Maybe not, but having an Imprimatur and a false/contradictory statement would really frost me.

You can tell I’m not a protestant, from that remark… What is the proper disposal, burning or recycling?

 

[SemperFidelis]

I’m not sure it would be entirely appropriate to thow a Bible in the garbage because of a bad footnote…

The NAB belongs in the trash for far more than just one bad footnote. Many heretical footnotes, a bad ecumenical translation, and inclusive language is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[EasterJoy]

That needs a little adjustment. Firstly, the term invincible ignorance means ignorance that cannot be overcome, for example, by study. A person who has been shown the truht, but for whatever reason cannot accept it, is not “invincibly ignorance”. In fact, they are not ignorance at all. The truth has been made known to them, but they reject it. That makes them an unbeliever.

Secondly, a person’s unbelief cannot be excused by saying they do not believe because they were not given the gift of faith. Every person is given, what is called, actual grace, in order to help them believe the truth. If a person is shown the truth, yet refuses to believe (for whatever reason), the fault is with themselves, not do to their not receiving the gift of faith.

Invincible ignorance can excuse, but refusal to believe does not.

There is a difference between invincible ignorance and simple ignorance, however. It cannot be presumed that a person has refused the gift of faith simply because the word of God has reached their ears and they have not signed on yet.

If you mean that there is a big difference between “I will not believe” or “I cannot be bothered to believe” and “I cannot, in spite of an effort to understand, believe this yet”, and that the latter cannot be lightly succumbed to, but implies a continued and diligent search for the truth, then I don’t disagree with you. Ignorance should not be presumed to be invincible until proven otherwise. The evangelist (i.e., the baptized person) is bound to keep at it, to continually expose unbelievers to the truth in every way that might lead them to faith. Moreover, we all have an obligation to continue to deepen our understanding and continual conversion of our lives to the truth. Conversion to Christ isn’t a one-time process. It is the work of a lifetime…God’s work, in us, in which the Church is normally God’s chosen instrument. This is why St. Paul never felt content to think that he had “arrived.”

The amount of actual grace and the time frame within which it is given to any particular individual is known only to God, though.

 

[Potato1]

There is a difference between invincible ignorance and simple ignorance, however. It cannot be presumed that a person has refused the gift of faith simply because the word of God has reached their ears and they have not signed on yet.

If you mean that there is a big difference between “I will not believe” or “I cannot be bothered to believe” and “I cannot, in spite of an effort to understand, believe this yet”, and that the latter cannot be lightly succumbed to, but implies a continued and diligent search for the truth, then I don’t disagree with you. Ignorance should not be presumed to be invincible until proven otherwise. The evangelist (i.e., the baptized person) is bound to keep at it, to continually expose unbelievers to the truth in every way that might lead them to faith. Moreover, we all have an obligation to continue to deepen our understanding and continual conversion of our lives to the truth. Conversion to Christ isn’t a one-time process. It is the work of a lifetime…God’s work, in us, in which the Church is normally God’s chosen instrument. This is why St. Paul never felt content to think that he had “arrived.”

The amount of actual grace and the time frame within which it is given to any particular individual is known only to God, though.

A theological, logical compassionate, truthful and Catholic response.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

There is a difference between invincible ignorance and simple ignorance, however. It cannot be presumed that a person has refused the gift of faith simply because the word of God has reached their ears and they have not signed on yet.

But at this point they are no longer invincibly ignorant. In fact, they are not ignorant at all. The truth has been make known to them, and they have rejected it.

You said it cannot be presumed that they have refused the gift of faith simply because they have heard it, but not “signed on yet”. Why can’t that be presumed? After all, it can be said with 100% certainty that they do not have faith, since faith is incompatible with unbelief.

Maybe in the figure they will obtain faith, but at this point they do not have it.

If you mean that there is a big difference between “I will not believe” or “I cannot be bothered to believe” and “I cannot, in spite of an effort to understand, believe this yet”, and that the latter cannot be lightly succumbed to, but implies a continued and diligent search for the truth, then I don’t disagree with you.

Let’s break out the three categories of people you mentioned: 1.) A person who will not believe. He has been shown the truth, but rejects it. 2.) A person who will not bother to believe. He has better things to do than bother with religion. 3.) A person who has been showin the truth does not believe because he doesn’t quite understand.

All three are guilty of a mortal sin against the first commandment. The last of the three, which may seem the most excusable, is guilty of a mortal sin because he will only believe what he understands. Lack of understanding does not excuse unbelief. We do not believe because we understand. If that were the case, almost no one would believe in the deep mystery of the Trinity.

I believe it was St. Augustine who said “we do not believe because we understand. We understand because we believe”.

Let us not confuse the gift of understanding with belief.

Ignorance should not be presumed to be invincible until proven otherwise.

I didn’t understand that. Invincible ignorance is ignorance that could not be overcome. In other words, it is ignorance that is not due to any fault of the individual. For example, if a person was living in a third world country with no one to tell him the truth, and no books or internet, his ignorance of the truths of the faith would probably be excusable.

The evangelist (i.e., the baptized person) is bound to keep at it, to continually expose unbelievers to the truth in every way that might lead them to faith.

I agree.

Moreover, we all have an obligation to continue to deepen our understanding and continual conversion of our lives to the truth. Conversion to Christ isn’t a one-time process. It is the work of a lifetime…God’s work, in us, in which the Church is normally God’s chosen instrument. This is why St. Paul never felt content to think that he had “arrived.”

True, we must continue to study the faith, but, as I’m sure you know, there is a big difference between an unbeliever, and a believer who is studying to increase their knowledge of the faith, and their understanding of what they believe.

 

[EasterJoy]

Let’s break out the three categories of people you mentioned: 1.) A person who will not believe. He has been shown the truth, but rejects it. 2.) A person who will not bother to believe. He has better things to do than bother with religion. 3.) A person who has been showin the truth does not believe because he doesn’t quite understand…
I believe it was St. Augustine who said “we do not believe because we understand. We understand because we believe”.

Let us not confuse the gift of understanding with belief…

I didn’t understand that. Invincible ignorance is ignorance that could not be overcome. In other words, it is ignorance that is not due to any fault of the individual. For example, if a person was living in a third world country with no one to tell him the truth, and no books or internet, his ignorance of the truths of the faith would probably be excusable.

I do not understand how you are demonstrating any difference between invincible ignorance and simple ignorance. There is a difference.

Still, it might be better stated: “I don’t believe because, in spite of having sincerely sought the truth, I don’t believe, and I’m not going to lie and say that I do.”

Keep in mind, too, that while Jesus had words for those who would not believe in Him, though they had seen His works, He also had something to say about lack of belief in believers. Did He not say that if we only had faith, we would do works “greater than these”? Those who are being evangelized now have our faith as their evidence that what we tell them about Jesus is true. If they are incredulous, it may not be them that Heaven will hold to account for it.

On that note, may God have mercy on us all.

 

[Valke2]

I can’t see how you can take me, for example, and say there is a Jew who knows the truth but continues to worship through Judaism. How can your belief system really say that a Jew who believes in God and worships him as a Jew, has denied anything that would keep him or her from a share in the world to come? Does that really make sense to anyone?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I do not understand how you are demonstrating any difference between invincible ignorance and simple ignorance. There is a difference.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, and can be either culpable, or inculpable. A person who is ignorant of what he is bound to know, through his own fault, is not excused. On the other hand, a person who is ignorant of what he is bound to know, not due to his own fault, is excused. The later person is known as invincibly ignorant.

Invincible ignorance is ignorance that cannot be overcome due to lack of recources, or lack of ability.

Here’s a quote from St. Thomas on the subject:

St. Thomas: " ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which, we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore ** all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. … Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently such ignorance is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study.** For this reason such ignorance, not being voluntary (since it is not in our power to be rid of it), is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know…"

St. Thomas can be pretty wordy. What he is basically saying is that ignorance is a sin if the thing we are ignorant of are things we are bound to know. However, this ignorance is excused if we have no means for overcoming this ignorance. For example, if we have no one to teach us, and no materials to study.

Now, we live in the “information age”, which means that invincible ignorance is probably pretty rare. We are all bound to know the articles of faith, as St. Thomas teaches. If we don’t know them, we are guilty. The only excuse would be a lack of the means to be able to access the information. Can anyone in a developed country today, such as America, claim that their ignorance of such things was due to their not having the ability to access it? It doesn’t seem likely.

It seems more likely that the ignorance of such things is due to their lack of interest in pursuing it.

Still, it might be better stated: “I don’t believe because, in spite of having sincerely sought the truth, I don’t believe, and I’m not going to lie and say that I do.”

Such a person would fall into the category of an unbeliever. They are neither invincibly ignorant, or vincibly ignorant, since they have seen the truth. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. They have the knowledge, but they reject it. The truth has been made known to the intellect, but the will refuses it.

Such as person is an unbeliever. Why are they an unbeliever? Jesus told us why. He said “you do not believe because you are not of the truth. If you were of the truth you would believe”. That is why they don’t believe. Maybe some day they will believe, but at this point they are an unbeliever and cannot be saved.

Keep in mind, too, that while Jesus had words for those who would not believe in Him, though they had seen His works, He also had something to say about lack of belief in believers. Did He not say that if we only had faith, we would do works “greater than these”? Those who are being evangelized now have our faith as their evidence that what we tell them about Jesus is true. If they are incredulous, it may not be them that Heaven will hold to account for it.

I’m not sure if I understood that. It sounded as if you were trying to excuse the unbelief of an unbeliever because of the lack of belief of the believer. That makes no sense to me.

The unbeliever will be held accountable for their unbelief. But, if a believer gives scandal which then results in the unbeliever’s will being hardened, then yes, the believer will have to answer for that, but it won’t excuse the unbeliever for his unbelief. Maybe both will end in hell, but both won’t end in heaven, unless, or course, the unbeliever becomes a believer…

 

[CarolsDaughter]

I can’t see how you can take me, for example, and say there is a Jew who knows the truth but continues to worship through Judaism. How can your belief system really say that a Jew who believes in God and worships him as a Jew, has denied anything that would keep him or her from a share in the world to come? Does that really make sense to anyone?

Just be thankful to God that we live in America, have separation of church and state, and no longer live in medieval Europe where monarchs COULD force us to join their religion, or die/be expelled.

Seeing some of the comments on this forum, and knowing what I do of Jewish history and forced conversions, makes me INCREDIBLY thankful to have had the good fortune to be born in the United States of America.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I can’t see how you can take me, for example, and say there is a Jew who knows the truth but continues to worship through Judaism. How can your belief system really say that a Jew who believes in God and worships him as a Jew, has denied anything that would keep him or her from a share in the world to come? Does that really make sense to anyone?

It takes more than just a belief in a God. We must also believe the truths that he has revealed. It is only through believing the truths that God has revealed that our subjective belief about God corresponds with the Reality of God.

What does it mean to worship a false god? Obviously, it means to workship something that is not the one true God. If our subjective understanding of God is false, it means we are worshipping a false god - a god of our own making.

 

[Freshman88]

Seeing some of the comments on this forum, and knowing what I do of Jewish history and forced conversions, makes me INCREDIBLY thankful to have had the good fortune to be born in the United States of America.

I am equally thankful that I am not a Palestinian Christian, or that I was an early Christian in Israel.

St. Stephen,
Pray for us.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I am equally thankful that I am not a Palestinian Christian, or that I was an early Christian in Israel.

St. Stephen,
Pray for us.

Good point.

How many Christians were killed by the Jews in the first century before God destroyed their Temple and scattered them throughout the world?

Jeremiah: “For the house of Israel, and the house of Juda have greatly transgressed against me, saith the Lord. They have denied the Lord, and said, it is not he”.

Psalms: “My people did not hear My voice, and Israel harkened not to Me… They gave me gall for My food, and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink… Let their eyes be darkened, and their back bend down always. Pour out Thy indignation upon them: let Thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their habitation be made desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in their tabernacles, because they have added to the grief of My wounds. Add Thou iniquity upon their iniquity; and let them not come into Thy justice. Let them be blotten out of the book of the Living, and with the Just let them not be written” (Psalms 80: 12;62:22-29).

 

[Potato1]

I am equally thankful that I am not a Palestinian Christian, or that I was an early Christian in Israel.

St. Stephen,
Pray for us.

I am just happy I am not a Jew in Israel. Surrounded by my enemies. Or a Jew in 1940 Germany. Or a Jew in New York. Or a Jew in an Islamic state like Iran. Oh wait… Islamic states do thier best not to have any Jews… those damn Zionists!

 

[EasterJoy]

The unbeliever will be held accountable for their unbelief. But, if a believer gives scandal which then results in the unbeliever’s will being hardened, then yes, the believer will have to answer for that, but it won’t excuse the unbeliever for his unbelief. Maybe both will end in hell, but both won’t end in heaven, unless, or course, the unbeliever becomes a believer…

In the end, no doubts will remain. Every knee, it’s gonna bend.

One thing I do know, and it is this: God has revealed who are some of the saints in Heaven, but not who is in hell. We may say, “Such-and-such action or such-and-such failure will bring praise or judgement upon those who do them.” We may not say that those under judgement cannot ever hope for an Advocate.

Christ Himself pleaded for the very ones who crucifed Him, who saw his works, who heard his word, and who responded by tearing their garments and having him killed. In the end, Christ alone will judge. It is not for you to say, then, that “both won’t end in heaven.” You don’t know that.

 

[EasterJoy]

I can’t see how you can take me, for example, and say there is a Jew who knows the truth but continues to worship through Judaism. How can your belief system really say that a Jew who believes in God and worships him as a Jew, has denied anything that would keep him or her from a share in the world to come? Does that really make sense to anyone?

In what sense do you know that Jesus is your hoped-for Messiah, that He is the fulfillment of the Prophets, that your salvation is in His Death and Resurrection? If you know this to be so, and yet continue to worship as if the Messiah is yet to come, how does *that *make sense?

It is as if a Jew were to say, “I’m staying in Egypt, making bricks for Pharaoh, and I’m just going to pray that God will deliver us, Moses…what is it to you?” Would that Jew not have been rejecting God? I’m not trying to condemn anyone, but would there have been no consequences? It took some chutzpah to leave Egypt, but that is the only way to the Promised Land.

Jews are not foreign to the concept of there being natural consequences for being a stiffed-necked people. If today you hear his voice, harden not your heart. Same then, same now. Let him who has ears to hear, hear. As for those who are deaf and blind, well, if they do not persist in saying, “we see”, then there is always hope.

Considering that we all neglect the beams in our own eyes, though, I say it again: may God have mercy on us all. If a Jew says he would convert to Christianity without hesitation if he saw that Jesus was the promised Messiah, if he has honestly inquired into this question and in good conscience cannot leave Judaism, I would not be the one to cast a stone at him. I hope he will not mind too much if I keep trying to get him to open his eyes. It is not meant as any ill-will toward Israel that we continue to tell Jews that Christ thirsts for them, too. I hope it is not taken that way.