Do Jews need to covert to be saved?

[Unitas]

Again, we are beating a horse that has been around the same course many, many times. Give the poor beast a rest.

You insist that this is an “either/or” question which can be couched in terms you believe lead with inescapable logic to your conclusion. I deny your position, on several counts. We have both spent thousands of words in order to expound upon what we mean by our respective positions. Others have likewise weighed in…again and again and again. I could find myself pleasantly surprised, but think that’s where it is likely to stay.

Let’s take our warning from previous threads, and get out while things are still charitable.

I’m sorry, I just fail to see how the Great Commission was aimed at everyone but the jews. You’d think Jesus would have mentioned that.

 

[chrisb]

Right. Paul was cearly a deceiver.

Grace and Peace Valke2,

What do you believe our Apostle Paul said that would cause anyone to determine he was a deceiver?

 

[catholiconce]

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.

Again to refer to another as ignorant or an unbeliever is being judgemental. Everybody is a believer. They believe in something some in nothing. Somtimes if another believes differnt from us we define them as an unbeliever. Which came first the chicken or the egg How can anyone tell another what to believe. What does it matters to us what others believe. Only those control freaks want others to believe as they do. This is what starts wars and murders. It is wrong in our view for Muslims to kill us for what we believe. But Christians can and have Killed those who do not believe as they do

 

[EasterJoy]

Again to refer to another as ignorant or an unbeliever is being judgemental. Everybody is a believer. They believe in something some in nothing. Somtimes if another believes differnt from us we define them as an unbeliever. Which came first the chicken or the egg How can anyone tell another what to believe. What does it matters to us what others believe. Only those control freaks want others to believe as they do. This is what starts wars and murders. It is wrong in our view for Muslims to kill us for what we believe. But Christians can and have Killed those who do not believe as they do

OK, this is a different horse. You write as if there is no dogma implied in saying that there is no truth or that a person may not know truth from falsehood. You must judge in order to say that only others judge, for to say that there is no such thing as ignorance, you must therefore imply that humans have no access to anything that may be called knowledge.

You also write about the real tragedy of misguided wars as if there is no tragedy in a life lived in which the soul never knew its worth, never knew there was anything other than being blown from this place to that by desires it could never appease.

It is a mistake to confuse hatred for love, but it is just as surely an error to confuse indifference with love.

There is such a thing as perfect pitch, of knowing off-key from on-key. While one may lack compassion by believing the songs of the tone-deaf cannot please God, it is no compassion to believe that a person capable of singing on-key should not be taught to do so.

The truth does matter. It does make a difference, and it is loving to care whether or not another person knows it and is able to live it.

 

[Valke2]

Grace and Peace Valke2,

What do you believe our Apostle Paul said that would cause anyone to determine he was a deceiver?

Isn’t there a verse where he talks about how if he’s talking to a Jew, he pretends he’s an observant Jew, if he’s talking to a gentile, he pretends he’s a gentile… etc.

 

[chrisb]

Isn’t there a verse where he talks about how if he’s talking to a Jew, he pretends he’s an observant Jew, if he’s talking to a gentile, he pretends he’s a gentile… etc.

Grace and Peace,

Perhaps you are speaking about the 9th Chapter of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians… but it appears you are making a great deal of assumptions of what he said to reach the conclusion that he is speaking of ‘pretending to be something he is not in order to deceive’. Read in context you might reach a different interpretation.

 

[palmas85]

Oh ok, so someone is chosen because of their genetic lineage? You’re simply born into it whereas gentiles must accept christianity to be chosen?

Again, a double-standard; jews are born into it with no other prerequisite but gentiles must do things to be a part of it.

Second, why, for the first time in history, are there two concurrent covenants? If the old still exists, why have the new?

Good point. I’ve often wondered about that myself Of course it is usually explained away by the desire angle or the infamous invincible ignorance clause which grew from applying to a few unfortunates scattered here and there to practically everybody in the world.

Jews are born into that social setting or at least thats what they claim. They claim that one drop of Jewish blood makes one a Jew regardless as to religious or ethnic affiliation. Hence the large immigration of Russian “Jews” to Israel, in whose cases if Judaism had ever been practiced it was in the distant past.

The Jews were chosen as a group, as a part of the twelve tribes, hand picked as it were for some reason. Who knows why?

The earliest Christians believed fully that THEY were the true Jews and that the the vast majority of Jews were not.In fact the earliest arguments and discussion of the Church concerned that very issue.

Do Jews have to convert to be saved or Muslims or Hindus for that matter? , I don’t know. If they or anyone else didn’t have to accept Christ as their savior then the crucifixition death and resurrection all seem pretty pointless. Why go through all of that if belief in Christ as the Son of God isn’t even needed?

I’ve always believed that God sets some pretty stringent requirements for us and always has. I see this as no different.

 

[EasterJoy]

Isn’t there a verse where he talks about how if he’s talking to a Jew, he pretends he’s an observant Jew, if he’s talking to a gentile, he pretends he’s a gentile… etc.

He didn’t say he was pretending anything. He was Jewish, of the tribe of Benjamin, so he didn’t have to pretend. Rather, he observed when in the presence of those who observed, so as not to scandalize his brothers who had scruples about observing their traditions. They couldn’t say, “Oh, you’re just Christian so you can tell yourself it is OK to eat what you want”, because Paul could say, “I can eat what I want, for I am bound by the law of Christ alone, but for your sake and the sake of the Gospel, I willingly go without.” If something he didn’t need was going to scandalize someone and possibly obscure the truth of the Gospel, then he did without it.

If you were in the Peace Corps, wouldn’t you respect the local customs, even if you did not feel bound by them? Would that be deceptive? Paul deserved to be supported, too, but he worked to support himself. He could have married, but did not marry so as to devote himself to the Gospel only. Was that deceptive, too?

The “somewhere” is 1st Corinthians. Check it out some time. It is a very good read!

Do Jews have to convert to be saved or Muslims or Hindus for that matter? , I don’t know. If they or anyone else didn’t have to accept Christ as their savior then the crucifixition death and resurrection all seem pretty pointless. Why go through all of that if belief in Christ as the Son of God isn’t even needed?

I’ve always believed that God sets some pretty stringent requirements for us and always has. I see this as no different.

Now, this is a point I have never understood, when it comes from a Christian. The Good News–can we dare to say it?–is GOOD NEWS!! You have accepted Christ and known His grace and love for you, and you have found it a pointless exercise, excepting that it keeps you out of Hell? Have you been sleepwalking?

I have had Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door, selling their fire insurance against the end of the world, and I had to ask them, “If you could go through this life living a life of sin and had the guarantee that God would save you in the end, would you still serve God, or would you choose evil? Do you love God, do you thirst to do his will, which is your only joy, or are you just afraid of God smiting you for having fun?”

God’s “stringent” requirement is this: Hey, you. Trying to be a god when what you need is God really hasn’t worked too well for you, has it? Come, I offer you life, and life in abundance. You have squandered your inheritance, wished me dead so you could start living, and what kind of life was it? Pretty empty, even before the money ran out…

Do not be afraid! Come back! I wait here scanning the horizon, eager to slaughter the fatted calf to celebrate your return from death. All you have to do is turn back to me. OK, you won’t turn. I’ll come to you. I’ll turn the house upside down for you, like a woman who’s lost a coin. I’ll beat the bushes for you, like a shepherd with a whole herd who leaves the rest alone because of the one sheep who has wandered off. I’ll come to you, so you can see your way, your truth, your life. Deny me, crucify me, and I will rise again. I will forgive you everything. I have defeated death for you, you who have chosen death over life, because I love you. Come, come to me, and live!

Oh, yes, God drives such a hard bargain.

 

[PetersKeys]

The Church RESPECTS the Law

Notice the Church speaks about the Mosaic law in terms of IS not WAS.

What does the Church say about Israel?

Note, the Church says Israel IS, not was, the priestly people of God.

My point is NOT that Christians should follow the Mosaic Law, that would be utter nonsense, however, the Mosaic Law is NOT REVOKED and still applies to the Jews…who are still God’s chosen.

Those baptized and become christian are the true Jews. The New covenant is connected to the old. We become God’s chosen people and sons by Christ Jesus. By rejection of Christ one ceases to be God’s chosen one.

 

[Yerusalyim]

God has divinely revealed through His Church who can have salvation:

There is no salvation outside the Church.

This doesn’t have to be “understood” or “interpreted” in a particular way - it’s clear and unequivocal on its own. If one is not baptised and does not assent to Catholic teaching to the best of their ability, they may not be saved. This teaching doesn’t make humans the judge - it simply allows us to inform others what God has revealed.

Dauphin,

You border on heresy with “unequivacol” statements like this. It’s not a matter of “Cut and dried” by your definition all babies who die before baptism are NOT SAVED. The Church has explained what it means by this statement…I’m sorry for your ignorance of that explanation.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Those baptized and become christian are the true Jews. The New covenant is connected to the old. We become God’s chosen people and sons by Christ Jesus. By rejection of Christ one ceases to be God’s chosen one.

This displays a serious misunderstanding of God. His promise and call are eternal, Paul notes in Romans that even though they made themselves “enemies” they were still beloved of God.

The Jews are the Chosen People…if not, then God lied.

So God has two sets of rules? One for the jews and another for everyone else? I’ll believe you if you can show me where the Church teaches this double-standard.

It’s not two sets of rules…the new covenant fulfills and gives deeper meaning to the old covenant.

And yes, if the definition in the CCC leads to indeifferentism then yes it is incorrect. It is incredibly vague. And I love once I bring up the dogma of EENS you jump to “Feeney”. This provides a much better explanation:

The CCC is in NO WAY vague on this issue…I completely understand it with no ambiguity whatsoever.

The Jews are God’s Chosen…FOREVER…and Christians are grafted into the tree.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The Jews are God’s Chosen…FOREVER…and Christians are grafted into the tree.

You are drawing false conclusions. Your beginning with something that is true, but then you are drawing conclusions that are false.

I have two question.

1.) Can you (will you) please quote the old Testament verses that say the Jews are the chosen people.

2.) In Romans 11, Paul says that the unbelieving Jews had been “cut off”. What have they been cut off from?

 

[palmas85]

He didn’t say he was pretending anything. He was Jewish, of the tribe of Benjamin, so he didn’t have to pretend. Rather, he observed when in the presence of those who observed, so as not to scandalize his brothers who had scruples about observing their traditions. They couldn’t say, “Oh, you’re just Christian so you can tell yourself it is OK to eat what you want”, because Paul could say, “I can eat what I want, for I am bound by the law of Christ alone, but for your sake and the sake of the Gospel, I willingly go without.” If something he didn’t need was going to scandalize someone and possibly obscure the truth of the Gospel, then he did without it.

If you were in the Peace Corps, wouldn’t you respect the local customs, even if you did not feel bound by them? Would that be deceptive? Paul deserved to be supported, too, but he worked to support himself. He could have married, but did not marry so as to devote himself to the Gospel only. Was that deceptive, too?

The “somewhere” is 1st Corinthians. Check it out some time. It is a very good read!

Now, this is a point I have never understood, when it comes from a Christian. The Good News–can we dare to say it?–is GOOD NEWS!! You have accepted Christ and known His grace and love for you, and you have found it a pointless exercise, excepting that it keeps you out of Hell? Have you been sleepwalking?

I have had Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door, selling their fire insurance against the end of the world, and I had to ask them, “If you could go through this life living a life of sin and had the guarantee that God would save you in the end, would you still serve God, or would you choose evil? Do you love God, do you thirst to do his will, which is your only joy, or are you just afraid of God smiting you for having fun?”

God’s “stringent” requirement is this: Hey, you. Trying to be a god when what you need is God really hasn’t worked too well for you, has it? Come, I offer you life, and life in abundance. You have squandered your inheritance, wished me dead so you could start living, and what kind of life was it? Pretty empty, even before the money ran out…

Do not be afraid! Come back! I wait here scanning the horizon, eager to slaughter the fatted calf to celebrate your return from death. All you have to do is turn back to me. OK, you won’t turn. I’ll come to you. I’ll turn the house upside down for you, like a woman who’s lost a coin. I’ll beat the bushes for you, like a shepherd with a whole herd who leaves the rest alone because of the one sheep who has wandered off. I’ll come to you, so you can see your way, your truth, your life. Deny me, crucify me, and I will rise again. I will forgive you everything. I have defeated death for you, you who have chosen death over life, because I love you. Come, come to me, and live!

Oh, yes, God drives such a hard bargain.

I don’t think you understood what I said at all.

 

[SemperFidelis]

From Vatican 2 we read in DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

You might try and read all of Nostra Aetate. Try #4, second paragraph:
Nostra Aetate:

The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant.

Concluded sounds an awful lot like “the Covenant ended”…

 

[Unitas]

This displays a serious misunderstanding of God. His promise and call are eternal, Paul notes in Romans that even though they made themselves “enemies” they were still beloved of God.

Everyone is beloved by God, but not everyone are the chosen people.

It’s not two sets of rules…the new covenant fulfills and gives deeper meaning to the old covenant.

Yes it is, If both covenants are concurrent like you say, there are obviously one set of rules for the old and another for the new. If both exist at the same time, then obviously both sets of rules exist at the same time as well. That’s called a double-standard.

The CCC is in NO WAY vague on this issue…I completely understand it with no ambiguity whatsoever.

Right.

That’s why discussions on EENS go on for pages and pages, because the CCC is so specific on it, right?

The Jews are God’s Chosen…FOREVER…and Christians are grafted into the tree.

The tree (vine) is Christ, not the old covenant.

John 15:5 “I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.”

You are injecting things into scripture that aren’t there.

2Peter 1:20.

 

[EasterJoy]

Everyone is beloved by God, but not everyone are the chosen people.

Yes it is, If both covenants are concurrent like you say, there are obviously one set of rules for the old and another for the new. If both exist at the same time, then obviously both sets of rules exist at the same time as well. That’s called a double-standard…

I think there is a confusion here between use of the word “covenant” to mean an order of worship, which can pass away–for God says in Jeremiah “the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah”–and use of the word to mean a relationship between God and those whom He has chosen, a relationship which, once having made it eternal, God will never abandon.

You are drawing false conclusions. Your beginning with something that is true, but then you are drawing conclusions that are false.

I have two question.

1.) Can you (will you) please quote the old Testament verses that say the Jews are the chosen people.

2.) In Romans 11, Paul says that the unbelieving Jews had been “cut off”. What have they been cut off from?

Yes, let us look at Romans 11, for it speaks to this thread exactly: “I ask, then, has God rejected his peope? Of course not! I myself am an Israelite, descended from Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin…
…Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery lest you be conceited; blindness has come upon part of Israel until the full number of Gentiles enter in, and then all Israel will be saved. As Scripture says, “Out of Zion will come the deliverer who shall remove all impiety from Jacob; and this is the covenant I will make with them when I take away their sins.” In respect to the gospel, the Jews are enemies of God for your sake; in respect to the election, they are beloved by him because of the patriarchs. God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” Rom. 11:1,25-29

It seems reasonable, then, that Jews in that part of Israel Paul says have been made blind with respect to accepting Christ at least do right by not abandoning Judaism, since Paul insists that all Israel will be saved. In this, let we Gentiles who have entered in also remember and be humbled: we have no cause for conceit.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery lest you be conceited; blindness has come upon part of Israel until the full number of Gentiles enter in, and then all Israel will be saved. ."

It seems reasonable, then, that Jews in that part of Israel Paul says have been made blind with respect to accepting Christ at least do right by not abandoning Judaism, since Paul insists that all Israel will be saved…

Looks like your theory hinges on the interpretation of “all” - a usage that according to your theory means every Jew that ever lived regardless of his rejection or acceptance of the Savior Jesus Christ. It is an interesting novel interpretation. But it contradicts the understanding set forth infallibly at least three times…
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

“We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at Council of Florence “It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)
“All” must be used in a different sense then you take it to mean.

Could mean all the Jews alove at the time of the “fullness of the Gentiles.” Or it could just mean all the Jews that are going to accept Christ will have already accepted Him or will accept Him after this time.

If people are* dying* in the state of culpably rejecting Jesus - (i.e. being blind and rejecting the Light) they can’t be saved.

DustinsDad

 

[kathielee]

I received the following private message in response to one of my posts, in which I indicated that the Jews need to covert to be saved. The person who pm’d me also posted the same argument publicly, so I don’t think they will mind my publicly posting their pm.

Before responding, let me say that I realize why many people have been deceived on this point. After all, for nearly 40 years our fearless Church leaders have given every reason to believe that the old Covenant “has never been revoked by God”. This heresy has even been enshrined in local catechisms, and publicly promoted from the highest levels of the Church. Therefore, it is understandable that many well meaning Catholics would have fallen into this heresy… thanks to the heretics in high places within the Church.

I only hope that once the truth has been shown, these well meaning, but deceived, Catholics will renounce this error while there is still time. I’ll begin with a quote from the infallible council of Florence when this dogma was defined de fide.

Council of Florence: It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation;** but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation**. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."

This 2000 year old teaching of the Church, which was infallibly defined above, was also taught by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi just before Vatican II:

Pope Pius XII: "And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (Mystici Corporis, #29).

I’ll end with one additional quote from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (pg 292, published just before Vatican II:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began. The Fathers and theologians see in the flowing forth of the blood and water from the opened side of Jesus a symbol the emergence of the Church.”

This is what the Church has taught from day one. The unfortunate fact that many of our Church leaders are heretics who deny this dogma does not make it go away. It is just as true today as it was when it was infallibly defined as a dogma of the Faith at the Council of Florence. Anyone who denies a dogma is therefore a heretic. This brings up the last quote which not only confirms that the Jews must convert to be saved, but places those who deny this dogma (the heretics) in the same unfortunate eternal fate as the unbelieving Jews.

continue…

You are the heretic. It would seem that you have forgotten that God is not limited by any of us.

In order for someone to be unsaved, as you prescribe, one has to be in full knowledge and then reject it. Such is not the case, and I dare say that I would never presume to know the mind of God…nor His personal conversations with anyone else…Jewish or otherwise.

 

[EasterJoy]

Looks like your theory hinges on the interpretation of “all” - a usage that according to your theory means every Jew that ever lived regardless of his rejection or acceptance of the Savior Jesus Christ. It is an interesting novel interpretation. But it contradicts the understanding set forth infallibly at least three times…
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

“We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at Council of Florence “It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)
“All” must be used in a different sense then you take it to mean.

Could mean all the Jews alove at the time of the “fullness of the Gentiles.” Or it could just mean all the Jews that are going to accept Christ will have already accepted Him or will accept Him after this time.

If people are* dying* in the state of culpably rejecting Jesus - (i.e. being blind and rejecting the Light) they can’t be saved.

DustinsDad

Or else “no salvation outside the Church” must have a different meaning than you give it.

When Paul wrote that all of Israel will be saved, he did not say that any would be saved outside of Christ. That passage makes it quite clear, as does all Paul ever wrote, that there is no salvation except in Christ.

When the Church teaches that the ancient Covenant was concluded, it means that the old order of worship was rendered obsolete. The imperfect sacrifice of the Temple, which had to be offered again and again, passed away, and the one perfect sacrifice of which Christ is both Victim and High Priest took its place. This is the sacrifice by which all are saved, both Jew and Gentile.

I do not know how much more emphatic St. Paul could have been: I ask, then, has God rejected his peope? Of course not!.

 

[Unitas]

You are the heretic. It would seem that you have forgotten that God is not limited by any of us.

In order for someone to be unsaved, as you prescribe, one has to be in full knowledge and then reject it. Such is not the case, and I dare say that I would never presume to know the mind of God…nor His personal conversations with anyone else…Jewish or otherwise.

So the Church is teaching heresy through dogmas and councils? Interesting.

The Church already makes a concession for the invincilby ignorant. But even then they are still held to a standard.

However, the Church makes no concession for the obstinately and willfully ignorant. The obstinately ignorant do not have full knowledge, yet they are responsible for their ignorance.

So no, they do not need to have full knowledge. If when presented with the Church and the true gospel they cover their ears and run away screaming, they are obviously not invincibly ignorant, but culpably ignorant. Their ignorance is no longer “through no fault of their own” but now “through their own fault”.