Posted on 11/04/2007 1:26:45 PM PST by topcat54
That reads a lot like something I read in a Catholic thread last week...
“God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the [Catholic] Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”Contrary to the headlines, this does not mean “Christians are saved by Jesus, Jews don’t need him.” Rather, it means that everybody who is saved — including Jews — will find that they have been saved by Jesus Christ at work in the light they have received in their own particular situation. That’s not new. It’s biblical. Here’s how
My impression is increasingly that
God is very much NOT AMUSED.
I don’t know too much about dispensationalism, but from what I hear, I think the Catholic Church would reject dispensationalism AND antidispensationalism as both false solutions to a fake dilemma.
The Catholic Church teaches that the ancient Jews who were faithful did go to a Hell (=Sheol) (=Hades), for they did not know Christ, but that Hell to which they went was neither torturous nor eternal. When Christ died, he descended into Hell, an act which is known as “the Harrowing of Hell,” and there did what 1 Pet 3:19 refers to as “preach[ing] to the spirits in prison,” wherein the righteous souls of the ancient Jews had the opportunity to believe in Him and be saved.
The Jews in the time of Christ were already in diaspora. Although those Jews in Palestine did reject Christianity, Jews throughout the empire did not. They are Jews whom Paul preaches to throughout the books of Act, and to whom most of his letters were addressed; if they had been pagan, basing his arguments on the Old Testament, which had already been rejected by pagans, would have been senseless.
Thus, Christianity represents an expansion of the Jewish people; every Christian convert is made a Jew by adoption. In turn, then both of these propositions are false: that Christianity is a replacement Israel, and that Jews need not know Jesus as Christ to be saved.
There is still a theological problem which I do not believe the Catholic Church has a defined, doctrinal answer for:
When Paul bemoans the fate of Israel, he is referring to Palestinian Jews in specific, rather than the broader Israel in diaspora, so there is no conflict between what I have written and his letter to the Romans. But neither is the explanation entirely satisfying because it isn’t sensible that the stem he talks of being restored to the olive tree refers only to Palestinian Jews of a given time (the end of history.)
In the time Paul speaks of, all of Israel will be converted, the glory of Israel shines forth, and all of Israel united in glory. But what of the Jews in the interim? When the bible speaks all such wonderful prophesies for the fate of the Jews, isn’t it kind of a raw deal, a backpedal, for God to say, “Oh, not *those* Jews”?
While recognizing the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, The Catholic Church has never despaired of the salvation of “the perfidious Jews.” This prayer which was removed from the mass only because it was falsely interpreted. “Perfidious” is not an accusation of sinfulness, nor does it means “damned.” If the objects of such a prayer were damned, it would be sinful to pray for them, as 2 Maccabees plainly explains.
So what is the fate of non-Christian Jews of the here and now? This is not clear from scripture. But dispensationalism is an unsatisfactory, anti-traditional, and counter-biblical hypothesis, which sadly is not as completely alien to modern Catholics as it to Catholicism.
I can’t help but to notice that the man who betrayed Christ was known simply as “Jew.” (That’s all “Judas” meant.) But at the same time, when we Catholics pray to St. Thaddeus, the Patron Saint of (Seemingly) Hopeless Causes, we refer to him also ny that same name.
I believe that I what I said has been the historic position of most if not all creedal Christians churches. The Church is the expansion and eschatological fulfillment of all the promises to ancient Israel by virtue of being in Christ, the Seed, to whom the promises were made. Thus Christ’s own are the true sons of Abraham. The "replacement" charge comes from dispensationalists and is made against all those who oppose their views.
In the time Paul speaks of, all of Israel will be converted, the glory of Israel shines forth, and all of Israel united in glory.
I read a touch of dispensationalism in this comment. What is the time of which Paul is speaking, and what actually is the definition of "all Israel"? Since Paul was writing these words to the Roman church, which presumably included many Jews of the Diaspora, I find the suggestion that he is trying to make some distinction between the inhabitants of Palestine and the Diaspora questionable.
So what is the fate of non-Christian Jews of the here and now?
Salvation comes by faith alone through Christ alone. "... if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom, 10:9) Any other position wrt the Jews smacks of double covenantalism, the ugly step-child of dispensationalism.
Quite understandable given the restorationist nature of both systems.
I’m not sure why you detect something wrong in your 2nd citation of my post. I’m not so much drawing the distinction between Jews based on where they live (Exilic v Palestinian), but on whether they became Christian (as most exilic Jews did) or not (like most Palestinian Jews).
As for the 3rd part you wrote, I believe I was abundantly clear in my statement that Jews need to come to Christ. Since that is so, I’m not sure where hope lies for the “perfidious Jews,” only that there seems to be some which is not yet revealed to us. I could speculate, such as to guess that there may be reserved for the Jews some time between now and the 2nd death some opportunity for recognizing Christ. But any such speculation would be highly problemmatic and non-biblical. More likely is that Christ may have something up his sleeve that we cannot fathom. Who, before Christ, would have asserted the harrowing of Hell?
I’m certainly uncomfortable with the presumptiveness expressed in the article Alex Murphy linked to. But is there no hope for the Jews? St. Paul consoles himself with a vision of the restoration of Israel, but if his soul is troubled that acceptance of Christ is merely found among those not of his native locality, is it much more solace for this particular concern that it is found among those not of his time? Does not his vision of the restoration of Israel, which seems to refer to the very object of his concern, suggest the restoration not only of some other olive branch, but of the very branches which were cut? Does “all Israel” exclude what was then present Israel?
Please understand that in these questions, I am not asserting Catholic doctrine, or making biblical assertions, but pondering what is *NOT* made clear.
It would appear that while Luther broke with Tradition (from the Catholic POV), it wasn’t as radical a break in the basic history of the Church as seen in the Dispensationalists.
Absolutely not. If you read the reformers, they're writings are full of references to the folks that preceded them.
StAthanasiustheGreat, Actually as a Catholic I think such threads are very helpful. The popularity of such tripe as the Left Behind series shows how few people understand that the theology behind it (not to mention the literature) is total caca. This heresy needs to be countered by Protestant voices speaking to a Protestant audience. If for one applaud these voices and pray the blessing of Christ be upon them all.
No, no, no I can assure you that they have as much in common with “Left Behind” as a good Catholic has with the Da Vinci Code.
oops I goofed. I misread what StA wrote sorry.
I'm curious as to what objective evidence you have for such a conclusion. Is it a hunch on your part?
Paul certainly found much resistance to the gospel among the Diaspora Jews, as any plain reading of the book of Acts will attest. (There may have been more Jews living in the Diaspora, and so a larger percentage of converts would come from that segment of the Jewish population, but that is only speculation.) In fact it was this resistance that prompted his turning to the gentiles with the good news. So when we turn to Romans 11 we see Paul’s analysis in terms of the ingrafting of gentiles.
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!I’m not sure where hope lies for the “perfidious Jews,” only that there seems to be some which is not yet revealed to us. … But is there no hope for the Jews?
There is no hope for any apart from Christ.
Does “all Israel” exclude what was then present Israel?
"All Israel" is a reference to the elect ones from out of that nation throughout time. "And so all Israel will be saved."
This heresy needs to be countered by Protestant voices speaking to a Protestant audience.
It is.
Yes I know. Sometimes it is even done with great humor. Have you read the book “ Right Behind”? I strongly endorse it as a very funny look at dispensationalism and the bad literature that arises from it.
***You see, good Christian friend, you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist, anymore than you can reason with a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, or JW. You must proclaim the gospel to them.***
I agree with this, BTW. There is a complete Eschatology in the gospels that is NOT Dispensationalism. At a fundamental level, they don’t even know the gospel. If they truly knew the gospel and the promises the Lord made, they wouldn’t be Dispensationalists.
***You see, good Christian friend, you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist, anymore than you can reason with a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, or JW.
So we have found, elsewhere. It's an explanatory framework with an extraordinarily strong hold on a lot of people. Kind of like, oh, certain illegal substances....
At a fundamental level, they don’t even know the gospel. If they truly knew the gospel and the promises the Lord made, they wouldn’t be Dispensationalists.
My biggest problem with it is not the charts and graphs and whatnot. It's what it does to the gospel.
If DP-ism is true, if being a blood descendant of Abraham matters the way they say it does, the atonement needs to be rethought.
You must proclaim the gospel to them.***yes.
Perhaps this page would be helpful: Dispensationalism
A few excerpts:
"...
- Dispensationalism
- A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations.
Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
...- A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
- A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation.
- The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.
The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. This is a misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism. "
In my own words, Dispensationalism is the logical result of believing that:
Huhh? Not in this context, it doesn't
Let’s put this in perspective and talk about something as mundane as apple pie.
No, let's not. Let's change this nonsensical analogy a tad, and talk about a pie. The content of a pie can be apples, cherries, peaches, or rhubarb.
You, see the point of Dispensationalism, is that it is not meant to be understood--only believed.
If the author did understand Dispensationalism, he would know that this statement is nonsense. But, in other words, the author is writing about something which he does not understand.
They, if truly logical, (like Spock logical) SHOULD NOT be Christians. Why? Because, Jesus WAS trying to subvert the state and establish an earthly kingdom. He DID break the Law of God. Therefore, his death did not atone. The Jews were justified in crucifying him.
Double HUHHH. Is the author saying that he believes this nonsense? Or that dispensationalists do? If the latter, he is quite wrong. A pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it.
... Because they deny the unity of Scripture but instead chop it up into 7, no 9,--or is it 3? Dispensations, ...
Incorrect. Another pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it.
I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.
What does it mean then? Get specific.
Incorrect. Another pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it. I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.
Looks like you have fallen into the same trap that you are complaining about.
A distinction unknown in Scripture, at least in the way formulated by dispensationalists.
A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation.
That’s funny. It’s more like the "literal when convenient" approach.
The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations.
But you lead off with this for the definition: A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations.
Then the name is a misnomer, or perhaps contributes to the confusion of its adherents.
- Content 4)
- 1 a: something contained —usually used in plural b: the topics or matter treated in a written work
c: the principal substance (as written matter, illustrations, or music) offered by a World Wide Web site - 2 a: substance, gist b: meaning, significance c: the events, physical detail, and information in a work of art — compare form 10b
Definition 1 applies, not definition 2.
--------
A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation.
That’s funny. It’s more like the "literal when convenient" approach.
Not at all. It's a "use your intelligence and consider the context" approach.
--------
ncorrect. Another pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it.
I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.
Looks like you have fallen into the same trap that you are complaining about.
OK. So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?
--------
Then the name is a misnomer, or perhaps contributes to the confusion of its adherents.
Perhaps you missed the key phrase:
The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.