Question to Christians From a Jewish Friend

December 9, 2004 | Michael Katz

[Mike10542]

Hey fellow freepers, having been swept up in the battle of conservatives first liberals and believers in God vs. non-beleivers I clearly have chosen the right side here (hence me writing on Free Republic). The alignment of Jews like myself and many fellow Christians is one that I feel is very necesary to win the war against evil and have peace in our time. Although I choose to ignore all the leftists and others who try to break up this loving partnership by saying "They are only on your side becuase they want the Jews in control of Jerusalem so Christ returns," I am looking to explore what the Bible really teaches about the Jewish fate from the Christian perspective. It is hard to find what the majority opinion is because the internet is, well, the internet. What I have made out so far is that during rapture I beleive 2/3's of Jews are killed, but one third survive. So my questions are:

1) What do the 2/3's of Jews die from (war, just happens????)

2) What happens to the remaning 1/3 of Jews after they survive?

3) Do any of this remaining 1/3 of Jews make it past the final judgement of God (some interpertations say no, others say the remaining Jews are allowed to pass once accepting God and I think Christ)

I truly beleive in my Jewish fate as I have been raised Jewish, but my mom is Christian. So each religion I respect and believe are good. Ultimately, I hope us Jews and Christians both make it together to the promised land (and only the Muslims are sent to hell!)

Thanks for all your answers. Also, feel free to direct me to anywhere where I can learn more about this subject.

[MarMema]

I am interested in learning more about the statement, "Exclusiveness is rejected as a matter of Truth".

Apparently from this source?
Philip Sherrard, "Christianity: Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition, Chapter Three,"Christianity and Other Sacred Traditions, Brookline MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press (1998) p. 54.

So if anyone has this book and can or is willing to elaborate, I would be grateful.

Additionally in The Orthodox Church, Bishop Ware states that "...several of the Fathers have none the less believed that in the end all will be reconciled to God". He does add that it is heretical to say that all must be saved, but it is legitimate to hope that all may be saved.
Any more information you can offer here is also welcome.

[MarMema]

The same link I posted above, an official church website, also has this to say:

"It is basic Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit may act wherever and whenever. Presuming to constrain the activity of the Holy Spirit - to limit God Himself- is not the way. Orthodoxy recognizes and accepts the mandate to seek Truth and to follow the Holy Spirit wherever He leads, including in other religions or philosophies when his Truth is to be found there.[37]

The way of Orthodoxy is to converge on the golden mean, carefully avoiding extremes and the pitfalls that can lead to destruction. The Tradition of the Church fosters the understanding of Truth in all the experience of the human person. As the sun shines and gives life and energy to the physical world, the Son of God, the Logos, illuminates every human person who "comes in the world" (Orthodox prayer to the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit and the Logos offer Life to all. However, the centrality of Christ, the "Savior of the world", the Logos, is not to be dismissed. He was incarnate for universal salvation and is "the same forever".

The salvation of all people, including non-Christians, depends on the great goodness and mercy of the Omniscient and Omnipotent God who desires the salvation of all people. Those who live in faith and virtue, though outside the Church, receive God's loving grace and salvation. Saint Paul reminds us, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!" (Rom. 11: 33).

[Netizen]

one thing which I know is what will happen to us when Christ comes back according to them.

The first question is - 'Who is supposed to be grafted unto whom?' Are the Jews to be grafted unto christians or are christains supposed to be grafted unto the Jews?

[kosta50]

Spark, read #407 again and see what the official Orthodox Church says: there is no salvation outside of Eucharist. And the Eucharist is only for the members of the Orthodox Church.

All these other quotes are make-do damage-control kumbaya nonosense rationalizations, lip service, etc. so as not to portray the Orthodox Church as inclusive when in fact the Orthodox Church is the most inclusive of all Christian churches.

Most of the quotes you read here are by various apologetics from feel-good books that are much more idealistic than the practice and the canons of Orthodoxy.

[kosta50]

error: inclusive = exclusive

[MarMema]

Kosta if you follow the link I posted most recently it is an "official" church website. That of the GOARCH.

[MarMema]

All these other quotes are make-do damage-control

Both of the extensive quotes I posted are from the church website, which includes the one to spark.

[MarMema]

that are much more idealistic than the practice and the canons of Orthodoxy.

It is blasphemy, imo, to think that God would be as limiting and exclusive as you seem to believe. You would come here and use a church you claim to rarely attend, and state that these people, by virtue of being outside the Orthodox church, are damned to eternal hell?

Since when have you been given this authority and knowledge? Because the archpriest at the parish I attend says otherwise and so does our proto-deacon. Both of whom I think are more immersed in the practise and spirit of the Orthodox church than you or I. They say that God is perfect love and it is not our place to judge or condemn anyone, as Orthodox Christians.

So now I suppose you can fall back on your old standby, that the OCA teaches the protestant version of Orthodoxy, which is somehow supposed to reduce her vision and spiritual wealth.

Here is a post from the official website of the Orthodox Church in America.
"It is the common teaching of the Orthodox Christian tradition that the Church has no monopoly on grace and truth and love. The Church teaches on the contrary that God is the Sovereign Lord who saves those whom He wills.

The Church believes as well that salvation depends upon the actual life of the person, and God alone is capable of judging since He alone knows the secrets of each mind and heart. Only God is capable of judging how well a man lives according to the measure of grace, faith, understanding, and strength given to him.

The Orthodox would insist, nevertheless, that an honest seeker of truth and love will see these things perfectly realized and expressed in Jesus Christ and will recognize God, the end of their seeking, in Him.

We all know, however, that our image of Christ is deformed both by the lives and the doctrines of those who claim him, and thus His truth and love and His very person remain obscure and hidden to those who might follow Him if they could see Him clearly.

But once again, let it be clear that every man is judged by God alone according to the actual truth and love in his life. This goes for Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike".

[MarMema]

there is no salvation outside of Eucharist.

But I wonder if your three hermits were regular participants in the Mysteries?

[Kolokotronis]

Aside from monkfan's posts, I must say that this series of posts has been a rather unedifying spectacle. I say this because I had been under the impression that this question of "no salvation outside the Church" has been rather completely discussed and agreed upon among hierarchs and theologians in the 1980s, even if they were not able to decide what the implications of the statement means in terms of relations with other Churches or "faith communities". It is simplistic and incorrect to say that the Orthodox Church today holds that unless one is Orthodox, one is absolutely barred from attaining perfect theosis. Similarly, it is incorrect to say that canonical boundaries are without meaning or of little meaning because we do not know the mind of God. Blessed Augustine and +Cyprian of Carthage held divergent views on this matter 1600+ years ago. And it is heresy, I am sure we all agree, to hold, as some Fathers speculated, that everyone is "saved" in the end.

An extended discussion of this issue was undertaken by a commission preparing for a Great and Holy Council back in the 70s and 80s. One of the issues was this precise question and then, perhaps more importantly, how to deal with the Churches position concerning union, or intercommunion, with other Churches. Following is a link to an article by Prof. Emmanuel Clapsis on those discussions. Please note that this is a long read, but worth it and know that the Met. Vartholomaios of Chalcedon quoted in the article is the present Ecumenical Patriarch.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8541.asp

[MarMema]

Good read, thanks. That is a great site. I make my kids watch the videos they have online. :-)

[Kolokotronis]

" I make my kids watch the videos they have online. :-)"

Poor kids! :)

[kosta50]

If you are going to respond to this discussion on Grace outside of Church you need to start at the beginning at my post #396. MarMema never read past my first paragraph and went off on a tangent. Now she says that I am the one who is making the Orthodox Church all exclusive. Find one instance where I am the author of it!

In both examples I gave, one from ROCOR and one from ROC in Russia (1998), the exclusion is part of the Church teachings, without and with qualifiers respectively.

Now, I have read and still read the feel-good things everyone is writing about while practicing the opposite, Kolokotronis: yes, we admit God is the final arbiter but we say that outside of Eucharist there is no salvation. And who can receive Eucharist in an Orthodox Church? The Orthodox! No, it's not left up to God -- the Church makes sure she sees to it who gets the benefits of God's offerings. It;'s simple: No Orthodox Church, no Eucharist, no Salvation.

Another fine example is how the Church treats converts from other churches. And we have already discussed that. Even for Catholics, whose Church is based on the same Authority and on the same number of Sacraments and valid clergy, are "converted" to Orthodoxy through the same ritual (originally devised and still valid for Arian heretics. Yet the Church of late (after 1980) avoids the "h" word.

It is this type of sub rosa double-talk and carefully kept secrets that bring out the hypocrisy into the forefront of every church.

The job of the clergy is to live and teach the Gospel, and to administer the sacraments. The clergy do not make sacraments valid or invalid. They are just a medium. The rest is between God and the person receiving the sacraments.

The job of bishops is not lording over anyone (1 Pet 5: 2-3)

Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Of all the churches, the Orthodox Church is the only one that denies Eucharist to all but Orthodox Christians. That is as exclusive as it gets.

MarMema, you comment earlier about me not attending the church very often is fine with me. I have no apologies. I am in a part of the world where there are hardly any churches to begin with, even less an Orthodox church. If you wish to condemn me, or use this private knowledge publicly against me, so be it, but my non-attendanece has nothing to do with my willingness and desire to do so.

As for the three little hermits -- they weren't even Orthodox for all you know. But their faith was true and stronger than others'. What Tolstoy was conveying is that salvation is not in the Church but in God, regardless of the rituals -- which are man-made inventions. The bishop in his story doesn't even realize how proud and elitist he appears, with consdescending compassion telling the hermits "so, I see, you have heard of the Trinity... let me tell you ho you should pray..." Bah!

[MarMema]

Kosta, I am truly sorry if I have offended you.

I hope that you can find peace with whatever is upsetting you so deeply.

[Mike10542]

Wow, who would have thunk it. I posted a vanity wondering what Christians views are about Jews. I was hoping to get a few responses at best. Boy I was I wrong. 453 posts!!! Wow, you fellow freepers are impressive. Thanks to all for providing me with great information and interpratation about what Christian views and values are. As a Jew, I can go to bed 100% comfortable being part of a relationship with with you guys and lobbying other Jews to follow suit. At the end of the day, I think this is all part of God's plans and all of us that are good will be together in heaven. Thanks to all! Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah!

[Kolokotronis]

Kosta, did you read the link I posted? Your opinions on what the Orthodox Church teaches notwithstanding, the Clapsis piece clearly sets forth the understanding of the Church regarding the attainment of theosis outside the Church and that is that we don't know. The problem with that is how it is to be applied in practice with non Orthodox Churches since the canons, which either were decided upon when there was One Church, or after the Great Schism when there were two which hated each other, specifically forbid intercommunion. As the article points out, in preparation of a Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church, this practical problem of intercommunion was discussed. The one side, mostly Greek influenced, wanted to apply economia to the question and allow intercommunion with at least some Churches (Rome in particular). The other side, mostly Russian influenced, wanted to apply strict akrivia on the question and deny intercommunion. Clearly there was no agreement and thus everyone is stuck with the ancient canons. That's the way the Church works, Kosta. You know that and it was unfair of you to proclaim that the Orthodox Church is exclusive in its ideas on theosis and communion without explaining where the Church is now, how it got there, why its staying there for now and where it may be headed and how. There is of course a way out of this situation, which would be for Constantinople to simply hold a council of the Church of Constantinople and anyone else who wishes to come and declare intercommunion with, say, Rome. The rest of Orthodoxy could follow or do nothing or break communion. We may be headed in that direction but I suspect the SCOBA jurisdictions and their mother churches will come along.

I am at something of a loss as to your recent fulminations against the Church. Frankly, you know better than to say that Greek Orthodox hierarchs are indulging in feel good talk or modern touchy/feelyism. Those guys are the antithesis of that. You are of course free to believe that the Church has been completely compromised by hypocrasy and has gone off the rails. You have an obligation to speak out against that. But choosing the lack intercommunion and the maxim "no salvation outside the Church" as a causus belli in support of your position just doesn't wash. You know the history, the canons and the process to change that. You also know that there are powerful elements in the Church trying to do just that. Condemning the entire Church for the inflexible attitude of one or more national churches or Patriarchates and then using that to prove the corruption of the whole Church is not intellectually honest or fair to any of use here. Fighting anonymously on Free Republic will have no effect on the problem you perceive. Our obligation as orthodox Christians is not merely to speak out when we see a problem, it is to speak out effectively. That isn't happening here. If you truly and sincerely believe that the Church is corrupted, then it would seem to me that unless you are willing to openly start a movement against this corruption, you're just venting a personal anger for reasons best known and left to you. If you believe the Church is irrevocably corrupt in its hierarchy and/or organization, then it would seem to me that, like traditional Anglicans, its time to go and claim no further allegiance to what is called the Orthodox Church. I certainly would.

Finally, as to Marmema jumping on your post before reading it. She certainly did. A simple correction would have sufficed as the anti-Church tone of certain of your recent posts may have made her a bit trigger happy.

[Kolokotronis]

Imagine my poor Jewish law partner having to put up with me everyday. His father-in-law, the rabbi and I, though, have wonderful discussions!

[kosta50]

May God bless you Mike.

[kosta50]

No need to be sorry, MarMema. I love you as my sister in Christ. "My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me."

[Romulus]

I thought everyone might profit by being reminded of Pope St. Gregory the Great (Epp. V, ep. xviii ad. Joan. Ep. Const., in P. L., LXXVII, 740), who wrote of: "Sancti ante legem, sancti sub lege, sancti sub gratiâ, omnes hi . . . in membris Ecclesiæ sunt constituti" (The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and the saints under grace -- all these are constituted members of the Church).