| Even the American Catholic bishops who realize the offensiveness of an exclusivistic, intolerant & judgemental Christianity, are beginning to embrace a salvivic pluralism - How about You? | ||||||
 |
||||||
| This topic is one which is very easy to lose
focus of the main issue. One can allow peripherial "bunnytrails"
to highjack such a discussion. Though it may be of importance,
issues of the history of Catholic/Jewish as well as Protestant/Jewish
relationships should not be allowed to overshadow the primary issue
here of Jesus' own claims of exclusivistic salvation. Today's
political correctness of multi-culturalism & pluralism today free
reign to run roughshod over ideologies that are not in agreement with
them (some of the most intolerant and judgemental people I've met were
not the staunchest fundamentalists but those who claim to be
tolerant. (Their hypocrisy is often hidden behind the smokescreen
of their self-defeating absolutist promotion of
relativism). After dealing with the issue of Jesus' claims of exclusive salvation, that HE is the Only way to be saved (as well as those of the other New Testament writers) there a few issues that, if not differientated and addressed separately, can lead to substantial misunderstanding and error. First, one must look at the history of the relationship between the Jews and the Roman Catholic church (since the recent statement of the American Roman Catholic bishops, denouncing Jewish evangelism has been alluded to), in contrast to that of the protestants. The non-theist often commits the error of lumping the Roman Catholic church together with all others Christians; Second, one needs to be aware of the theological issues which led up to the first Protestant reformation (many of those were salvivic issues as is at the foundation of this errorious document by the American Catholic Bishops); Third, one has to examine the biblical 'evidence' behind a salvivic pluralism, specifically the so-called 'dual covenant' or "Replacement Theology." How one answers this will determine whether a form of Universalism (salvation without responsibility or demand- what Detrich Bonhoeffer referred to as 'Cheap Grace'). After all, if there is even one valid salvivic alternative to Jesus, then the Christian message is mute. However, if there isn't one valid alternative- that is one which is (of necessity) from the eternal God in essence, but is not the sole divinity (as in Monarchianism which held that God the Father died on the cross), but is also an equal co-existent (but not distinct from as if a fellow being) divinity who lived a historical existence as a God/man in order that His substitutionary atonement would be acceptable as the propitiation for the sins of humanity thus fulfilling the various ancient prophecies, then not only is the message of christianity true, but Jesus is the only way for salvation, like it or not. In other words, if Monarchianism (and a strict anti-trinitarianism monotheism) be true, then salvation would be insufficient and ineffective as God the Father would have chosen the route of endangering humanity to the rule of Satan as He would've been absolutely dead & not in control during the 3 days in the tomb. For this brief time, Satan would've been in power. Furthermore, for God the Father to resurrect, He would've had to violate the law of Biogenesis as He would've had to conjur up life from within Himself personally. God the Father would've had to been living outside of the equal deity who had died in order to raise Him (from outside of Himself) to life. A tritheism would've indeed indicated that there were a way of salvation apart from God the father. Equally inadequate would've been either a Cerinthian adoptionalism (that Jesus was actually a man who was possessed by God from his baptism to his death on the cross) as that would've been a purely human vessel with a foreign power from without. No, it had to be true (totally divine in nature and power) God but not the total God (in total part, as if God can be divisable). As it has been said, "If Jesus is not the Lord of all, then He is not the Lord at all." Finally, we would need to examine the biblical teachings of a salvivic exclusivism (vertical) which undergirds a communal pluralism (horizonal). Since the recent American Catholic Bishop's statement of 8/13/2002 has been referred to above, I think it only appropriate to point out that the cause of the first protestant reformation was also over soteriological issues. It is only fair to allude here to the Protestant document, The Willowbank Declaration on the Christian Gospel and the Jewish People originally adopted on April 29, 1989. Though this document as well as that of the American Catholic Bishops, is specific to Jewish evengelism, the notion of any means of salvation apart from Jesus Christ sets itself foreign to the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ and thus places its advocates in company with the false prophets & teachers (Mat.24:5ff; John 10:1-18; 2 Peter 2; 1 Jn. 4:2-3, et. al.). Unfortunately, some individuals desire to muddy the understanding of others over the issue of evangelism in general and Jewish evangelism in particular, in order to deceive them into accepting their fallacious conclusion.The following must be considered seperately lest the whole question of evangelism in general, and Jewish evangelism in particular be misunderstood. A brief history of the relationship of the Roman Catholic church and the Jews. It is not my intention to cast stones at the Roman Catholic church. Many have considered the church fair game for such things. In these "tolerant" and "progressive" days of political correctness, Catholic and Christian bashing has become not only an acceptable target, but this expression of one's latent hostility is often encouraged by those in authority. As a fair and reasonable protestant, it is my intent to point out where such criticisms have warrent and where they are not only amiss but are birthed in ignorance and contrary to fact. |
||||||
