Iyov takes to task the Catholic priest and blogger Richard John Neuhaus for writing
Of course some Jews may be offended at the suggestion that the fullness of redemption is found in Jesus Christ, but their problem is with Christianity as such.
Neuhaus writes this in the context of the debate over the Roman Catholic Church again allowing the old Latin Mass, a debate which I do not intend to enter. The problem is that this Latin Mass includes prayers for the conversion of the Jews, as I discussed a few days ago – although, as Neuhaus points out, in the newly permitted version the Jews are not called “perfidious”. Now Neuhaus seems to believe as I do, that it is normal and natural for Christians to hold that Christianity is the most perfect religion, and would expect adherents of other religions to claim that for their religion. If we don’t believe things like this, if we insist that we have to believe that all religions are equal, we get into the kind of mess of the Anglican priest who has become a Muslim, a situation which Iyov rightly deplores, although with confusing terminology. If we want proper dialogue between religions, this has to start with what we actually believe, not from a version watered down to be supposedly more acceptable.
From the very beginning of the church the apostles and their followers have fearlessly proclaimed to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles that
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.
(Acts 4:12, TNIV)
Jesus Christ is presented in the Bible as the only way of salvation, and faithful Christians like Father Neuhaus and myself insist on the right to proclaim this. Others may not like it, but we let them make similar uniqueness claims for their own religion or atheism. But let us not allow a phony idea of political correctness or the threats of the Anti-Defamation League to muzzle our proclamation of Christian truth.
Preach it, bro. However, the passage that you cite (Acts 4:12) deserves to be read in context in order to understand its persuasive power, a power it does not have outside of that context. Out of context, in fact, it can actually be unfruitful to cite it.
The context is all about power. Who has it, Peter and John, or the Sanhedrin? That Jesus’ name had the power to save was being demonstrated every day in the ministry of Peter and John. Their ministry of healing (the Greek verb sozo, of course, means both “healed” and “saved” [Acts 4:9, 12]). In that context, to say that “the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, has become the chief cornerstone,” and that “there is no other name under heaven among mortals by which we must be saved” had a palpable, patent truth about it which it does not have if someone wields it as a cudgel against an unbeliever in the absence of accompanying signs that that name effectively has the power to save.
I’m not suggesting you would do this, but we all know it has often been done.
Thank you, John. These comments on Acts 4:12 are helpful. I didn’t go into the context simply for brevity. But, however this passage is understood, it was clearly offensive to the Jewish leaders of the time (as the following events show), and so is an example for us to put the uncompromised preaching of Jesus before avoiding offence to religious leaders.
In the context of Neuhaus’ Catholic faith, Vatican II declarations (and in most mainstream Protestant denominations) assert that since “the old covenant was never revoked” (cf. Romans 11:29), the Jews have a separate track to salvation. (Admittedly, the Catholic Church’s declarations on this are confusing, but the article by Henrix is useful in this regard.
One might ask about the Jewish view of Gentile salvation. It is clearly spoken out: those who observe the seven Noachide Laws are assured a place in the World to Come. Do the seven — go to heaven.
The Catholic Church’s declarations on this may be confusing, but the Bible’s are clear: there is only one track to salvation, Jesus Christ the only Way. Yes, believers from before the time of Christ, and perhaps those today who have never heard of him, may be saved through him without explicitly naming him. But they are saved through the one Way, not on a separate track.
Anyway, it seems that according to the Pope’s latest declaration the one way of salvation runs through Rome (it is basically a restatement of “Dominus Iesus” of 2000 which stated “All who are saved achieve this status through the Roman Catholic Church”, from your own link), and even we Protestants cannot be saved outside it. Iyov, how do you square this with your “separate track to salvation”? Is there one track through Rome and another through Jerusalem, but none through Geneva or Canterbury? I’m sure no one is teaching that. In fact the Catholic position seems to be similar to mine: there is one Way to salvation, through Christ, and all who are saved, even those who don’t explicitly name Christ, are saved in this one Way.
Here is my interpretation: The Catholic Church (and indeed, all normative Christians) regard Jesus as God. Now, skipping over the difficult doctrine of triunity (I could go into this, but I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader) I read the Church’s statement as “salvation is through God.” This is certainly a statement that both Jews and Christians can agree with.
Regarding Protestant-Catholic relations (which seem to have just today taken a turn for the worse) — perhaps I’ll let someone else take up that thread. The Jewish perspective, as I mentioned above is that obedience to the Noachide laws is sufficient.
I must say, however, that the divisions among the various Christian Churches are fascinating — and more often than not, quite a bit obscure. One of the fascinating aspects to me is that it is possible, according to some theologies, to fall into irreparable sin merely by holding a contrary theological view. This notion of sin by “thought crime” is quite interesting — and must make things very difficult for the Christian faithful. If I didn’t know from Hans Urs von Balthasar that on Holy Saturday Jesus descended into Hell and freed all the damned, I would have thought it was basically impossible to get to Heaven via Christian theology.
Iyov, thanks for your response. Indeed “salvation is through God”, but I would not consider that to be a complete and adequate summary of Christian teaching, as Christ is left out of the matter. But I agree with you in rejecting the idea, found in some distortions of Christian theology, that salvation or damnation depends on one’s theological view. Indeed that has been one of the major sub-themes in my discussions of the atonement. We are not saved by theology, but through Christ and having a relationship with him, whether we know his name or not.