Skip to main content

Weren't The Readings Interesting Yesterday?

This is one of those times where this post could get long, so get a cup of coffee, or a roll of Spree, and settle in. [No one eats Spree but you.--ed.] Fine. Whatever.

It struck me as I heard the first reading from Isaiah 5 to keep in mind the context: Israel in the north has already fallen, and Jerusalem's fall is not far behind. That's why the field is overgrown, and there are briers and the like. Judgment is coming, and right soon. But did you catch the thing about wild grapes? Did anyone else think of Romans 11, or was that just me? And this is precisely what St. Paul is actually talking about in Romans 9-11, not some weird Calvinist election thing. St. Paul is trying to explain how God has not repudiated Israel, even if most of Israel is presently rejecting the Anointed One: it's for the salvation of the Gentiles. That's most Christians today, by the way.

And then in the Gospel reading, (Mt. 21:33-43) the Lord says the same thing: someone else is going to receive your inheritance. He holds them responsible, (just like Esau) but the plan will not be thwarted. True Israelites receive Jesus; false Israelites reject Him. So it has been, and so it shall be.

That's why I've been mildly intrigued by the discussion about how much Christ can be seen in the Old Testament among the Reformed, but I don't have a dog in the fight. If a putative minister cannot give the true sacraments of the New Covenant, he's wasting his breath, ultimately. Only the grace of the New Covenant will feed the pilgrims on the way to the New Jerusalem. (OK, it's not that long.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un