How did the old testament Jews have faith?

[John Lamb]

What does faith do? It saves. Why? Because its object is Christ.

The knowledge of the Messiah and His Divinity was not fully developped among the OT people but it was there nonetheless. All Revelation pointed to Christ. Belief in the Messiah and His role in salvation was, and continues to be, an essential part of faith.

Therefore, that faith saves as much today, as it saved Abraham who was counted righteous before the Lord on that account alone (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3).

But even without faith, our intellect is ordered towards God (the True). And the True considered as an object evidently has no power to save; if it did then even the faithless sages and truth-seekers would be saved. They lack faith, but they have God as their object. So I'm not sure what the rôle of faith is.

I guess that faith gives knowledge of who the Church is, and it gives knowledge that the Church is infallible, but it does not give knowledge of particular truths? Particular truths come through revelation and are confirmed by the Church? And since the old testament Church never taught the Trinity, the old testament Jews had no way of infallibly knowing about it?

You're right that our intellects are ordered towards God as the Truth, but as the Truth generically speaking. Salvific faith orders the intellect towards the Truth/God not generically, but specifically as the Saviour of mankind (or, as Vetus Ordo says: it has Christ [the Saviour] for its object). Faith does give particular knowledge (e.g. the articles of the creed). Faith as a habit orders the mind towards accepting whatever God has revealed. Theologians dispute what level of explicit knowledge is required for faith to be salvific. Some say that only two truths are required to be believed: 1. that there is a God, 2. that he rewards the good - people from every age have had the belief that there is a Creator God who rewards the good and punishes the evil . . . Other theologians say that, since the coming of Christ, it is necessary for everyone to have four truths, the aforementioned two, and: 3. the Holy Trinity, 4. the Incarnation of the Word. Other theologians say that even in our era, some might be saved without having 3. or 4., as long as they have 1. and 2. and have the right habit of mind such they would theoretically accept 3. and 4. if it were proposed to them (implicit faith).

[An aspiring Thomist]

@ Vetus Ordo

Therefore, that faith saves as much today, as it saved Abraham who was counted righteous before the Lord on that account alone (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3).

The bolded is mine. So it seems you are saying faith alone saves/justifies? I certainly agree faith does justify and I suppose at a specific moment it could be the only thing that justifies a man but as James says:
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.

And earlier he say "do you not know that Abraham was justified by works?" (From memory).

Paul was talking about Mosaic works/ works of debt while James is talking about Christian works/ works done out of love for God. Faith and works are needed and no, works do not automatically flow from our faith and yes we can fall by committing mortal sins (bad works). I am grieved to see that you have lost faith in the Church. Perhaps by seeing the truthfulness of her teaching on justification you will be led to see her credibility overall.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification/

[Vetus Ordo]

@ Vetus Ordo

Thanks for your concern, Aspiring Thomist.

I'm perfectly aware of that website and the classical views on justification. And yes, works do flow necessarily from a saving faith, just as a healthy tree bears fruit. That's James' take, rhetorically asking those who said they had faith but showed no works to show their faith through their works, complementing Paul's cornerstone teaching on justification by faith in the other epistles. In any case, I'd not rather delve too much into that centuries-old debate right now, since it's a bit besides the point regarding the OP and it will most likely violate the rules of the forum.

I believe my answer to Daniel is sufficient in and of itself as to clarifying the matter at hand. Brief and sober, I hope. And so are the scriptural references I gave him.

[james03]

And yes, meritorious works do flow necessarily from a saving faith

FIFY

[james03]

So I'm not sure what the rôle of faith is.

Faith is our Justice under the New Covenant.  You are not forced into it, you can stay under the Law, but the Law can't save you.

[james03]

Theologians dispute what level of explicit knowledge is required for faith to be salvific.

I don't know how you can dispute with the infallible Athanasian Creed (DOGMA).

[An aspiring Thomist]

@ Vetus Ordo

Thanks for your concern, Aspiring Thomist.

I'm perfectly aware of that website and the classical views on justification. And yes, works do flow necessarily from a saving faith, just as a healthy tree bears fruit. That's James' take, rhetorically asking those who said they had faith but showed no works to show their faith through their works, complementing Paul's cornerstone teaching on justification by faith in the other epistles. In any case, I'd not rather delve too much into that centuries-old debate right now, since it's a bit besides the point regarding the OP and it will most likely violate the rules of the forum.

I believe my answer to Daniel is sufficient in and of itself as to clarifying the matter at hand. Brief and sober, I hope. And so are the scriptural references I gave him.

I don't think discussing this issue would violate the forum rules except for perhaps derailing the thread, but I understand why you wouldn't want to discuss it here. I would be more than happy to start a thread on justification and scripture and spend time on it. My last two cents on James on this thread or at least for now is this article:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JAMES2.HTM

[Kreuzritter]

GP, you might want to check out Dr. Brant Pitre's "The Case For Jesus". He shows in it the Old Testament prophecies about Christ and how they cannot be referring to a mere man. Hence, Christ's admonishing the Jews for not knowing the day of His coming, and why they (ignorantly) condemned Him for blasphemy.

This post-Temple trope about how they didn't know and so it's really not that bad is BS pure and simple. The Jews of Christ's day had no excuse. Jesus was not a rebel, revolutionary, etc., as has been portrayed since the 1960's. His message was, by and large, "Traditionalist". Hence, He was favorable to the Essenes, 50/50 on the Pharisees, and did nothing but excoriate the Sadducees.

Modern Jews are worthlessly compared to the Jews of that era. Completely different belief system as shaped by the removal of the Temple. Modern Jews are no more Jewish in the true sense than Lutherans of the Missouri Synod are Catholic -- highly similar, but disparate nonetheless.

I don't deny that the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah, especially when read in light of the NT, point to an individual that was more than man. I was merely replying to Laus' question: the ancient Israelites held to a monotheism that did not allow for a trinity of divine persons, even if trinity was of one divine essence. As far as they thought, the coming Messiah would be specially anointed by God, but would not be an incarnation of one member of a divine trinity.

Recall the most important prayer of the Jews, both before and after the destruction of the Temple: Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. The last word of the verse is echad, which is the cardinal number 1. Prior to the NT, no observant Jew would have had any reason to believe that God was a trinity of divine persons.

Eh eh eh. There was no ancient Israelite religious monolith, and there is precious little that is on record before the Hellenistic age to attempt to reconstruct orthodoxy outside of the scriptures themselves, which are clearly not "monotheistic" in the sense of modern Judaism or Islam. Stop projecting Rabbinical Judaism of the Talmud onto all of the ancient Hebrews, much less upon the Patriarchs and Prophets and authors of the Old Testament. It's an ideological, reactionary, anachronistic, ret-conning con job.

[John Lamb]

Theologians dispute what level of explicit knowledge is required for faith to be salvific.

I don't know how you can dispute with the infallible Athanasian Creed (DOGMA).

Even some of the most traditional theologians of the 20th century seem to have preferred the explicit faith 1. & 2., implicit faith 3. & 4., thesis, at least for some persons.

For example, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange & Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey.
Also, Archbishop Lefebvre.

Restricting the question [the number of the elect] to Catholics, we find the doctrine, generally held especially since Suarez, that, if we consider merely adults, the number of the elect surpasses that of the reprobate. If adult Catholics do at one time or another sin mortally, nevertheless they can arise in the tribunal of penance, and there are relatively few who at the end of life do not repent, or even refuse to receive the sacraments.

But if we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution.

If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God's government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; Further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace.

We cannot arrive at certitude in this question. It is better to acknowledge our ignorance than to discourage the faithful by a doctrine which is too rigid, to expose them to danger by a doctrine which is too superficial.

http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/ev35.php

" ... in the false religions, certain souls can be oriented towards God; but this is because they do not attach themselves to the errors of their religion! It is not through their religion that these souls turn towards God, but in spite of it! Therefore, the respect that is owed to these souls would not imply that respect is owed to their religion".

[...]

" ... these religions [he has just mentioned Islam and Hinduism] can keep some sound elements, signs of natural religion, natural occasions for salvation; even preserve some remainders of the primitive revelation (God, the fall, a salvation), hidden supernatural values which the grace of God could use in order to kindle in some people the flame of a dawning faith. But none of these values belongs in its own right to these false religions ... The wholesome elements that can subsist still belong by right to the sole true religion, that of the Catholic Church; and it is this one alone that can act through them".

From his book They Have Uncrowned Him, quoted by Fr. John Hunwicke here: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/11/they-have-uncrowned-him-2-false.html

[james03]

Even some of the most traditional theologians of the 20th century seem to have preferred the explicit faith 1. & 2., implicit faith 3. & 4.

Implicit Faith only saves Catholic.  There is no implied Faith in a jew that rejects Christ, a moslem that rejects the Trinity EXPLICITLY 5 times a day, and a hindu that worships demons.

Again, where have these theologians addressed the Athanasian Creed?

As far as the particular cites:
"supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation."  They are indeed saved when Christ is revealed to them internally.  I don't know the number of such miracles like this, so the safe assumption is that most are damned.  Which is why we need to convert them.

[Xavier]

The minority opinion is only tolerated and the matter is likely to be dogmatically settled against it by the Magisterium one day. The majority opinion, the 4 articles, including the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, as we are taught in the Creed of St. Athanasius, is the safe one and may be freely held and taught. Without doubt, God gives Jews and pagans great grace during their lives, through the merit of Jesus Christ, as St. Alphonsus says, but they must co-operate with this and if they do, they will become Christians and be saved. If not, they will be lost. St. Alphonsus says, "Still we answer the Semipelagians and say that infidels who come to age of reason and are not converted to the Faith cannot be excused ... this grace consists in a certain movement of the mind and will to observe the natural law, and if the infidel co-operates with this movement, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace sufficiently proximate to embrace the Faith and save his soul."

St. Francis Xavier, who baptized 3 million Hindus, gave a similar answer when asked. This doctrine has good fruits and is easily proved from authority and antiquity.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm#P1Lxii

Q. Did Jesus Christ assure us in other words of the damnation of those who die out of His Church?

A. He did in these words: "He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." Matt. xviii. 17.

Q. Can you give some further proofs to show that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. From these words of Jesus Christ: "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold. them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and they shall be one fold and one shepherd." John x. 16

Q. How can you show from these words of our Lord that all who wish to be saved must be Roman Catholics?

A. Because in this passage He plainly declares that all those of His sheep who are not of His fold (that is, of His Church) must, as a necessary condition of their salvation, be brought to that fold.

Q. What do the Fathers of the Church say about the salvation of those who die out of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. They all, without exception, pronounce them infallibly lost forever ...

Q. Are all those who are out of the Church equally guilty and damnable before God?

A. No; some are more guilty than others.

Q. Who are least guilty and damnable?

A. Those who, without any fault of theirs, do not know Jesus Christ or His doctrine at all.

Q. Who are most guilty and damnable?

A. Those who know the Catholic Church to be the only true Church, but do not embrace her faith, as also those who could know her if they would candidly search, but who, through indifference and other culpable motives, neglect to do so.

Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance ...

Q. What do you mean by this?

A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?

A. Eternal damnation.

https://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/61-appendix-reception-of-converts-profession-of-faith.html

The Priest vested in surplice and purple stole is seated in the middle of the Altar predella, unless the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle--in which case he takes a place at the epistle side. The convert kneels before him, and with his right hand on the book of Gospels makes the profession of faith as given below. If the person is unable to read, the priest reads it for him slowly, so that he can understand and repeat the words after him.
Profession of Faith
I, N.N., .... years of age, born outside the Catholic Church, have held and believed errors contrary to her teaching. Now, enlightened by divine grace, I kneel before you, Reverend Father ...., having before my eyes and touching with my hand the holy Gospels. And with firm faith I believe and profess each and all the articles contained in the Apostles' Creed ...

I recognize the holy, Roman, Catholic, and apostolic Church as the mother and teacher of all the churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles and vicar of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, without hesitation I accept and profess all that has been handed down, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and by the general councils, especially by the Sacred Council of Trent and by the Vatican General Council, and in special manner all that concerns the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. At the same time I condemn and reprove all that the Church has condemned and reproved. This same Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, I now freely profess and I truly adhere to it. With the help of God, I promise and swear to maintain and profess this faith entirely, inviolately, and with firm constancy until the last breath of life.And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and publicly professed by all who depend on me and over whom I shall have charge.
So help me God and these holy Gospels.

[GloriaPatri]

I would just like to point out that St. Francis Xavier converted perhaps 30,000 people to Catholicism. Not 3,000,000. Even the highest Jesuit estimate (which is likely an extreme exaggeration) puts the number at 700,000.