 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religion of Jesus, or religion about Jesus?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Insofar as these 'gods' depart from the God revealed in the Bible, they are idols or false gods. So, what must we believe about the God revealed in the bible in order for our God to not be an idol? For that we have the ecumenical creeds.
I wonder how on earth we managed before them. Your answer sounds like the Samaritan woman saying "our fathers worshipped on this mountain..."
Apparently your answer to my question above quote:
Do you think worship (or at least attempted worship) is conditional upon adequate understanding of the Godhead?
is "yes", despite plenty of Biblical evidence to the contrary.
Worse still, you seem to think that appropriate belief in a set of theological values is enough to ensure freedom from idolatry. I don't think "our God not being an idol" is ensured by box-ticking beliefs and values but by what goes in in our hearts, and I think there's plenty of biblical evidence for that, too.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
that sincerity does not make their deity the same as the Christian one and I would be surprised if they thought it was.
Have you ever actually talked to any Muslims? I do all the time, and plenty I've talked to are happy to acknowledge that we too as Christians worship the same God as them, albeit not as they would wish.
I also struggle with your use of terms such as "their deity" and "the Christian deity". "Their" suggests a degree of possessiveness or ownership that I don't believe reflects in the slightest their understanding of a transcendental God, who they do not claim to own any more than any Christian should. He's not a tame lion.
quote:
But surely regarding Acts 17, the point is that you can't separate the first part from the latter part. Islam says God does not have a son.
Have you actually read the passage? It doesn't say anything about God having a son. Paul doesn't even use the word; that's why I said he presents God as unequivocally one. I can't see a good Muslim disagreeing with the implicit assertion in that passage that Jesus was a man appointed by God; where they might differ is that Paul goes on to say that he was raised from the dead.
quote:
I worship God through Christ but they don't recognise Christ in that way. Therefore if they and I are to have the same object of worship then one or other of us has to redefine that deity.
That does not follow at all. The difference is not the "object of worship" but the means of access.
I have cited more than one example of people in the NT worshipping God in ignorance of Christ (let alone the OT), notably Cornelius, of whom it is recorded that an angel specifically says his prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God (Acts 10:4).
My charge of presumptuousness on your part resides in your apparent belief that a) because your God is the right one, your worship is acceptable, and b) that no worship by anyone whose deity is not "yours" (i.e. does not tick your theological boxes) can ever be.
quote:
In Acts 17 Paul uses the unknown God as his opening gambit to proclaim the resurrection of Christ in v31 so he does not stop at a description of God as Islam would understand him but goes well beyond what they would grant.
Although Paul does not explicitly mention Christ in Acts 17 I will happily concede this, all the more so in that this gambit in no way implies the Athenians were worshipping "their deity". On the contrary, it explicitly says (v23) they were imperfectly worshipping the one true God: quote:
you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you
.
[ 03. January 2015, 10:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Including Jesus.
[ 03. January 2015, 10:27: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Therefore if they and I are to have the same object of worship then one or other of us has to redefine that deity.
You're not getting the point here, despite all Eutychus' knowledgable discourse.
Imagine a detective story where a girl has gone missing. All her friends and relatives say they love her, but they all describe her in different ways. Some of the descriptions are quite close to each other, some are radically different.
One idiot even says that he loves her name - he'd be happy with any girl who had that name, regardless of what she was like.
Depending on the type of story, it may in the final chapter turn out that
- the real girl exists, and is just someone that it is difficult to get to know well
- there are two (or more) girls who conspire to take turns in playing the social role, so that the different descriptions do in fact refer to different people
- there is no girl at all; she's a shared fantasy of the community onto which each person projects their own needs and desires
- she has some form of mental disorder involving multiple personalities
Until you get to the final chapter in which the detective reveals all, you don't know which of these is the true state of affairs.
To the detective, a character who claims that he alone loves the real girl and everyone else only loves their perception of her is clearly deluded. Everyone is limited to their own perception - no-one has direct access to the reality.
If there is a single real girl, then some descriptions will match the reality more closely than others. But it's a matter of degree.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I certainly agree with you that there are mysteries about God and that to a large degree we worship a God whom we can only understand in a limited way and also that there are many sincere followers of Islam who do the same. But that sincerity does not make their deity the same as the Christian one and I would be surprised if they thought it was.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) You're wrong, they do think so. I've discussed religion with hundreds of Muslims, and they've all thought that we worship the same deity.
It's getting to the point where I think you want to be ignorant of the Islamic stance on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But surely regarding Acts 17, the point is that you can't separate the first part from the latter part. Judaism says God does not have a son. Jesus on the contrary says he does and he is that son. My presumption as you put it is about that point of contention. I worship God through Christ but they don't recognise Christ in that way. Therefore if they and I are to have the same object of worship then one or other of us has to redefine that deity. In Acts 17 Paul uses the unknown God as his opening gambit to proclaim the resurrection of Christ in v31 so he does not stop at a description of God as Judaism would understand him but goes well beyond what they would grant.
I changed two words in bold, would you agree with that now? 'Cause it's the exact same thing as you just said about Islam, with the same logic applied.
[code]
[ 03. January 2015, 11:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I've discussed religion with hundreds of Muslims, and they've all thought that we worship the same deity.
To be fair I expect there are also many Muslims who consider that the Christian deity is indeed something very different and I've met some. In other words there is a plurality of responses within both religions. I've no idea how the actual numbers might fall out.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've got more limited experience of Muslims compared with both Irish Lord and Eutychus, but those I've spoken to on these issues seem to regard both Christians and Jews as worshipping the same Deity - albeit in ways that don't believe to be the 'fullness' or wholeness of truth.
I daresay, though, that there are a range of views on this and other issues across Islam as there is within Christianity - and across Judaism too for that matter.
The main point, of course, is the one that Eutychus keeps bringing us back to - the Incarnation.
It is instructive, I think, to look at the range of NT responses on these issues and not what we might think they are or like them to be.
Surely, one of the most striking - and shocking - things about the Parable of the Good Samaritan was that the one who did the right things was the one with the wrong beliefs ... whereas those who did completely the wrong thing ('passing by on the other side') were those with the correct beliefs - the priest and the Levite.
Sure, Cornelius was a Jewish proselyte, so were some of the other Gentile characters we encounter in the Gospels - yet the Syro-Phoenician woman wasn't and I don't know about you, but I think I can hear our Lord chuckle when she gets the better of him in debate ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Then there are all those Gentiles who are 'a law unto themselves' that we read about in Romans 2 ... and then in the OT we have Ruth the Moabitess and groups like the Rechabites that the Lord commends for the way they behave - even though they aren't as fully 'covenantal' - being Kenites - as the people of Israel.
That doesn't mean that we are reducing everything to a kind of vague, mushy, 'all religions lead to God' approach - but neither is it to wall ourselves into an extreme form of chauvinism where everyone has to tick all the same boxes ...
And, of course, as Eutychus has reminded us, faith is more than a box ticking exercise or assent to propositional truths.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Besides, the 'they aren't worshipping the God of the Bible' thing can be something that Christians can go in for among and between themselves - and I've seen plenty of examples of that on-line - and sometimes even in real life.
I've come across Calvinists who claim that the Arminian God isn't the God of the Bible.
I've come across Orthodox who claim that the Calvinist God can't possibly be the God of the Bible either ...
And I've heard tell that there are Lutherans who would say the same ...
None of which actually takes us very far, I don't think - whether in terms of ecumenical dialogue or even basic charity.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think Russ's story is a good parallel. I can imagine that at some point the detective might conclude that it is more likely there are two different women being misidentified as the same person. Where the line is crossed is tricky to judge. But I would expect most people wouldn't conclude it was reasonable to say "you are describing a different woman" based on certain mismatches, but might if nothing added up.
If the person you are describing is the one deity of the universe in a monotheistic framework then I can't see what it would mean to say that you were describing a different montheistic deity. I can see how one might say the other was so wrong as to be uninformative*, but to say they were actually a different person seems hard to fathom.
*not that I say this regarding Islam but might regarding Pastafarianism.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I've discussed religion with hundreds of Muslims, and they've all thought that we worship the same deity.
To be fair I expect there are also many Muslims who consider that the Christian deity is indeed something very different and I've met some. In other words there is a plurality of responses within both religions. I've no idea how the actual numbers might fall out.
Well sure, they don't believe Christ to be God; but I can't conceive of a Muslim who knows the basics of his faith to believe that the God of the Jews and Christians is actually the pagan god of Thunder or anything like that?
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The main point, of course, is the one that Eutychus keeps bringing us back to - the Incarnation.
Indeed, but as mdijon has pointed out, there's a world of difference between presenting the Incarnation as more revelation from the same deity and casting all unbelievers (by association) in the role of Ba'al-worshippers, as Mudfrog has done upthread. quote:
And, of course, as Eutychus has reminded us, faith is more than a box ticking exercise or assent to propositional truths.
This is where I find myself still self-identifying despite it all as charismatic, in the sense that I believe the Spirit to be just as important as the Incarnation.
It is the Spirit who reveals truth to our consciences. It's also the Spirit who sets us free from legalism, a stumbling-block for Christians, Jews, Muslims and no doubt others.
There might be differences in belief and in propositional truths, but we can only really apprehend those differences - and they will only really make a difference in our lives - if they are imparted to us by the Spirit.
[ 03. January 2015, 12:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, the pouring out of the Spirit is a corollary of the Incarnation just as much as anything else is ... not that the Spirit was absent or inert prior to the Incarnation, of course.
That's why I think it's important to focus on the entire 'Christ event' - his eternal pre-existence and 'begetting'/proceeding from the Father, his birth, life, death, glorious resurrection and ascension - his continuing intercession for us and his 'work' with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit of course, in the universe and world today - both in the Church (however we define that) and beyond ...
All truth is God's truth. If there is any truth to be found in any other system or belief - to whatever extent, however flimsy or however robust, it is still God's Truth.
That's not pantheism, nor even panentheism necessarily - but anything less than that seems to me to do violence to the scriptural record as well as the witness of Big T and small t tradition ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Insofar as these 'gods' depart from the God revealed in the Bible, they are idols or false gods. So, what must we believe about the God revealed in the bible in order for our God to not be an idol? For that we have the ecumenical creeds.
I wonder how on earth we managed before them. Your answer sounds like the Samaritan woman saying "our fathers worshipped on this mountain..."
Apparently your answer to my question above quote:
Do you think worship (or at least attempted worship) is conditional upon adequate understanding of the Godhead?
is "yes", despite plenty of Biblical evidence to the contrary.
Worse still, you seem to think that appropriate belief in a set of theological values is enough to ensure freedom from idolatry. I don't think "our God not being an idol" is ensured by box-ticking beliefs and values but by what goes in in our hearts, and I think there's plenty of biblical evidence for that, too.
The creeds summarise apostolic teaching drawn from the whole of scripture; scripture which progressive revealed who God is. This revelation culminates in the historical incarnate revelation of God in the person of his Son which is testified to and thereby revealed in the gospels and explicated in the rest of the New Testament. The creeds simply summarise what is revealed concerning the true God over against the idols of human manufacture, including the manufactured idol found in the pages of the Koran.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Daronmedway, perhaps it would be better to express your paragraph in the way I have below (under these initial comments) given that some of those descended from those who formulated the Ecumenical Creeds (namely the Orthodox) believe that your Calvinist God is also an 'idol' of human manufacture.
I've hinted before that some Orthodox (and some Lutherans) believe the Calvinists to be incompletely Chalcedonian and to have dodgy views of the Godhead.
Whether that's the case or not, I'm simply suggesting that the potential is there for us all to 'get it wrong' and concoct what you would call an 'idol' or our own imaginations.
That might equally apply to you as it does to the Muslims, Hindus or anyone else.
Can you not see that?
Consequently, rather than using inflammatory and defamatory language such as 'idols' would it not be better to take the route that the Apostle Paul took when talking to the Athenians - ie. he gave them the benefit of the doubt.
He didn't condemn them for idolatry - even though they had statues of pagan deities all over the place, but he said 'what you worship as unknown, I now declare to you.'
Can you not see the difference?
Are we going to out-Pharisee Paul in his Pharisaical days?
If the Apostle Paul could show some leeway, then I don't see what's so difficult about us doing the same.
Unless we think we know it all and are in a better position than he was ...
Consequently, FWIW, here is the Gamaliel version of your closing paragraph:
'The creeds summarise apostolic teaching drawn from the whole of scripture; scripture which progressive revealed who God is. This revelation culminates in the historical incarnate revelation of God in the person of his Son which is testified to and thereby revealed in the gospels and explicated in the rest of the New Testament. The creeds simply summarise what is revealed concerning the true nature of God over against what might be construed by other religions and systems - which may accord with some elements of this picture but which will nevertheless remain flawed in other ways as they don't have the full revelation of God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.'
I wouldn't presume to put words and thoughts into your both, but I would presume to suggest that my rewording of your paragraph represents a truer picture of what the NT and church tradition/s actually teach than your somewhat binary rendition does.
If that's an arrogant assertion, then so be it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'm happy with your editorial Gamaliel, although I think you're mistaken in suggesting that Orthodox and Lutherans might put Calvinism and Islam in the same category of error with regard to the propositions of credal Christianity.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'm reading a book about prayer at the moment which starts with an overview of prayer as an almost universal human phenomenon. The writer speaks of something called the divinitatis sensum - a universal sense of the divine which inspires the endeavour of prayer. However, summarising Calvin, the writer also says all people refashion that sense of deity to fit their own interests unless through the Holy Spirit and Scripture their view of God is formed, clarified and corrected. I would therefore agree that every view of God is a result of this divinitatis sensum but that views of God which are not informed by Scriptural revelation or stand in contradiction to that revelation will be at best inadequate and at worst Satanically idolatrous.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The creeds simply summarise what is revealed concerning the true God over against the idols of human manufacture, including the manufactured idol found in the pages of the Koran.
On which basis the Jews worship an idol rather than the true God as well. And so do the Samaritans. In which case Jesus must have been misquoted in what he said to the Samaritan woman.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You've obviously not hung around on the same online boards as I have, Daronmedway ...
And you'll appreciate that I no longer frequent some of them for the reasons I've outlined/hinted at.
Believe you me, I've seen some Orthodox critiques of Calvinism that are so full-on (and OTT) that one would think that Calvinism was another branch of Islam alongside Sufism, Sunni and Shia Islam ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The point I'm making, of course, is that if Christians of various stripes can demonise one another than think what ample scope there is for demonisation of anyone and anything that doesn't fit a Christian paradigm.
That's not apostolic Christianity as I understand it, that's Manichean Dualism ... and as even-handed as I try to be, I'd suggest that fundamentalist Calvinism can certainly head in that direction - as can other forms of ostensibly orthodox (small o and Big O) Christianity.
Yes, of course, 'at worst' some non-Christian belief systems can end up in demonic territory.
I'd also suggest that some forms of ultra-conservative, ultra-Pharisaical beliefs within Christendom can end up perilously close to the same kind of territory -- just as much as no-holds-barred believe anything you like liberalism can ...
'Satan masquerades as an angel of light' and so on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And you're also making the assumption that Calvinism = scripture correctly understood.
In which case you are making a big T (or Big C) Tradition our of Calvinism in a similar way to how the RCs or the Orthodox make a Big T out of their Tradition - only they got there first ...
I'm sure Calvinism does 'ring true' at certain points - humanity's inability to save itself for instance - but in other ways it requires quite a bit of shoe-horning and pressing and pushing to make it fit what the scriptures appear to teach.
It can end up as 2+2=5 in some respects ... but it's not alone in that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The creeds simply summarise what is revealed concerning the true God over against the idols of human manufacture, including the manufactured idol found in the pages of the Koran.
On which basis the Jews worship an idol rather than the true God as well. And so do the Samaritans. In which case Jesus must have been misquoted in what he said to the Samaritan woman.
Possibly. I'd suggest that the God of Judaism and Samaritanism is inadequate in comparison with what is actually revealed in the OT and NT Scriptures as we see it expressed in the ecumenical creeds. Perhaps the line between theological inadequacy and outright idolatry is the degree of intentionality.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The creeds simply summarise what is revealed concerning the true God over against the idols of human manufacture, including the manufactured idol found in the pages of the Koran.
I think that is a needlessly provocative slur and a perilous one in that it invites people to think there is no danger of manufacturing an idol on the basis of what they contrive to find in the pages of the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Perhaps the line between theological inadequacy and outright idolatry is the degree of intentionality.
What exactly do you mean by intentionality and on whose part?
And are you suggesting a "middle ground" of extreme theological inadequacy-cum-not-quite-outright idolatry?
What might not-quite-outright idolatry look like?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And you're also making the assumption that Calvinism = scripture correctly understood.
With respect Gamaliel, I haven't posted here for quite some time and I really don't think there's anything in what I've posted today which would identify me as a Calvinist or would constitute a specifically Calvinistic reading of scripture or the creeds.
I think it's possible that you're allowing your own prior knowledge of my theology to distort your reading of what I've actually posted today and you're asking me to defend what I'm saying not on the basis of what I've said but on the basis of your own charicaturisations. Not a great way to engage in a fruitful exchange of ideas.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Eutychus, the Nicene Creed was formulated in response to the false teachings from within the church, was it not? The creeds are intended to protect the church both from internal (e,g. Arianism) and external heresies (e.g. Islam) by summarising the apostolic teaching of Scripture.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Eutychus, I'm using the word "intentionality" with reference to theological systems which explicitly ignore and/or wilfully contradict creedal Christianity.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Do they protect from the heresy of unkindness?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Do they protect from the heresy of unkindness?
Unkindness is a sin Martin, not a heresy.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Eutychus, the Nicene Creed was formulated in response to the false teachings from within the church, was it not? The creeds are intended to protect the church both from internal (e,g. Arianism) and external heresies (e.g. Islam) by summarising the apostolic teaching of Scripture.
That's as maybe, but to my mind intellectual assent to the creeds is no guarantee of acceptable worship, and ignorance of them does not exclude acceptable worship. How else do you explain, for instance, the angel's words to Cornelius? quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Eutychus, I'm using the word "intentionality" with reference to theological systems which explicitly ignore and/or wilfully contradict creedal Christianity.
There is a difference between systems and the individuals that belong to them.
What I'm objecting to on this thread is the insinuation that because their religious system is defective by Christian standards, all Muslims are worshipping an idol/demon/Satan - and that the imperfection of their system is being used as a yardstick to judge individuals' hearts and motives.
In my view the most likely outcome of such a perspective is to inculcate generalised fear, revulsion and demonisation (in the secular sense) of those unlike ourselves, which seems decidedly unChristlike.
I find this insinuation all the more objectionable in that it carries within it the implicit assumption that the religious system of Christianity is somehow perfect and that the worship credentials of its followers are therefore unassailable.
This to me flies in the face of Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman and hubristically supposes that self-proclaimed YHWH-followers can no longer "nullify the word of God by their tradition" - large or small T.
Right theology is no bad thing, nor is good tradition, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient for acceptable worship, nor are they a failsafe vaccine against idolatry. Or at least that's how I read the Bible.
[ 03. January 2015, 16:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see why you might suggest as much, Daronmedway, but it wasn't my intention.
I certainly posted in the knowledge of your theological standpoint, but I could just as easily used a different example - like some of those extreme conservative evangelicals who don't believe that Pentecostals or charismatics are actually 'real' Christians ...
Or those Protestants who don't believe that Catholics are real or pukka Christians - and vice-versa ...
I was using this as an analogy for your apparent attempt to demonise people who have a different view of God to the Christian one. Whilst I certainly accept that at the extremes it is possible to find demonic influences and manifestations in non-Christian religions - I'm suggesting that getting a wrong view of God (from a Christian perspective) isn't necessarily indicative of bad faith or demonic delusion on the part of the individuals involved.
As to where such people stand in salvific terms isn't for me - or you - to determine. That's God's business, not ours.
The Calvinism thing might not have been the best example to use - but it's one that sprang to mind as I've seen both Orthodox and Lutheran material recently - which I'm not saying is indicative of a particular view held right across those communions - that takes Calvinism roundly to task for what they believe to be unbiblical and un-Ecumencial Creedal views of the nature of the Godhead - essentially that Calvinism is sub-Chalcedonian and heretical.
I'm not allying myself with that view - innocent until proven guilty is my view on that one - but simply seeking to demonstrate that even those Christian traditions which claim to have THE right take on things - which is certainly something that Calvinism claims - can also be subject to accusations of bad faith or even 'demonic' influences.
Of course, people also accused Christ of being demonic - so a demonic accusation - from whatever source - doesn't necessarily provide proof of guilt.
All I'm simply saying, in a round-about way - is that people in glass-houses shouldn't throw stones.
Before lobbing accusations of demonic influence at any one else we ought to make sure that we've got walls and not panes of glass around ourselves ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, people also accused Christ of being demonic - so a demonic accusation - from whatever source - doesn't necessarily provide proof of guilt.
Having been on the receiving end of the accusation of being demonised myself, I'd go one further; I'd say some people see making such allegations as a sort of pseudo-spiritual trump card that defeats and/or inhibits any rational argument. Where the precedent for this rather superstitious approach comes from I'm not sure.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It comes from insecurity, I think.
I believe we can be completely secure and comfortable in the belief that Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life or even that our own particular theological viewpoint within the over-arching spread of Creedal Christianity is the 'right' one ... without necessarily having to demonise everyone else.
Besides, it doesn't make Christianity any more or less true if we demonise Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists atheists, agnostics or whatever else ...
So I really don't see what value it serves to do so - unless it's a kind of massaging of one's own back or a psychological attempt to bolster one's own position.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
A longstanding member of the church of which I am a minister only realised that Jesus is God about a year ago. This realisation (revelation?) resulted in more than a mere change in head knowledge. It has totally transformed her experience of worship because she has consciously begun to worship God as-he-really is. She had been a functional Arian for 40 years and now she knows it. I really don't think it's uncharitable to say that she was worshipping a different God for all those years, because she was. She was not a Trinitarian Christian and her "God" was not the God of Christianity. Churches, not just mosques, are full of such people.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I really don't think it's uncharitable to say that she was worshipping a different God for all those years, because she was. She was not a Trinitarian Christian and her "God" was not the God of Christianity. Churches, not just mosques, are full of such people.
Are you simply choosing to, um, explicitly ignore or wilfully contradict Paul's assertion that it is possible to be quote:
ignorant of the very thing you worship
or the angel's declaration that Cornelius' Christless devotions quote:
have come up as a memorial offering before God
?
Nobody accused Apollos of worshipping a different God or being non-Trinitarian, they simply "explained the way of God to him more adequately".
Why suppose the bleakest alternative in the face of biblical evidence to the contrary?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Not ignoring, just unsure that your interpretation is right.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Not ignoring, just unsure that your interpretation is right.
Paul says he set out to proclaim to the Athenians the very thing they worshipped in ignorance.
It seems abundantly clear that Cornelius was ignorant of Christ as the Son of God (if he wasn't, the entire episode with Peter makes no sense at all), and his prayer (and gifts) were deemed an acceptable offering before God.
From these two passages alone it follows that it is possible to worship the one true God in ignorance. This doesn't seem, to me at least, to involve any hermeneutical gymnastics or special pleading.
If you can't offer an alternative interpretation of these two passages that fits with your claim that worshipping God in ignorance is equivalent to worshipping a different god (and therefore an idol), then I submit that you are effectively ignoring the testimony of Scripture.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'd suggest that the God of Judaism and Samaritanism is inadequate in comparison with what is actually revealed in the OT and NT Scriptures as we see it expressed in the ecumenical creeds. Perhaps the line between theological inadequacy and outright idolatry is the degree of intentionality.
I'd agree with inadequate. If I didn't I'd be a Samaritan. I don't get the line you are trying to draw or how to assess it. Or how it relates to Jesus' choice of words in addressing the Samaritan woman, which seem to suggest inadequacy rather than idolatry or intentionality. Or how that entitles you to make judgements regarding Muslims.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm glad that this woman has gone from a functional Arianism into worship of the Triune God, Daronmedway but very much in-line with Eutychus's argument here, I'm rather inclined to see this as a 'fulfilment' of what she was only doing partially hitherto.
If that makes sense ...
If we believe that God is ontologically Triune and that the Trinitarian formularies aren't purely metaphorical or simply some attempt to express the inexpressible - then it doesn't necessarily follow that she wasn't worshipping him - however imperfectly, beforehand.
We could get a bit daft about this and speculate that she may have only been worshipping One Person of the Trinity - or perhaps two ... but not all Three ...
Or we could say that - as is often said of Unitarians - she was addressing her prayers in a 'To whom in may concern' kind of way ...
But she got there in the end.
I agree with you that our churches - sadly - are full of functionally Arian people - and that applies to evangelical churches to some extent too, I would suggest - and not just the nasty old liberals.
On another thread recently I was chuntering on about an independent evangelical charismatic church in a conurbation near here which apparently preaches that Christ is not fully divine ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But I'm with Eutychus. Cornelius didn't fully know where he was headed ... nor did the Centurion in the Gospels, nor the Ethiopian Eunuch ... nor any of the converts and characters we read about in the NT whether they were Gentiles, Gentile proselytes or 'Israelites indeed in whom there was no guile ...'
You don't need me to tell you that the Christian faith isn't like a Meccano set.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the heresy thing and 'intentionality', the Orthodox have always told me - regardless of how much some of their more zealous members bang on and on on-line and bandy the 'h' word around ... one can only strictly be regarded as heretical if one is fully aware that one's views are heretical and aren't prepared to do anything about it.
Hence - in their view - Arian was a complete heretic because he was well aware what the orthodox/Orthodox view was and refused to accept it.
Ill-taught or catechised Christians and people from other religions who haven't yet come to the realisation of Christ's divinity in any sense of personally 'accepting' it - to use evangelical parlance - don't automatically fall into that category.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Agreed, which suggests to me that a Christian commits heresy by asserting that the god described in the Koran is the same God that they worship; whereas a Muslim who asserts the same thing is not committing heresy because their theology already openly rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. They are not heresy, they are merely expressing unbelief in the one true God who is revealed the Bible.
[ 03. January 2015, 21:52: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And someone who is unintentionally unkind isn't even a sinner.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Agreed, which suggests to me that a Christian commits heresy by asserting that the god described in the Koran is the same God that they worship; whereas a Muslim who asserts the same thing is not committing heresy because their theology already openly rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. They are not heresy, they are merely expressing unbelief in the one true God who is revealed the Bible.
I understand that they are expressing an unwillingness to be polytheistic - and see the (post-Nicean) Christian idea of Trinity as erring dangerously in that direction. Which kinda comes back to my original question - which can also be put as - what would Christ have thought of the doctrine of the Trinity (which included him as a God)?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Agreed, which suggests to me that a Christian commits heresy by asserting that the god described in the Koran is the same God that they worship; whereas a Muslim who asserts the same thing is not committing heresy because their theology already openly rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. They are not heresy, they are merely expressing unbelief in the one true God who is revealed the Bible.
*Italic mine
This still comes down to description of God, not who is being described. We've said repeatedly (well, I'm not sure I've said it explicitly, but I'll say it now) that the Muslim understanding of God is different and, from a Traditional Christian perspective, flawed and incomplete.
So in essence I dispute the Muslim claims about the character of the True God, but not Who they're making the claims about.
It would be heresy for me to say "Jesus is not God," but it's not heresy to say "Muslims think Jesus is not God."
And then the response has been, "WhooOooOoo, scary pagan moon-god boogy man! WhoooOooOoo!!!"
It all comes down to historicity. Mohammed did not set out to create or introduce a deity separate from the Judeo-Christian God, therefore I approach Islam as I would the Morman or Jewish faith: same God, improper understanding.
BTW This is not an argument on who is 'saved' and who is not. I don't have the first clue who is and isn't in the heaven club, I'm just trying to make it in myself.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Here
There is a bit of research here that is a bit more even handed though it is on the Christian side. I found plenty of sites that sanitised Islam and plenty that vilified it.
I reiterate that sincerity is not in question but remain unconvinced that my God is that of Islam. Wishing all a great new year.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
You know what? Fuck it. Your posts lack any semblance of interest in genuine discussion. You evade the hard questions and then post a bunch of blatantly anti-Islamic propaganda websites in an attempt to... WHAT?! Try to convince us that Muslims actually worship Baal?
THEY FUCKING DON'T!!! Why are you so intent on conjuring up some conspiracy theory on which god they really believe in and so reluctant to discuss our differences with them in good faith?
Why don't you go find a Muslim person and try telling them that God is not really God but actually god; but when we say "God" it actually means the right God because we use a capital G and know an old Hebrew word that they've never had access to in all their lives. Then try telling him that God is actually Baal, but that God is actually Yaweh.
See how that goes for you?!
I'm done with you.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
That theists of various kinds assert that their varying beliefs about the nature of the first cause of the universe imply that they are refering to different first causes, whatever the claimed nature of that cause, seems to me one of the strongest weapons of atheism.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
You know what? Fuck it. Your posts lack any semblance of interest in genuine discussion. You evade the hard questions and then post a bunch of blatantly anti-Islamic propaganda websites in an attempt to... WHAT?! Try to convince us that Muslims actually worship Baal?
THEY FUCKING DON'T!!! Why are you so intent on conjuring up some conspiracy theory on which god they really believe in and so reluctant to discuss our differences with them in good faith?
Why don't you go find a Muslim person and try telling them that God is not really God but actually god; but when we say "God" it actually means the right God because we use a capital G and know an old Hebrew word that they've never had access to in all their lives. Then try telling him that God is actually Baal, but that God is actually Yaweh.
See how that goes for you?!
I'm done with you.
That's a shame. I do think you are over reacting. I just don't buy what you have tried to say. What hard question? I do not accept that the Allah of Islam is the real God and I think whether he is anything else is as maybe but I do accept millions of Moslems think he is the real God. That is simply my position on this and I agree further discussion is futile between us but can' t see what's to get upset about.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That is simply my position on this and I agree further discussion is futile between us but can' t see what's to get upset about.
I guess the frustration is that you've done little except state your position and link to some rather unscholarly websites that don't provide any evidence. For someone expecting a discussion and engagement that's a little disappointing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That is simply my position on this and I agree further discussion is futile between us but can' t see what's to get upset about.
I guess the frustration is that you've done little except state your position and link to some rather unscholarly websites that don't provide any evidence. For someone expecting a discussion and engagement that's a little disappointing.
In whose opinion unscholarly. I have virtually been called some kind of racist bigot here. Both of the sites referenced by me cite reputable scholarship and mention names most would recognise and I avoided ones I thought did not. No one who attacked my views dealt with the Biblical issues I thought were important. I do not bang my head against a brick wall if someone on the internet whom I do not even know expresses a contrary view and frankly, I do not see why anyone else needs to behave like that. Thank you for your post.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In whose opinion unscholarly.
Aside from anything else, it is unscholarly (to put it charitably) to mistake the signifier for the referent, a point I have made twice already (Irish_Lord99 has made the same point in other terms) to which you have responded by saying you are unaware of this point and admit you do not understand how language works.
You have completely refused to engage with this explanation at all; you simply bury your head in the sand.
Your tactic each time your argument hits a really huge rock is to go all polite, wish everyone a nice day/thank them for their post/wish them a happy new year, add smileys and try to make out others agree with you to relieve the pressure. That is not engaging.
Then you go back to linking, in the face of facts about language you admit you don't understand and in the absence of any evidence that you've actually asked a Muslim the question yourself, to sites that try to make out that because the word Allah has some (dubious) etymological connection with Ba'al, Muslims are worshipping an idol.
As has been pointed out to you more than once here, if you're going to adopt that sort of tinfoil-hat reasoning you had better stop using the word "God" in English, for similar reasons. The logic and "scholarliness" of the argument for not doing so is the exact equivalent of that on the website you link to.
quote:
No one who attacked my views dealt with the Biblical issues I thought were important.
Which biblical issues are those? The last time we interacted about Acts 17 you appeared to think that the passage referred to God having a son (it doesn't), and there's been deafening silence on your end with regard to all the biblical passages and related questions I've posted since. quote:
I do not bang my head against a brick wall if someone on the internet whom I do not even know expresses a contrary view and frankly, I do not see why anyone else needs to behave like that.
I'm not Irish_Lord99 but I think we have in common some experience in witnessing to Muslims, and I share his frustration with your facile conclusion that they are idol-worshippers. It reads more like an excuse not to engage with them on your part than a desire to win them to Christ.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
a Christian commits heresy by asserting that the god described in the Koran is the same God that they worship
I can't see anybody here making the assertion you put forward in those terms. Once again, you are confusing the signifier with the referent. I for one am arguing that while we may disagree about the signifier (the term for and descriptions of the characteristics of the one true God) Christians and Muslims, and indeed Jews, are in fact referring to the same referent (the one true God who revealed himself to Abraham). Echoing Irish_Lord99, this is not a comment on anyone's salvation or the accuracy of their signifiers (or the standard of their claimed revelation).
If a Christian were to add characteristics of the deity described in the Koran but not in the Bible to a statement of Christian belief, then that would be heresy.
But asserting that the Koran refers (be it in a non-inspired, flawed, possibly deliberately misleading) way to the one true God (who Christians believe to be revealed in Scripture and above all in his Son) is not heresy.
Asserting that it is possible for Muslims to be worshipping the one true God Christians worship on the basis of an inadequate description is not heresy.
As evidence I adduce the fact (again from that bothersome (for you) Acts 17 passage) that Paul is happy to quote Athenian poets to make points about this one true God - and to assert that the one true God can be worshipped in ignorance of his characteristics.
God may be revealed most perfectly (in writing) in Scripture, but Scripture itself attests to the fact that Scripture is not the sole vehicle of his revelation, and that worshipping God (with or without a capital g) on the basis of imperfect descriptions is not synonymous with idol-worship.
[ 04. January 2015, 06:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
