quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
The point that Christ did not tell anyone to worship him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Like 'most ever body in the OT and their God eh Ad Orientem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
The point that Christ did not tell anyone to worship him?

---

Arguments from silence are pretty weak, mostly because they can go either way. And positively speaking, we know only that he is not recorded as having commanded people to worship him; I could just as easily and accurately say that he did not tell anyone *not* to worship him.

Consider that when he reappears after the Resurrection, those present worship him. He doesn't tell them to stop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Being the only son of God in a trinity is a) not what he was asked, and b) is very specific.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What, Muhammad's God is worse than Moses', Samuel's, Peter's, John's? (God the Killer does bleed into the NT doesn't He?)

It's well written; coherent, simple, inclusive for a tract. A clever subtly adversarial argument, dividing and conquering.

It will work well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So those four are the same? Are they the same as the four Gods of Moses AND Samuel AND Peter AND John?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Dialogue is still, I think, produced primarily to provide study material for AS/A level RS.

---

If that's true it's incredibly depressing given the level of historical inaccuracy. Since when did RS become a fact-free zone?

Off the top of my head:

- The Arians did not stress Jesus' humanity. They thought he was the incarnate Logos and the first of God's creations. An Arian view of Jesus is not much closer to Islam than the orthodox Christian view.

- The Arians did not have their own gospels (a fact which ISTM is actually more awkward for Christianity).

- The Arians were not the descendants of the Jerusalem church.

- Paul preached in the synagogues just as much as the Jerusalem church (at least according to Acts).

- The degree to which the Jerusalem church deviated from Paul is a matter of speculation. But they managed to get the Epistle of James into the canon and the Church Fathers speak fairly well of the Gospel of the Hebrews. I don't think they have left us enough literature to know if they believed anything radically different - and that's a consequence of the Jewish Wars, not of an orthodox cover-up.

- Nicea was relatively ineffectual at discouraging Arianism within the Empire and totally ineffectual outside of it (the Gothic kingdoms were Arian for centuries).

[ 10. December 2014, 11:39: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
from a Mohammedan point of view

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Mohammed's God is not the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
So you think there are two Gods?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
You said that they might have been deceived rather than being mistaken about the predicates of a single deity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Ad Orientem. You sound like a Salafist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
You said that they might have been deceived rather than being mistaken about the predicates of a single deity

---

I say that they have it so wrong they do not believe in the same God we do, that their God is a false God. An imposter, a non God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
[QUOTE]- The Arians did not have their own gospels (a fact which ISTM is actually more awkward for Christianity).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
How can any group which professes to believe that there is but one immortal, all-knowing, omnipresent creator of everything propose that the similarly-constituted god professed to by some other group is a different god from the one in which they themselves believe?

Does. Not. Compute.

Either there's one god, or there are multiple gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Muslims specifically are thinking about the God Who revealed Himself to Abraham and to Moses. And, unlike some groups like, say, the Mormons (whose conception of God is, as far as I can tell, something closer to Zeus--a being who is part of the system of a pre-existing cosmos, and who has other beings higher than himself, etc.), they believe that He is truly eternal, transcendent, and made the universe ex nihilo.

I'm sorry, but I can't see that as not being the same God. I think from a Christian point of view they are heretics (and of course vice versa), but they're simply not worshipping something like Odin or Mithras.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So anybody who claims to be worshiping the God of Abraham, as long as their theology is not TOO wonky, is not worshipping a false god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So anybody who claims to be worshiping the God of Abraham, as long as their theology is not TOO wonky, is not worshipping a false god?

---

That would be correct, as I understand it, yes. Not that that, in and of itself, necessarily means a lot. "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (And even wonkier/heretical theology could still be aimed at the right God, just... in a really wonky way.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
[QUOTE]- The Arians did not have their own gospels (a fact which ISTM is actually more awkward for Christianity).

---

Ricardus, I'm curious what you mean by that. I assume it's because you can infer Arian doctrine from some parts of the New Testament. I can certainly see that. Especially since there are "Bible-only" sects even today that are more or less Arian (the Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. But one could say, they don't believe in the one god. The thing they believe in isn't a god at all, it's a phantasm of their own invention which they mistakenly THINK is the God of Creation. This is not an illogical position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So when Aaron said, "This is your god, which brought you up out of Egypt" he was right, but just had the colour wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's not really a normal use of language, though. If I said "Helsinki is a village in Yorkshire," your response would be either "You believe wrong things about Helsinki" or "You are talking crap". You wouldn't say "You believe in a false Helsinki" or "We believe in different Helsinkis" unless you actually did think there was some sense in which my Helsinki existed separately from the one in Finland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. But one could say, they don't believe in the one god. The thing they believe in isn't a god at all, it's a phantasm of their own invention which they mistakenly THINK is the God of Creation. This is not an illogical position.

---

quote:

---

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. But one could say, they don't believe in the one god. The thing they believe in isn't a god at all, it's a phantasm of their own invention which they mistakenly THINK is the God of Creation. This is not an illogical position.

---

And one could also do this with pretty much any Christian group one disagrees with sufficiently.

Also, while poking around online, I found this:

"DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964"

quote:

---

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

---

John of Damascus, if I read him correctly here, also seems to consider Islam a heresy, rather than a different religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So anybody who claims to be worshiping the God of Abraham, as long as their theology is not TOO wonky, is not worshipping a false god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What, Muhammad's God is worse than Moses', Samuel's, Peter's, John's? (God the Killer does bleed into the NT doesn't He?)

It's well written; coherent, simple, inclusive for a tract. A clever subtly adversarial argument, dividing and conquering.

It will work well.

---

Mohammed's God is not the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
from a Mohammedan point of view

---

This may appear to be 'picky' but the term is highly insulting to Muslims. It seeks to categorise Islam by Christian norms, i.e. 'Mohammedan' = the religion of Muhammad as 'Christian' is the religion of Christ.

The prophet is merely that. The Holy Qur'an is the word of God. The prophet isn't.

Jesus and Muhammad do not rank/function equally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
from a Mohammedan point of view

---

This may appear to be 'picky' but the term is highly insulting to Muslims. It seeks to categorise Islam by Christian norms, i.e. 'Mohammedan' = the religion of Muhammad as 'Christian' is the religion of Christ.

The prophet is merely that. The Holy Qur'an is the word of God. The prophet isn't.

Jesus and Muhammad do not rank/function equally.

---

Interesting distinction I once heard my Archbishop mention. Jesus is the word of God in Christianity - not the bible. In Islam the Quran is the word of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I read recently Muslims believe in a bodily resurrection of the dead like Jews and Christians do. Haven't heard that before. Anyone know more about it?

---

Enjoy!
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
This is my God:

Those who believe in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Not the God who ordered Israel through willing righteous Samuel to commit genocide.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
This is my God:

Those who believe in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Not the God who ordered Israel through willing righteous Samuel to commit genocide.

---

Yeah! Maybe that's why, from its very inception, Islam was spread by the sword, eh?

 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
This is my God:

Those who believe in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Not the God who ordered Israel through willing righteous Samuel to commit genocide.

---

Yeah! Maybe that's why, from its very inception, Islam was spread by the sword, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
As was Christianity, though often as a cover for land grabbing and trade concessions. The same few ex-Viking families from northern France who conquered England ran the crusades and most of Christian politics in Europe between maybe 1000 and 1350AD.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
And it was Islam that was tolerant of all other Abrahamic religions for much of its history. So I don;t see any need for self-congratulation. What is unsettling is the way that Jewish, Christian and Islamic cultures have spawned extreme intolerant, vocal and politically active sects in recent times. Taking a long view, if Islam recognises Jesus as being spiritually important, and doesn't recognise he is Logos - but still believes in the God for whom Jesus is Logos - What's the problem? Arguing the toss over doctrinal differences ends up with everyone seeing people as "Chritian or Not" ir "Islamic or Not" with the "Not" being equivalent to less than human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Taking a long view, if Islam recognises Jesus as being spiritually important, and doesn't recognise he is Logos - but still believes in the God for whom Jesus is Logos - What's the problem? Arguing the toss over doctrinal differences ends up with everyone seeing people as "Chritian or Not" ir "Islamic or Not" with the "Not" being equivalent to less than human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Islam was spread by the sword, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Islam was spread by the sword, eh?

---

So was Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I become very irritated when people pretend not to know that words can have more than one meaning or use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yeah! Maybe that's why, from its very inception, Islam was spread by the sword, eh?

---

As was Christianity,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Islam was spread by the sword, eh?

---

So was Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Are Muslims in the same non-Christian sub-category as Jews, or as Proselytes (Gentiles who converted to Judaism), or as Pagans? I'd put them in the "Proselyte" category myself, and I think that should inform how we approach ministry to them, but it's not like I believe "oh, OK, you worship the God of Abraham, so you're automatically going to Heaven."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I get as incandescently, pleasantly, excoriatingly, prettily, barkingly, spoonfully, bitily enraged as a green plastic plasterer's hawk when people pretend that Evensong isn't actually correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed. I'm so enraged I can't even respond.

The Books are colloquially the word of God, God's word, which doesn't make them the Word, the Logos of God incarnate and leads to all sorts of pre-postmodern nonsense.

The Quran IS the inerrant literal word of God by definition: the recitation [of God].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Islam was spread by the sword, eh?

---

So was Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
All Gods are equal ... to paraphrase Orwell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
All Gods are equal ... to paraphrase Orwell.

---

There is one God and he is not the Nabatean moon god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I found THIS to be highly informative.

It seems that Allah is NOT a generic word for God in Arabic but is actually the proper name of the Deity, according to Islam.

No room for YHWH then....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I found THIS to be highly informative.

It seems that Allah is NOT a generic word for God in Arabic but is actually the proper name of the Deity, according to Islam.

No room for YHWH then....

---

You'll have to explain that to the christian churches in Malta where it appears, side by side with the English, in the book of prayer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Islam itself claims that Allah is the supreme deity's actual name and not the generic term for a deity then who am I to disagree?

---

quote:

---

As I said, the divine name for God is YHWH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

As I said, the divine name for God is YHWH

---

I think it's more correct to say that's how the Jews understood God to call himself, and significantly, it's not a term, or use, that carries over into the NT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
YHWH reveals God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
YHWH reveals God

---

Let me get this straight.

Are you saying the Hebrew Tetragrammaton reveals God in a way that is exclusive and language-specific? That's more theologically correct than any other rendering?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
All Gods are equal ... to paraphrase Orwell.

---

There is one God and he is not the Nabatean moon god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
YHWH reveals God

---

Let me get this straight.

Are you saying the Hebrew Tetragrammaton reveals God in a way that is exclusive and language-specific? That's more theologically correct than any other rendering?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
... to claim (as Mudfrog appears to be) that others cannot be worshipping the same God, even imperfectly and from afar, because their term for God is a different signifier (here, Allah) is, I believe, mistaken and the source of a much that is unhelpful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
- and Muslims certainly do NOT accept YHWH as a parallel name for the god they call Allah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
- and Muslims certainly do NOT accept YHWH as a parallel name for the god they call Allah.

---

Source?

During six years as a missionary in Turkey I never once met a Muslim who didn't think that Allah was the God of Abraham, Jacob, etc. They aren't schooled in ancient Hebrew, so they wouldn't even know the term YHWH, but I'm sure they'd view the discrepancy as purely linguistical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Allah is the Nabatean moon God reconstituted as a monotheistic deity by Muhammed. The fact that most Muslims think he is the Biblical Yahweh doesn't make it true it just shows they don't know the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Here

---

Wow! An evangelical Christian hack says you're right without providing any evidence. I'm convinced
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally linked to by Jamat:
3rd He overlooks an irrefutable body of archaeological evidence identifying Allah with the Nabatean moon god as well as ignoring the history of the kaaba.

---

quote:

---

Originally linked to by Jamat:
3rd The Torah repeatedly warns Jews about lunar veneration etc. visible in the lunar crescent of Islamic mosques and both Mishnaic and Talmudic literature speak of "god of the Ishamailites".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I found THIS to be highly informative.

It seems that Allah is NOT a generic word for God in Arabic but is actually the proper name of the Deity, according to Islam.

No room for YHWH then....

---

You'll have to explain that to the christian churches in Malta where it appears, side by side with the English, in the book of prayer.

---

Did you read the article?
It seems the Muslims themselves would have an issue with the Christians in Malta; maybe they are actually mistaken.

It's not for me to correct them. If Islam itself claims that Allah is the supreme deity's actual name and not the generic term for a deity then who am I to disagree?

As I said, the divine name for God is YHWH and not Allah, and he was Incarnate in Jesus who has now received the name that is above EVERY name (including Allah).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan
Our English word 'God' comes from the Old English word which was used by the Anglo-Saxon saints and by the votaries of Woden and Thunor and 'Allah' is used by Muslims and Arab speaking Christians as a signifier for God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Here

---

Wow! An evangelical Christian hack says you're right without providing any evidence. I'm convinced

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Here

---

Wow! An evangelical Christian hack says you're right without providing any evidence. I'm convinced

---

Wow, another ad hominem comment. Is this hell?
Happy New Year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan
Our English word 'God' comes from the Old English word which was used by the Anglo-Saxon saints and by the votaries of Woden and Thunor and 'Allah' is used by Muslims and Arab speaking Christians as a signifier for God.

---

The word 'god' is related to the word 'gush'. The original meaning was 'that to which one pours' (a libation). The original Germanic word for god was lost very long ago.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Here

---

Wow! An evangelical Christian hack says you're right without providing any evidence. I'm convinced

---

Wow, another ad hominem comment. Is this hell?
Happy New Year.

---

If it were hell it'd be you I was attacking, not him. Also, when there's no argument presented (other than his own ad hominem) then it's kind of hard to attack anything except the person, no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Out of curiosity Jamat, what word should Arabic-speaking Christians use for 'God'?

Also, what's the proper pronunciation for Jesus Christ? Isu Xristo, Isa Mesih, Heyzeus Cristos, Iesukirisuto, Yēsū jīdū? Is it inconceivable to you that Elohim could be pronounced 'Allah' in Arabic?

In Turkish there are only two words for 'God': Allah and tanri. Tanri is the word used to describe ancient Greek and pagan deities. When speaking to a Turkish friend would it be appropriate to say "Allah'a dua etmem, sadece tanri'ya dua edderim"?*

What do you say to the fact that Arab Christians used the word Allah before the advent of Islam, or that many modern Bible translators use the work because they don't have an alternative?

----,

*I won't pray to God, I'll only pray to god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Completely bonkers. Do check out the 'Vatican and Islam' page on the same site which suggests that the rise of Islam was orchestrated by the Vatican.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Too many questions. I am not really too fussed about jumping through pedantic hoops. The bottom line is that Allah is not the Jewish God and that there is plenty of evidence that Allah was merely one of many ancient deities until Mohammad came along to redefine him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Too many questions. I am not really too fussed about jumping through pedantic hoops. The bottom line is that Allah is not the Jewish God and that there is plenty of evidence that Allah was merely one of many ancient deities until Mohammad came along to redefine him.

---

Ah, so you don't understand how language works, got it.

---

It is just that a rose by any other name smells as sweet, unless, of course, it isn't a rosé
at all


 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think you just proved irish_lord99's point.

What makes the thing we refer to as a "rose" a rose is not the fact that we refer to it by the series of letters r-o-s-e but its essential characteristics, which, like those of God, transcend language.

The fact that Spanish-speakers refer to a rose as una rosa does not mean they have no idea what a rose is, nor does it mean, simply because that's a feminine noun, that it has girly parts.

Besides, arguing that YHWH offers a definitive descriptor for God is effectively allowing man to make God after his own image, since Hebrew is a human, not a divine language.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Oh and Jamat presumably you abhor chapels of any kind on the grounds that the word 'chapel' originally referred to a holy relic - part of the cape of Saint Martin of Tours, housed in a small building, which by extension became known by the term originally used for the cape itself, and which then lent its name to other similar small buildings and parts of cathedrals?
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think you just proved irish_lord99's point.

What makes the thing we refer to as a "rose" a rose is not the fact that we refer to it by the series of letters r-o-s-e but its essential characteristics, which, like those of God, transcend language.

The fact that Spanish-speakers refer to a rose as una rosa does not mean they have no idea what a rose is, nor does it mean, simply because that's a feminine noun, that it has girly parts.

Besides, arguing that YHWH offers a definitive descriptor for God is effectively allowing man to make God after his own image, since Hebrew is a human, not a divine language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry, am unaware of yours or his point. Mine is not about language it is simply that Allah of Islam is not the Biblical God and that there is lots of evidence for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry, am unaware of yours or his point. Mine is not about language it is simply that Allah of Islam is not the Biblical God and that there is lots of evidence for that.

---

What's a "Biblical God"? A God that conforms to Scripture? That illustrates precisely the sort of back-to-front thinking that sets us at odds here.

If you were to say "Muslims view some aspects of God's character differently to Christians" then I would be inclined to agree with you.

But to argue that because the Arabic word for God is not YHWH (or is Allah), merely calling God "Allah" means those that do so do not seek to worship the one true God is, at best and as explained above, to mistake the signifier for the referent, and at worst racist.

[edited for clarity]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Muslims certainly do NOT accept YHWH as a parallel name for the god they call Allah.

And if Allah is God then why not Zeus? Why not Viracocha? Why not the 'trinity' of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is Allah the same as the God of Moses?

The context for my question is the fact that the God who revealed himself in the burning bush and who led the Israelites to the Promised Land revealed a certain character and entered into a certain covenant with the Jews.

Is that the same God as Allah?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But to paraphrase Elijah:
"How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD (YHWH) is God, follow him; but if Allah is God, follow him."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry, am unaware of yours or his point. Mine is not about language it is simply that Allah of Islam is not the Biblical God and that there is lots of evidence for that.

---

What's a "Biblical God"? A God that conforms to Scripture? That illustrates precisely the sort of back-to-front thinking that sets us at odds here.

If you were to say "Muslims view some aspects of God's character differently to Christians" then I would be inclined to agree with you.

But to argue that because the Arabic word for God is not YHWH (or is Allah), merely calling God "Allah" means those that do so do not seek to worship the one true God is, at best and as explained above, to mistake the signifier for the referent, and at worst racist.

[edited for clarity]

---

The Biblical God is far far different in character to the deity of the Q'ran. But Yes, Muslims have a god called Allah and they think he is God. (He isn't.) Happy now?

By the way perhaps you would like to swap with them? All of a sudden your women have a different dress code and inferior status? You now have the Hajj to go on? You have to jump through a million hoops to get unattainable perfection and your founding apostle married a girl of 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


Not only do you not understand how language works, Jamat, but you obviously haven't read Eutychus's responses properly either.

What he's saying is that the Muslims lack the full revelation of God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself - of Christ as God.

Show me where Eutychus is saying that we should ditch Christianity and become Muslim?



Ok, I know you're speaking hyperbolically but all you are doing is running the risk of displaying your own ignorance.

Eutychus is a linguist and Irish Lord used to live in Turkey and is familiar with the actual languages spoken in the Middle East.

You aren't.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The point, of course, is that there is only one God.

People might have differing, less complete or incorrect views about this God - but there is still only One.

I notice that the Apostle Paul didn't approach the Athenians on Mars Hill saying, 'Right, you worthless bunch of idolaters ... get this ... you're worshipping demons at worst or figments of your own imagination at best ...'

No, what did he say?

'What you worship as Unknown, I now declare to you ...'

He started where they were at.

Debates about whether the Islamic Allah and the Jewish YHWH are one and the same are pretty sterile if you ask me - they don't lead anywhere.

God is God is God is God. Whatever we called Him, he'd still be God.

I might believe in the Flying Bunny or the Pink-Headed Jelly Monster from the Planet Zarg - but there's still only One God.

I've seen more fundamentalist or ultra-conservative Christians from all the main traditions - RC, Protestant and Orthodox maintaining that Allah must be a demon or something - based on the behaviour of some of his worshippers.

I'd suggest that they are making a category error.

'Allah' is simply a word used for the Deity in Arabic speaking countries - and in some other languages too, I believe, like Maltese, I think.

Just as 'God' is the term used for the Deity in Anglo-Saxon and Germanic languages (God or Gott) ...

That's all.

As for the Hebrew YHWH - there is a very rich theology - and a lot of wonderful 'mystery' connected with all of that - and I'm not dismissing it for one nanosecond.

But it's not about shibboleths - we're talking about the Ineffable and Indescribable here.

Any language about God is bound, by its very nature, to be inadequate. We can only talk about God at all by resorting to a degree of symbolism, metaphor, allusion, apophatic and cataphatic formularies etc etc.

How could it be otherwise?

We are talking about Almighty God here, not the bloke next door.

The One who Was, who Is and who Is to come.

Eutychus is right, the key aspect is the Incarnation - the Word becoming flesh. In order to grasp that we need the Trinitarian formularies, the Christological formularies and so on that the Christian Church hammered out in the first few centuries.

And yes, we need to look to and respect the Jewish heritage in all of this - there were the first Monotheists as far as we can tell ... (although there are hints from Genesis, of course, that Monotheism preceded Judaism as a systematic belief system ... whether we take these things as literal 'history' or not)...

It's interesting that in 2007 Pope Benedict checked to see whether the term 'Yahweh' was offensive to Jewish groups when considering whether it should be used in vernacular translations of the scriptures.

As far as I know, the Vatican still recommends that it isn't used in vernacular worship or in new translations of the Bible - I'm not sure why - but no doubt someone will have some kind of daft conspiracy theory as to why that might be ...

Perhaps the Roman Catholic God isn't the God of the Bible either ...


 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
But Yes, Muslims have a god called Allah and they think he is God. (He isn't.)

---

quote:

---

By the way perhaps you would like to swap with them? All of a sudden your women have a different dress code and inferior status? You now have the Hajj to go on? You have to jump through a million hoops to get unattainable perfection and your founding apostle married a girl of 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9?

---

No, I wouldn't like to swap, and if that is the level of argument to which you are reduced, then I think I can safely rest my case.

I persist in my belief that the crucial (ha ha) element is the person and work of Christ, and that the biggest problem with Islam is not the name by which they refer to God but their missing out on the New Covenant and their resulting persistence in legalism.

(A trait they share with a lot of self-professed Christians in my view. Many Christians would also support women having a different dress code and inferior status, and eagerly embrace, in deed if not in word, the prospect of perfection if enough "Christian" hoops are jumped through).
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
So you agree it is about the character of God and not about semantics.

And

You want to share the gospel of Christ with them.

Works for me.


 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
God is kind.
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
At risk of stepping into deep water here, my understanding of history is that Islam was liberal until Genghis Khan wiped out its cultural centres and left entire cities in rubble, full of decapitated men, women and children. Up to that point, the Sharia was updated every 10 years to account for changing common consent. It's perhaps also relevant that the Christian church became much more internally violent to dissenters over the next 200 or so years - maybe because it also had its foundations shaken by the crushing massacre of the cream of knightly Christendom in eastern Europe by the same Mongol armies.

All of which is a long way from the question as to how much making a religion ABOUT Jesus Christ was the original intention that Christ had when he was alive. Probably unanswerable by reference to any text, because every religious text I've come across can be milked for whatever position one cares to take. I was more curious about what the answer to the question feels like.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
So you agree it is about the character of God and not about semantics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Not only do you not understand how language works, Jamat, but you obviously haven't read Eutychus's responses properly either.

What he's saying is that the Muslims lack the full revelation of God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself - of Christ as God.

Show me where Eutychus is saying that we should ditch Christianity and become Muslim?



Ok, I know you're speaking hyperbolically but all you are doing is running the risk of displaying your own ignorance.

Eutychus is a linguist and Irish Lord used to live in Turkey and is familiar with the actual languages spoken in the Middle East.

You aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that their object of worship is not mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
So you agree it is about the character of God and not about semantics.

---

I'm not sure I do, actually. What is the "it" you are talking about?

My view is that the Muslim understanding of the character of God is imperfect in that it is lacking the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

It is emphatically not that the Muslim characterisation of God is such that they cannot possibly be seeking to worship the same God as Christians do.

Neither do I believe that the Muslim understanding of the character of God is inextricably linked to the Arabic word Allah, any more than I believe the Christian understanding of the character of God is intextricably linked to the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.

---

'It' is the real issue, what we mean when we refer to the maker of the universe.

I get you believe most Moslems are people of good faith and that all us humans have a yen to discover the true maker of the universe. I agree.

 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that their object of worship is not mine.

---

How can you possibly know that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that their object of worship is not mine.

---

How can you possibly know that?

---

They'd be Christians if it was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Here's a simple question:

I have read and heard a lot about Allah being the same God as the OT God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Is Allah the same as the God of Moses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The context for my question is the fact that the God who revealed himself in the burning bush and who led the Israelites to the Promised Land revealed a certain character and entered into a certain covenant with the Jews.

Is that the same God as Allah?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
And what about the Samaritan woman? Do you think she had the wrong object of worship before Jesus revealed his identity to her?

---

quote:

---

You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that their object of worship is not mine.

---

How can you possibly know that?

---

They'd be Christians if it was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that their object of worship is not mine.

---

How can you possibly know that?

---

They'd be Christians if it was.

---

In similar vein to Irish_Lord99 and mdijon, I think this is incredibly presumptuous.

I worship God because he's God, not because he and his characteristics tick all my personal boxes as an acceptable "object of worship". To be honest, I'm confused about some of his characteristics and like I say, I think it is in his nature that some of them are impossible to apprehend.

The line taken by Paul in Athens was not that the (non-Jewish, non-proselyte) Athenians were worshipping the wrong god because his characteristics were different, but that their understanding of the true God was imperfect.

In Acts 17:23 Paul notes that the Athenians worshipped an "unknown God" - whose characteristics were thus by definition completely different from a God who reveals himself. He does not say "you have the wrong object of worship" but "So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this [not some new improved god] is what I am going to proclaim to you".

In the address that follows, there is nothing whatsoever about Israel or any special names for God, YHWH or otherwise. In summary, God's characteristics are: all-powerful maker of heaven and earth, the author and sustainer of all life, not. made by human hands, inhabiting human temples, or resembling human images, and unequivocally one.

Paul goes on to speak of the resurrection of God's appointed man (sic) from the dead as proof of his work, but can you point to anything in the first part of the description that is not consistent with the characteristics of God as understood by Muslims?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Do you think worship (or at least attempted worship) is conditional upon adequate understanding of the Godhead?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...



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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The main point, of course, is the one that Eutychus keeps bringing us back to - the Incarnation.

---

quote:

---

And, of course, as Eutychus has reminded us, faith is more than a box ticking exercise or assent to propositional truths.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...



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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Perhaps the line between theological inadequacy and outright idolatry is the degree of intentionality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And you're also making the assumption that Calvinism = scripture correctly understood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Do they protect from the heresy of unkindness?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

ignorant of the very thing you worship

---

quote:

---

have come up as a memorial offering before God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Not ignoring, just unsure that your interpretation is right.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...



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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And someone who is unintentionally unkind isn't even a sinner.
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 


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.
 

---

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
In whose opinion unscholarly.

---

quote:

---

No one who attacked my views dealt with the Biblical issues I thought were important.

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul is concerned only with introducing the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with the point that people worship in ignorance it does not prove anything that they do

---

quote:

---

The Cornelius reference is also not relevant as he was a Jewish proselyte as I said who was still on the way to a better understanding that was given later by Peter.

---

quote:

---

Regarding signifiers and referent. The point you made as I understood it was that the language is the signifierand the object is the referent?

---

quote:

---

Your point was they that the word God signifies the Almighty in both Islam and Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Allah is just the Islamic term for the same thing?

---

quote:

---

I do not have a problem with the fact that they think it is the same thing but I don't think it is and that was the point of the articles I referenced particularly the first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes. And their interference led directly to the slaughter of the innocents.

---

Well that is a most original and breathtaking hermeneutic.

Are you seriously suggesting that the magi, rather than "interfering", should have not bothered trying to seek to worship Jesus at all?

Let's keep the heathen heathen, eh?

Talk about shutting the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces and not letting those enter who are trying to.

For what it's worth, my take this morning was that the star led them to Jerusalem because it was there that revelation from the Scriptures, which led them to Bethelehem and thus to Christ, was to be found - the astrology was not enough. And I think that's perfectly consistent with plenty of other Bible passages.

[ 04. January 2015, 11:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


Goodness me ...

Whatever else the story of the Magi and of the Massacre of the Innocents tells us, it tells us that people can seek God - however imperfectly - and that shit happens and that people in positions of power - such as Herod - are more than capable of carrying out some pretty hefty shit.

In other words, the Incarnation took place in an imperfect and fallen world.

I don't see any indication in the scriptures of the Magi being 'censured' in any way - unless Daronmedway is going to enlighten us otherwise ...

Surely it wasn't their fault that they acquiesced with Herod's demand that they tell him 'the exact time that the star had appeared.' (Matt.2:7).

One might as well blame God for that as He evidently didn't warn them in advance not to go - but instead waited until after they'd visited to return to their country 'by another route'. Matt.2:12

Assuming - that is - that the dream came from God and not from some idol or demonic source - which may or may not be something Daronmedway is going to ask us to believe.

There's not enough 'scriptural data' to go on, in my view, to form the kind of view that Daronmedway seems to be espousing. Nor does his view appear to accord with what I know of Big T Tradition in this regard - although I don't s'pose that matters much to him.

What matters to Daronmedway is his own interpretation of scripture, however idiosyncratic that may be ...

I was pleased to hear of the lady at his church who came to a more fully-orbed, Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead - who indeed, has cleary encountered the Triune God for herself and been changed by that encounter - glory be to God.

Yet at the same time, I can't help but feel that there's something rather restrictive and binary about Daronmedway's whole approach - or at least, how he articulates it here.

If I've misjudged that, then I will crave his indulgence and back down.

However the scriptures are full of people who grasp the truth imperfectly. Some of them, we are told, later come to a more complete understanding - such as Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos 'the word of God more accurately' (Acts 18:26).

Others we never hear of again. But as an RC priest once observed to me, we're not told where the Rich Young Ruler was on the Day of Pentecost. For all we know he could have been one of the 3,000 who were 'cut to the heart' and repented and were baptised that day.

We can all of us have 'idols' - all kinds of ideas of our own imaginings - but equally we all 'see through a glass darkly' yet will one day know fully, 'even as we are fully known.'

Until then, I don't think we can make any hard and fast judgements as to what point on the journey any of us are. People change. People move on. In 15 years time we might be surprised to find that Daronmedway has become an RC or an Arminian or soemthing else entirely - or even abandoned the faith entirely - heaven forfend.

We none of us know what is going to happen.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
The Magi - like many people past and present - were labouring under worldly notions of kingship. Their assumption that the messiah would be found in a palace started a chain of events that ended in tragedy and required the direct intervention of God to avert the premature death of Christ. Whatever, this episode teaches us it teaches us that God loves the world so much that he is prepared to be implicated it its sin and overlook it's attempts at usurping powers to which it has no rightful claim.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I detect a retreat from your assertion that the Magi "interfered".

Nevertheles, your basic and reprehensible position still appears to be that it would have been better all round if these stupid foreigners with their inadequate theological background had stayed at home and firmly in the ranks of the heathen.

That aside, the point at issue here is whether, in following the star, the Magi were seeking, in ignorance or otherwise, to worship the one true God, or whether due to inadequate knowledge, in following the star they were actually worshipping some idol, from which they somehow (how? when?) had to be detached in order come to worship Christ. Do I understand you to hold to that latter view?
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Jesus worshipped the wrong God of course.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I think it possible that the magi had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, maybe as a result of the Babylonian exile, and they had read the messianic prophesy recorded Numbers 24:17 which reads, "‘I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a sceptre will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the people of Sheth." (‭Numbers‬ ‭24‬:‭17‬ NIVUK)

The true star of Jacob (and the sceptre of Israel) is the Christ himself. Interesting that the Star of Jacob was announced with a astronomical star in the heavens. Yes, the adoration of the magi foreshadows the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Kingdom of God but it doesn't exhonerate them for their lack of insight and the damage that it caused. Unlike the shepherds of Bethlehem (Jews); they were gatecrashers (Gentiles).
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He worshipped God the Killer and complied with the God who required PSA.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Gatecrashers they might have been, but don't we have a Parable about those who came along at the '11th hour' receiving the same reward as those who had borne 'the heat and burden of the day'.

Whatever else it tells us - and whether the Magi had access to the Hebrew scriptures or not (and yes, I'm sure they quite possibly did) - surely it tells us that all Truth is God's Truth.

And that, to pinch and adapt a saying from the Orthodox, we may know where the Truth is, but we can't say where it is not ...

If the Orthodox are right that 'God is everywhere present and fillest all things ...' then surely we can all agree with the Apostle Peter that, '... God does not show favouritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.' (Acts 10:34-35)

Were the Magi wrong to want to gatecrash such a party?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think it possible that the magi had access to the Hebrew Scriptures

---

quote:

---

Unlike the shepherds of Bethlehem (Jews); they were gatecrashers (Gentiles).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think it possible that the magi had access to the Hebrew Scriptures...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think it possible that the magi had access to the Hebrew Scriptures...

---

Even if the magi had access to the Hebrew Scriptures and were familiar with the prophecy in Numbers, that does not explain how they knew that the King of the Jews had just been born.

Matthew says they saw the star rise and knew that the King had been born and came to worship him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Precisely. I think it's possible (although the evangelical in me resists this idea) that there never was a physical star in the sky and that the writer of the gospel just didn't know what to do with the oral tradition of the magi (astrologers) claiming to have followed "the star/s" to find the Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Gatecrashers they might have been, but... were the Magi wrong to want to gatecrash such a party?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Precisely. I think it's possible (although the evangelical in me resists this idea) that there never was a physical star in the sky and that the writer of the gospel just didn't know what to do with the oral tradition of the magi (astrologers) claiming to have followed "the star/s" to find the Christ.

---

I'm sorry I'm not following your logic! If there was no star, how did they know that the King had been born?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
It''s pure speculation, but it's possible that the star/s to which the magi referred was an astrological chart, not a physical star in a physical sky. The gospel writer may have just heard that the magi "talked a lot about stars and stuff" and just assumed it was an actual physical star.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm finding it rather hard to sift the genuine challenges to what I've said from the stuff that you're putting into my mouth. I wonder if you might take a little care in what you post - and especially what you implicitly ascribe to me - so as to make this a genuine conversation

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

a Christian commits heresy by asserting that the god described in the Koran is the same God that they worship

---

quote:

---

Asserting [which I do] 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.

---

quote:

---

interference [that] led directly to the slaughter of the innocents

---

quote:

---

Were they worshipping idols prior to [Herod's court]?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Gamaliel, why reduce it down to a binary right or wrong? Much more likely that they were right in their desire to do obeisance to the infant messiah, but wrong in their assumptions as to where he would be found. Isn't that essence of the broader argument being posited on this thread regarding non-Christian strivings after God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
It''s pure speculation, but it's possible that the star/s to which the magi referred was an astrological chart, not a physical star in a physical sky. The gospel writer may have just heard that the magi "talked a lot about stars and stuff" and just assumed it was an actual physical star.

---

Maybe, but surely the point - whether it was a physical star or an astrological chart - is that the Magi learned that the King of the Jews had actually been born when they were still in their own country in the East. And they did not get that revelation from the Hebrew Scriptures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
His view of God was incomplete but not heretical inasmuch as he wasn't consciously "teaching against or teaching differently to" apostolic teaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Oh, the Jews had been in Babylon for 70 odd years. If the magi were from around that region it's perfectly possible that they had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, so I also think it's possible that the magi were pagan astrologers with access to the Hebrew Scriptures. It's therefore possible that they reached their conclusions through a syncretistic blend of scriptural revelation and occult practices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
His view of God was incomplete but not heretical inasmuch as he wasn't consciously "teaching against or teaching differently to" apostolic teaching.

---

How is that different from an honest (but possibly misled) Muslim?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Oh, the Jews had been in Babylon for 70 odd years. If the magi were from around that region it's perfectly possible that they had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, so I also think it's possible that the magi were pagan astrologers with access to the Hebrew Scriptures. It's therefore possible that they reached their conclusions through a syncretistic blend of scriptural revelation and occult practices.

---

I'm not disputing that the Magi may possibly have had access to the Hebrew Scriptures (though nothing in the text in Matthew suggests that they did). It is however clear that no matter how well they knew the Scriptures this cannot be how they knew that the King of the Jews had been born.

Are you saying that it is impossible that God was involved in this revelation and that it was occult?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The answer to that is that a Muslim who sincerely believes that what the Koran says about Jesus is true is a captive of Satanic deception and is in need of rescue.

---

So in my view just like a Calvinist then.

[ 04. January 2015, 17:27: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Heh heh heh ...

I must admit, I did think that but didn't dare post it ...

Mind you, part of me thinks that to dismiss Calvinists and Calvinism as some kind of 'Satanic deception' or diabolical 'twist' on scripture is to indulge in the same kind of Manichaean binariness that seems to be the stock in trade of certain types of Calvinist ...

I'm reluctant to levy this particular charge at Calvinists lest I tar myself with the same brush ...


 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
His view of God was incomplete but not heretical inasmuch as he wasn't consciously "teaching against or teaching differently to" apostolic teaching.

---

How is that different from an honest (but possibly misled) Muslim?

---

It's different because the Koran offers a
view of God which stands in wilful and explicit contradiction to apostolic teaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, your question isn't about the Islamic theological system per se, but about the "an honest and possibly misled Muslim". The answer to that is that a Muslim who sincerely believes that what the Koran says about Jesus is true is a captive of Satanic deception and is in need of rescue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The answer to that is that a Muslim who sincerely believes that what the Koran says about Jesus is true is a captive of Satanic deception and is in need of rescue.

---

So in my view just like a Calvinist then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Isn't all deception ultimately Satanic in origin?

I'm not posting this flippantly, many people do believe that Calvinism is a deception - including me. I don't think however that it means Calvinists worship "A different God".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No because, in your opinion, Calvinism is a heretical departure from Apostolic teaching whereas Islam is a false religion proper. My Calvinism could be corrected via common reference to the Scriptures we hold in common; not so with Islamic theology. With me you'd be trying to correct a heretic, with a Muslim you'd be trying to convert an infidel (to quote the BCP).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, your question isn't about the Islamic theological system per se, but about the "an honest and possibly misled Muslim". The answer to that is that a Muslim who sincerely believes that what the Koran says about Jesus is true is a captive of Satanic deception and is in need of rescue.

---

Well, starting from there, the question then becomes whether their attachment to God is idolatry or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No because, in your opinion, Calvinism is a heretical departure from Apostolic teaching whereas Islam is a false religion proper. My Calvinism could be corrected via common reference to the Scriptures we hold in common; not so with Islamic theology. With me you'd be trying to correct a heretic, with a Muslim you'd be trying to convert an infidel (to quote the BCP).

---

That's not too far off of my stance on the matter: but that doesn't necessarily mean they worship a different God.

Mormons don't worship a different God, yet they are essentially a different religion from Christianity, with a vastly skewed Christology.

Jews don't worship a different God, yet they have 'denied Christ before men' and don't acknowledge the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
if that's the case, it would be vital to have a clear and consensual definition of idolatry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm of the view that such things of necessity mean that a different God is being worshipped (...) Therefore, all and any "god" who is not Trinity is simply is not God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Oh, the Jews had been in Babylon for 70 odd years. If the magi were from around that region it's perfectly possible that they had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, so I also think it's possible that the magi were pagan astrologers with access to the Hebrew Scriptures. It's therefore possible that they reached their conclusions through a syncretistic blend of scriptural revelation and occult practices.

---

I'm not disputing that the Magi may possibly have had access to the Hebrew Scriptures (though nothing in the text in Matthew suggests that they did). It is however clear that no matter how well they knew the Scriptures this cannot be how they knew that the King of the Jews had been born.

Are you saying that it is impossible that God was involved in this revelation and that it was occult?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
There was a Jewish diaspora in that part of the world from the destruction of the first Temple in 597 BC until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. It's hardly outwith the bounds of possibility that some Parthian wise men were acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures. The Parthian Empire took an interest in Jewish affairs, as they were pretty much on the border between Rome and Parthia, so its hardly impossible that some Parthian Magi took an interest in religious affairs in Judea around 4BC, or thereabouts. As the young Herod had come to power after the Parthians had abuducted one of his predecessors and mutilated him, one can see why he might have been anxious about Parthian aristocrats turning up on his doorstep and enquiring about the whereabouts of the Messiah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm of the view that such things of necessity mean that a different God is being worshipped (...) Therefore, all and any "god" who is not Trinity is simply is not God.

---

Oh dear, just when we were doing so well...

The true God being trinitarian in nature is one thing.

Apprehending that mystery is another.

Seeking to worship the true God in ignorance of the fullness of his nature does not constitute wilful idolatry.

If a complete understanding of the Godhead is a prerequisite to worshipping the "correct" God, then either all would be idolatrous (since our human understanding cannot apprehend the fullness of who God is) or God would not be God (because he could be fully known and circumscribed by mankind).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
So, just to be clear, do you believe the Jews worship a different God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
Do christians regard people who have different views from themselves on the filioque as not worshipping the same god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Consequently, the god called Allah, who is described in the Koran, is not and can ever be considered to the same God who Christians worship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Consequently, the god called Allah, who is described in the Koran, is not and can ever be considered to the same God who Christians worship.

---

And with this we are back to the confusion between the signifier and the referent.

God is not the sum of a set of signifiers. He is not even the sum of the signifiers we find in Scripture. He is the Referent to which those signifiers refer.

God-breathed signifiers (the words in the Bible) help us to understand what he is like, but they don't circumscribe him. And the message I take away from the Bible is that they can't circumscribe him. (For one thing God went a lot further than revealing himself through the written word; he sent his Son and the Spirit of Jesus to reveal truth to us).

Signifiers like "triune" and "trinity" help me in my understanding of God, but they are not words in the Bible; they are human theological constructs.

You make it sound as though proper worship is only about prior adherence to the right set of signifiers and theological constructs. That doesn't match my experience or what I see in the Bible. I think worship is first and foremost an affair of the heart and the Spirit. Theological truth is another component, but it's a work in progress for everyone.

By your own lights and account, there are people in your congregation of whom it could be said that they were worshipping "a different God" (your words) prior to coming to a correct theological understanding. Serious question: how can you stand to lead a congregation in worship if you believe that in doing so you are providing an opportunity for some people to continue in idolatry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You make it sound as though proper worship is only about prior adherence to the right set of signifiers and theological constructs.

---

quote:

---

worshipping a different God... and her "God" was not the God of Christianity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
So, just to be clear, do you believe the Jews worship a different God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think daronmedway's attempted way out of this is to say that in God-of-the-Bible-approved revelation, there is no intent to deceive, merely incomplete revelation, and that worship within a system within which there is no intent to deceive (roughly speaking, biblical revelation) is not idolatry.

However, this does not square with his assertion here that a lady in his own congregation (which he presumably strives to base on biblical revelation in good faith) who was a "functional Arian" was

quote:

---

worshipping a different God... and her "God" was not the God of Christianity

---

which appears to me to make her (in his appraisal) an idolater.

---

This is a fair point and does reveal an overstatement on part, I therefore retract my comment about this lady worshipping a different God in favour of a softer view that her view of God was unintentionally heretical. But hey, this is the Church of England so no worries….
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I suppose a very simplistic way of putting it would be to say that non-Christian Jews have an underdeveloped view of God-as-he-is revealed in their scriptures and have not embraced the NT revelation, whereas Muslims have an over-developed view of God in that the vision of God depicted in the Koran is an intentional departure from OT and NT revelation (...) In this respect Jews have an underdeveloped vision of the one true God, whereas Muslims worship a false god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I suppose a very simplistic way of putting it would be to say that non-Christian Jews have an underdeveloped view of God-as-he-is revealed in their scriptures and have not embraced the NT revelation, whereas Muslims have an over-developed view of God in that the vision of God depicted in the Koran is an intentional departure from OT and NT revelation (...) In this respect Jews have an underdeveloped vision of the one true God, whereas Muslims worship a false god.

---

So in your new modified view, everything within the canon up to its completion represents divine revelation-in-progress, so worship based on it does not qualify as idolatry, whereas every claimed divine revelation subsequent to closure of the canon is not divine in origin and therefore ipso facto leads to idolatry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
So how does she get a bye on that but not muslims?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because she simply hadn't realised the teaching of the apostles, whereas Muslims are taught to explicitly reject that teaching. Different categories.

---

On common sense I'd have thought that made her more culpable having heard all your orthodox and I have no doubt clear and concise preaching yet nevertheless persisted in heresy, versus the benighted Muslim who is being actively misled.

But there's a wider problem illustrated here - where do these rules come from? What basis in scripture or anywhere else beyond our arbitrary reasoning to produce such distinctions?

(PS I note the Samaritan woman hangs on in limbo).

[ 05. January 2015, 09:54: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, I take back my presumption in trying to tell other people what Daronmedway 'sincerely believes'.

I suggest he extends a similar courtesy to everyone else - including the members of his own congregation ...

Incidentally, I'm just as frustrated as Daronmedway might be at the general lack of Trinitarian awareness - as it were - across all the churches - including the CofE. I don't find this as much of an issue with the Orthodox as their Liturgy is so explicitly Trinitarian that you'd have to be pretty dim to miss it ... although from what Orthodox priests have told me, some of the laity do miss it until it's explained to them in detail.

Howbeit, at least those people who are not so far along the journey are not idolaters now, so we are makings some ' progress' ...

I'd agree with Daronmedway that the Jews have an 'underdeveloped' view insofar as they've inserted a full-stop where the Christians have a comma ...

And that the Muslims have over-stepped the mark and essentially added 'further revelation' - which is something (on one reading of the closing chapter of the book of Revelations) that is a no-no ...

Ok, I'm not as simplistically 'biblicist' as that and don't believe that divine revelation is restricted to the canon of the NT. However, I would say that subsequent writings and putative revelations - whether the Quran or the Book of Mormon are necessarily suspect and not 'worthy of all acceptation.'

I don't think we're all that far apart, it's simply that, for whatever reason, Daronmedway appears to go in for more strident and emotive language than Eutychus and some of the other posters here - who are also coming from an evangelical base.

The irony with all of this is that some Orthodox and some Lutherans wouldn't consider Daronmedway to be 'kosher' in his Trinitarianism nor his adherence to the Ecumenical Creeds - insofar as they believe that Calvinism enshrines a wonky Christology ...

So it ain't just me who presumes to suggest what Daronmedway sincerely believes ...

But his challenge was a good one and, for the record, I've yet to be fully convinced that those Orthodox and Lutherans who carp at Calvinists over various Christological points are entirely correct to do so ... but then ... there's no smoke without fire ...

All this could be a question of semantics.

I am quite prepared to say that Muslims have an erroneous view of the Godhead - insofar as they are not Trinitarian and expressly forbid such a belief.

That doesn't necessarily imply that they are worshipping a 'different' God, simply that they have yet to realise that the God they are worshipping is in fact Triune.

Ultimately, of course, we don't know ...

We can't judge who or what the Muslims believe God to be - or whether they are worshipping him as 'unknown' or in a partial way or even not at all - as Daronmedways suggests.

Which makes such speculation a futile exercise in my book - and why I believe that Eutychus's approach is both more sensitive pastorally and evangelistically.

Which doesn't mean I wasn't annoyed when our local vicar told me to back off from trying to gently correct someone who had come out with a whole pile of sub-Trinitarian doo-doo in the context of public worship ...

I told him in some ways that this was his job, not mine and if he wasn't doing it properly then he should expect people to take matters into their own hands.

Only I wasn't as blunt as that ...
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, I take back my presumption in trying to tell other people what Daronmedway 'sincerely believes'.

I suggest he extends a similar courtesy to everyone else - including the members of his own congregation ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Do you think divine revelation ceased with the closure of the canon?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Back up a bit lad - doesn't being a religious Jew in this day and age require the implicit, if not the explicit, rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus?

As such, I find the distinction being drawn between Judaism and Islam here a little artificial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Back up a bit lad - doesn't being a religious Jew in this day and age require the implicit, if not the explicit, rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus?

As such, I find the distinction being drawn between Judaism and Islam here a little artificial.

---

It would be possible for Christian to discuss the nature of God with a Jew using scripture which both accept as divinely inspired (the Hebrew Scriptures/OT); not so the Muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
And by the way many Jewish believers would regard the Talmud as inspired. Does that tip them over the line into idolatory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
And by the way many Jewish believers would regard the Talmud as inspired. Does that tip them over the line into idolatory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's no concensus on this thread regarding what idolatry actually is, so I'm not really able to say at the moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
And by the way many Jewish believers would regard the Talmud as inspired. Does that tip them over the line into idolatory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
And by the way many Jewish believers would regard the Talmud as inspired. Does that tip them over the line into idolatory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's no concensus on this thread regarding what idolatry actually is, so I'm not really able to say at the moment.

---

That didn't stop you labeling Muslims as idolaters. Are you going to withdraw that on the basis of the lack of consensus on idolatry?

And you continue to avoid the Samaritan-worship-what-you-do-not-know question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I didn't say I didn't have an opinion as to what idolatry is, I said that there's no consensus on this thread as to what idolatry is. By the definition of idolatry that I'm working to the god described in the Koran is an idol while others disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
With regard to the Samaritan woman... I'd suggest that the Samaritan failure to embrace the whole Jewish canon of scripture would suggest an incomplete vision of God by the standards of the available revelation of the day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No, I'm a continuationist so I would consider the charismata to be a form of revelation from God which is subordinate to the canon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No, I'm a continuationist so I would consider the charismata to be a form of revelation from God which is subordinate to the canon.

---

In that case I think you should be open to the possibility of the Spirit drawing an individual to worship God prior to them discovering a more accurate description of God through the Scriptures and encountering the risen Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent? If not can you explain the differences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well why not drop all this "idolatry" and "gatecrashing" and "worshipping a different God" vocabulary then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
His view of God was incomplete but not heretical inasmuch as he wasn't consciously "teaching against or teaching differently to" apostolic teaching.

---

How is that different from an honest (but possibly misled) Muslim?

---

It's different because the Koran offers a
view of God which stands in wilful and explicit contradiction to apostolic teaching.

---

Wilful? How? I doubt whether 6th Century CE Arabic people knew any 'apostolic' teaching beyond some of the weird gospels like Thomas.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps the concept of idolatry as it is revealed in the bible would help. The general idea is that the human heart is an "idol factory" which produces false gods... 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well why not drop all this "idolatry" and "gatecrashing" and "worshipping a different God" vocabulary then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Human responsibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Can you see why, with the examples I give above, it seems rather arbitrary?

For instance, it presumably means that following pre-Biblical Hindu scriptures is simply an incomplete understanding of God, but Swedenborg is idolatry.

That seems incredibly counter-intuitive and I don't understand the logical or scriptural basis for it. Can you find any precedent for such a distinction?

In fact in terms of precedent it seems to be rather an evolved position even given your earlier statement;

quote:

---

Perhaps the concept of idolatry as it is revealed in the bible would help. The general idea is that the human heart is an "idol factory" which produces false gods... 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 think Eutychus produces a more intuitive possibility that avoids all this inconsistency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
It strikes me that both you and Eutychus have a rather ahistorical view of revelation; as if the revelation of Christ and the apostolic proclamation of Christ at a specific point in history is merely happenstance rather than a complete gamechanger in terms of what humanity could expect in terms of subsequent divine revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In haste:

Is this where we ask about how you think people were saved before Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In haste:

Is this where we ask about how you think people were saved before Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In haste:

Is this where we ask about how you think people were saved before Christ?

---

No one was, that is until Christ descended into Hades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
It strikes me that both you and Eutychus have a rather ahistorical view of revelation; as if the revelation of Christ and the apostolic proclamation of Christ at a specific point in history is merely happenstance rather than a complete gamechanger in terms of what humanity could expect in terms of subsequent divine revelation.

---

Not at all, I just don't think the fact that the Talmud was written before Christ by 6 centuries and the Quran 6 centuries after is a sufficient justification for calling Muslims idolaters who worsthip a different God and Jews worshipers of the same God with an incomplete revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Back up a bit lad - doesn't being a religious Jew in this day and age require the implicit, if not the explicit, rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus?

As such, I find the distinction being drawn between Judaism and Islam here a little artificial.

---

It would be possible for Christian to discuss the nature of God with a Jew using scripture which both accept as divinely inspired (the Hebrew Scriptures/OT); not so the Muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In haste:

Is this where we ask about how you think people were saved before Christ?

---

No one was, that is until Christ descended into Hades.

---

Again in haste and off the top of my head (although this is a bit of a tangent):

Enoch (walked with God)? Elijah? (taken up to heaven)? Moses (appears with Elijah alongside Jesus at the Transfiguration)? Abraham (who believed God and it was credited unto him as righteousness, and who saw Jesus' day and rejoiced)? Melchisedek??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
On the contrary! In terms of the so-called "Abrahamic" faiths - and their offshoots - I think it's absolutely vital; for ahistorical pagan belief systems - such as Hinduism - not so much, if at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Sorry, that doesn't help me. The date is when the event took place in time and changing the word doesn't help me see why that should be the basis of a rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The AD in our dating system is a pretty big hint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The AD in our dating system is a pretty big hint.

---

Gah.

This is back to "YHWH is a magic combination of letters" territory.

Are you seriously suggesting we infer doctrine from the notation used to denote years?

That approach is (again) entirely back to front.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Back up a bit lad - doesn't being a religious Jew in this day and age require the implicit, if not the explicit, rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus?

As such, I find the distinction being drawn between Judaism and Islam here a little artificial. Both say Jesus was not the Messiah. How important that is to the individuals in those religions you can debate, but I don't think, given that, you can really categorise the one as "incomplete" and the other as "wrong". If Jesus is the Messiah, both are wrong. Not merely incomplete. Wrong. It may or may not matter much in terms of salvation etc. as a woolly liberal like me would say, but still factually wrong, if Jesus' Messiahship is a fact.

---

quote:

---

Eutychus said:However, I think it's a little too facile simply to assume that because the "Christ Event" occured at a given point in that history, it doesn't extend in time both ways. This is all a bit speculative, but I would say that my examples, in spite of or even in the light of Ad Orientem's objections, tend to show that it's mysterious.

---

Huh? You're free and welcome to debunk such a "facile" view of the Christ event so long as you don't ascribe that view to me, Eutychus.

[ 05. January 2015, 22:00: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Give me a benevolent Muslim over a hostile Christian any day.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I'm inclined to say, on balance that Muslims worship the same God, if only because it seems a little odd for a monotheist to allege that there is more than one deity and, clearly, Muslims recognise one God who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
But to claim that there is some kind of equivalence, from a Christian point of view, between Islam and Judaism does, to my mind, rather miss the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Signifier/referent
The creeds offer an essential description of God-as-he-is, not God-as-Christians-like-to-think-of-him.

---

quote:

---

I'm suspicious of your position because the creeds would likely not have been written if the church had be prone to the mode of thinking you are promoting when dealing with heretical visions of God.

---

quote:

---

There is such a thing a right belief, and it is possible to use words to describe the God-who-is-there and should rightly be believed in. By the same token there is such a thing as wrong belief, and it is possible to use words to describe a-God-who-is-not-there and should not be believed in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I was being facetious, the essential point stands. No, I wasn't suggesting that we infer doctrine from the notation used to denote years, I was saying that the notation used to denote years is rooted in doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is a subtle difference between "right belief" and "should rightly be believed in". There is a God who "should rightly be believed in", but I don't think rightly believing in him is solely a matter of assenting to propositionally correct beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
God "should rightly be believed in because he is God". And he can be rightly believed in, by someone who may have some beliefs about him that are not right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
One can believe false things about the true God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You sound as though you think the creeds have the same authority as Scripture. Do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
One can believe false things about the true God.

---

Yes, and one can believe true things about a false God too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
the essential threeness of God

---

 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
the essential threeness of God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Consequently, any subsequent "revelation" which purports to overthrow "the faith" which the creeds set forth - the essential threeness of God - is false and is not worthy of acceptance because it is a false presentation of God-as-he-is and a presentation of God-as-he-is-not, or a false God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
it doesn't mean that the God of Islam is in any sense a presentation of God-as-he-is; it is simply an erroneous response to the sensum divinitatis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The creeds summarise what is to be rightly believed concerning God

---

quote:

---

they set forth what is revealed in the Scriptures

---

quote:

---

Consequently, any subsequent "revelation" which purports to overthrow "the faith" which the creeds set forth (...) is false and is not worthy of acceptance because it is a false presentation of God-as-he-is and a presentation of God-as-he-is-not, or a false God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
One can believe false things about the true God.

---

Yes, and one can believe true things about a false God too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
To continue the thought that the creeds are authoritative and define God, logically it would follow that anyone who didn't believe them was worshiping a different God.

But instead we have a cut-off that says some people not following the creeds are after a different God and some are after the same God, depending on when their diversion from the creed dates to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I'm inclined to say, on balance that Muslims worship the same God, if only because it seems a little odd for a monotheist to allege that there is more than one deity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Euthychus,
The simple answer to your question regarding how people inherited salvation prior to the incarnation is "prospectively by grace through faith in Christ".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Euthychus,
The simple answer to your question regarding how people inherited salvation prior to the incarnation is "prospectively by grace through faith in Christ".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
the fact that the Talmud was written before Christ by 6 centuries

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Isn't it something like "Father Abraham [insert Smurf song as appropriate here] looked forward to My coming" and all that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Euthychus,
The simple answer to your question regarding how people inherited salvation prior to the incarnation is "prospectively by grace through faith in Christ".

---

And now in words that thickos like wot I is can understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
people inherit salvation after the incarnation by grace through faith in the fulfilled promise of the Messiah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Euthychus, The simple answer to your question regarding how people inherited salvation prior to the incarnation is "prospectively by grace through faith in Christ".

---

I can't make that mean anything other than my take, which was to say salvation worked both forwards and backwards in time (regardless of the fact that Christianity is eschatalogical and moves forward through history).

In which case the chronological positioning of the Christ Event has no effect on the means of salvation - which seemed upthread to be your justification for allowing Jews to have valid partial revelation of God, and not Muslims.

---

quote:

---

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wasn't talking about salvation, I was talking about the invalidity of alleged divine revelation concerning the nature of God (specifically the Koranic teaching against the Trinity) after the incarnation.

---

quote:

---

I would contend, that the chronological positioning of the incarnation does have an effect upon what humanity can expect in terms of divine revelation

---

quote:

---

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

---

quote:

---

The only possible conclusion from this is that what the Koran has to say about God as monad is false. It isn't merely a false presentation of God; it is a presentation of a false God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
mdijon: I'm reminded (again) of a girl on an evangelistic campaign I was on many years ago earnestly explaining that we should stop evangelising immediately so our hearers "wouldn't be made accountable"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
mdijon: I'm reminded (again) of a girl on an evangelistic campaign I was on many years ago earnestly explaining that we should stop evangelising immediately so our hearers "wouldn't be made accountable"...

---

Yes if Jesus had just held off the incarnation then adherents to one of the world's major religions would have been in incomplete revelation. His resurrection pushed them over the line into following a false God.

My guess is the Jews would have done better until they wrote the Talmud so only themselves to blame.

---

quote:

---

Eutychus said:
The Koran's description of God is false, or at least grossly misleading, but it does not follow that someone with the sensum divinitatis and access solely to the Koran is seeking to worship a false God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Eutychus said:
The Koran's description of God is false, or at least grossly misleading, but it does not follow that someone with the sensum divinitatis and access solely to the Koran is seeking to worship a false God.

---

I agree, with the qualification that we should not consider the sensum divinitatis - whether acknowledged or unacknowledged - to be salvific, indicative of salvation or an evidence of particular grace in any sense.

---

All right then. I can see it's easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for grace to become operative in any particular sense at all, let alone for salvation (perish the thought )...

But given your qualifying statement above, and working backwards through a long list of questions, how much doctrinally correct revelation is required for savlation to happen in your view?

[ 06. January 2015, 18:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
mdijon: I'm reminded (again) of a girl on an evangelistic campaign I was on many years ago earnestly explaining that we should stop evangelising immediately so our hearers "wouldn't be made accountable"...

---

Yes if Jesus had just held off the incarnation then adherents to one of the world's major religions would have been in incomplete revelation. His resurrection pushed them over the line into following a false God.

---

Fun, but emphatically not what I believe or what I've said...
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Eutychus said:
The Koran's description of God is false, or at least grossly misleading, but it does not follow that someone with the sensum divinitatis and access solely to the Koran is seeking to worship a false God.

---

I agree, with the qualification that we should not consider the sensum divinitatis - whether acknowledged or unacknowledged - to be salvific, indicative of salvation or an evidence of particular grace in any sense.

---

All right then. I can see it's easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for grace to become operative in any particular sense at all, let alone for salvation (perish the thought )...

But given your qualifying statement above, and working backwards through a long list of questions, how much doctrinally correct revelation is required for savlation to happen in your view?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Care to clarify?

---

quote:

---

how much doctrinally correct revelation [i.e. bunch of signifiers] is required

---

quote:

---

The Holy Spirit has revealed what God has done in order to achieve our salvation; objectively we need all of what that revelation is speaking [i.e. the referent]

---

quote:

---

Election is unconditional and not contingent upon a full and right apprehension of doctrine. People often come to faith through the most bizarre fragments of truth and/or unmediated supernatural experiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I seem to be hearing that God sent many prophets before Christ, but after Christ nobody. There is no chance that we might not have listened at all to something important or might have lost it or even that what was said by prophets later might be another way of viewing the same "truth" - it's just that nobody at all worth paying attention to has been sent by God? If I have that right, how do you know that is the truth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There is truth in the Koran

---

quote:

---

but that does make the Koran in any sense "divine revelation". It isn't, as I believe Hebrews 1v1-3 affirms.

---

quote:

---

However, that does not mean that God - who is indeed sovereign - cannot take truth found in the Koran in order to achieve a revelation of himself, but that revelation resides in a special act of God's sovereign grace, not in an inherent quality in the words of the Koran as a revelation of - or from - God.

---

quote:

---

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life... to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There is truth in the Koran

---

Ah! That's new from you on this thread at least, I think...

quote:

---

but that does make the Koran in any sense "divine revelation". It isn't, as I believe Hebrews 1v1-3 affirms.

---

OK, so far so good.

quote:

---

However, that does not mean that God - who is indeed sovereign - cannot take truth found in the Koran in order to achieve a revelation of himself, but that revelation resides in a special act of God's sovereign grace, not in an inherent quality in the words of the Koran as a revelation of - or from - God.

---

OK, I think I agree with that, too.

But by the same token of Hebrews 1:1-3, I also think all that applies to the Bible, too (2 Cor 3:6, 14-17, emphasis mine below):

quote:

---

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life... to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom

---

Obviously Paul is talking about the OT because there was no NT at the time, but following his argument, and what we appear to agree on with regard to Christ (not the Bible) being the ultimate revelation of the Godhead, I think even the Bible is useless without the Spirit.

In other words, I don't think the words of Scripture have any "inherent quality" such that "a special act of God's sovereign grace" through his Spirit is not required for salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
as I said in my second to last post, God has promised to speak though the Holy Scriptures (OT/NT). If we read them; he will speak.

---

quote:

---

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Euthychus,
The simple answer to your question regarding how people inherited salvation prior to the incarnation is "prospectively by grace through faith in Christ".

---

And now in words that thickos like wot I is can understand?

---

People inherited salvation before the incarnation by grace through faith in anticipation of the promised Messiah; people inherit salvation after the incarnation by grace through faith in the fulfilled promise of the Messiah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, that does not mean that God - who is indeed sovereign - cannot take truth found in the Koran in order to achieve a revelation of himself, but that revelation resides in a special act of God's sovereign grace, not in an inherent quality in the words of the Koran as a revelation of - or from - God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, that does not mean that God - who is indeed sovereign - cannot take truth found in the Koran in order to achieve a revelation of himself, but that revelation resides in a special act of God's sovereign grace, not in an inherent quality in the words of the Koran as a revelation of - or from - God.

---

So God speaking through a false God? Doesn't that make a mockery of dichotomizing between following an incomplete revelation vs following a false God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No. God speaking through a false revelation; parts of which happen to present a vision of a false God, or at best a false vision of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No. God speaking through a false revelation; parts of which happen to present a vision of a false God, or at best a false vision of God.

---

And is God speaking through the parts that present a vision of a false God or the parts that don't? And is the false revelation in fact presenting a vision of two Gods, one of whom is mostly false and the other just incompletely revealed?

(And by the way is the Talmud in the same slot as the Koran now that I've been corrected regarding its date?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
If God can speak through the mouth of a mule, he can speak through anything in all creation, including false revelation. That is not to say he has done, is doing, or will do such a thing, but it is a theoretical possibility. In our own scriptures - which according to inscripturate Apostolic teaching are God-breathed - there is a sense in which God even speaks through the recorded words of Satan. If that can be the case in Holy Scripture, then why not elsewhere?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
So a false Jewish God that you would be more favourably inclined to than a false Muslim God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
So a false Jewish God that you would be more favourably inclined to than a false Muslim God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I've said already the Jewish vision of God is incomplete but not false, whereas the Islamic vision of God, given its explicit and polemical antipathy to the Trinity, is positively false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I've not read the Talmud but I suspect that it is silent on the Trinity and perhaps even Christianity itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I also suspect that Jews do not consider the Talmud to be divine revelation but some for of authoritative Midrash; I fairly certain they don't hold it the same level esteem as Muslims do the Koran.

---

From my limited reading it seems to rank somewhere after the Torah in terms of importance but well above Midrash. I believe you are right it does not acquire the level of esteem of the Koran. However I do think it is considered revelatory and inspired.

There are grounds here, but it does rather seem to me that you have an a priori view that Muslims=false God, Jews=incomplete revelation, and are finding various rules to justify this which evolve throughout the thread as different bits of data are put to you.

[ 08. January 2015, 03:27: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 


Speaking as a non-theologian, I just don't get it. The Trinity as a belief system is a total mess. One God, but already divided into three, and on the other hand, not. In some respects, it bears resemblance to Hinduism, where Brahman is manifested in a host of sub-Gods that display specific attributes - e.g. Krishna being not dissimilar to Christ. Is Brahman the same God that Christians worship?

And then it gets worse - I see nowhere where Christ unambiguously claimed to be THE ONE GOD ("Father..."). And there is so much room to place somewhere him in a spiritual hierarchy (e.g. Creation requires that God separates into Love and Beloved - why not say that Christ is this primeval Love?) - that all one can do is say - He came from somewhere fairly high up on the management ladder. So the Islamic objection to the Trinity - which is after all something cobbled up long after Christ was alive - is perfectly logical. To go from that objection to then say that because of it they worship a false God is - regardless of the intellectual weight behind the argument - perverse. I can see the logical steps that lead there - they have been very clearly laid out, and I just think that the a priori conditions need some attention.

In fact, it's almost Tautological. The Trinity is an unassailable doctrine that perfectly describes God AND there are no other possible ways to describe God other than through the Doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore anyone who disagrees with the Trinity is not worshipping God. Doesn't that commit the basic error of assuming God is conceivable by human intellect?
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
The Most Holy Trinity is something we have received from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself.
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
Excellent

Maybe some of the conversations that may have suggested other ways of looking at it were not recorded?

Christ was on earth for a long time - the record of what was said is rather thin on the ground to be used to decide that other people believe in a false God, OR even that the Trinity is the only way to conceive of God.

I see very few arguments here that could not by the same logical process be turned round and used to justify another round of Crusades - or in fact be used to justify an anti-Trinitarian jihad.

If we believe that God created everything, then (imo) it seems a bit steep deciding for ourselves who is worthy and who is able to be with God, and which or what belief is absolutely true to the exclusion of all others. Based on an intellectual analysis of an incomplete set of very sparse accounts 2000 years old. By all means have your own faith based on that and its exegesis - but again, I'm asking - isn't God a bit bigger than a single self consistent human explanation and description can encompass?

Putting it another way, if Christ's message was one of Love, how does that tally with a blanket dismissal of a substantial proportion of humanity as being beyond the pale?
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:


Putting it another way, if Christ's message was one of Love, how does that tally with a blanket dismissal of a substantial proportion of humanity as being beyond the pale?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
In some respects, it bears resemblance to Hinduism, where Brahman is manifested in a host of sub-Gods that display specific attributes - e.g. Krishna being not dissimilar to Christ. Is Brahman the same God that Christians worship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:


Putting it another way, if Christ's message was one of Love, how does that tally with a blanket dismissal of a substantial proportion of humanity as being beyond the pale?

---

quote:

---

There are grounds here, but it does rather seem to me that you have an a priori view that Muslims=false God, Jews=incomplete revelation, and are finding various rules to justify this which evolve throughout the thread as different bits of data are put to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
But either way that wasn't the question we got to for the last few pages.

The question we got to was whether the error in question is an error of a false revelation about God, or a revelation about a false God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
But either way that wasn't the question we got to for the last few pages.

The question we got to was whether the error in question is an error of a false revelation about God, or a revelation about a false God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I came across this today.

Ban on the use of the word Allah by Christians

This suggests that Muslims themselves believe Allah is their god and not ours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, it only suggests that SOME Muslims believe that Allah is their god and not ours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, it only suggests that SOME Muslims believe that Allah is their god and not ours.

---

No, it means that an entire country believes this as far as legality is concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gamaliel--

I've always found that verse about "whatever other gods there may be" fascinating. Is it simply a matter of Paul not wanting to get distracted by arguments; or an acknowledgment that there might be various kinds of beings that we label "gods"; or had Paul seen or heard of indications that they might actually exist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

My future son-in-law is an Arabic-speaking Christian. The word for God in his native language is Allah. Are you alleging this makes him a Muslim?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, but I think you need to ask yourself why exactly the Malaysian Muslims don't want a Christian to use the name Allah in respect of the Christian God.

What is their reasoning?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the 'to the unknown God' thing is a bit of a red herring. This was not a god they worshipped consciously or purposefully; this was an altar raised out of superstition and the fear that they had 'left one out'.

Paul used their misconception to tell them that the god they did not know was actually THE God of the universe. They knew all the other idols but had failed to realise that the one true God was just a shadowy superstition to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think you need to ask yourself why exactly the Malaysian Muslims don't want a Christian to use the name Allah in respect of the Christian God.

What is their reasoning?

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog, do you view Muslims by definition as modern-day Baal-worshippers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
To cut to the chase, perhaps I can repeat a question I asked you three weeks ago here:

quote:

---

Mudfrog, do you view Muslims by definition as modern-day Baal-worshippers?

---

I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, should you so wish, that you don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

It seems to me that you are more likely to view the new cellmate as a potential jihadist and by your own admission, you think he is worshipping an idol, presumably with a demon crouching behind it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mudfrog, how does your view in any way commend or adorn the Gospel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are you saying that Allah is a distinct being in some way - in the way that Tash was in some way a different being to Aslan? If so, I refer you to Russ's very sensible post at the top of this page of this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are you saying that Allah is a distinct being in some way - in the way that Tash was in some way a different being to Aslan? If so, I refer you to Russ's very sensible post at the top of this page of this thread.

---

That is exactly what I am saying.

Allah has a very different character, identity and essence to the God who revealed himself to, and made specific covenants with, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses

---

quote:

---

eg. how can God make a covenant with Isaac and then Jacob/Israel and then lead Moses, granting him the covenant of the promised Land; reveal himself in Christ, attest to Christ's divine Sonship, make an atonement through Christ crucified and risen and then that same God 600 uears later deny the covenant with Isaac, Jacob and Moses, deny the divine name of YHWH, deny his incarnation, deny the crucifixion and disown his beloved Son in whom he had once been 'well pleased'?

How is that the same god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
eg. how can God make a covenant with Isaac and then Jacob/Israel and then lead Moses, granting him the covenant of the promised Land; reveal himself in Christ, attest to Christ's divine Sonship, make an atonement through Christ crucified and risen and then that same God 600 uears later deny the covenant with Isaac, Jacob and Moses, deny the divine name of YHWH, deny his incarnation, deny the crucifixion and disown his beloved Son in whom he had once been 'well pleased'?

How is that the same god?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0