Tuesday, May 18, 2010
What was James (Swan) thinking?
Last night I was scrolling down through James Swan’s Beggars All blog’s “LABELS” looking for possible links to Eastern Orthodox posts, and stumbled upon this following link: DAVID WALTZ. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link and was completely surprised to find that James had chosen to respond to a November 2009 Articuli Fidei thread five months later in April, 2010. One would think that such a late response would prompt James to inform me that he had done so; but alas, not a word…
Anyway, now that I am finally aware of his post, I would like to share a few of my thoughts on it.
James posted the following:
David Waltz on On Scripture and Tradition:
“Once again, Scripture is CLEAR, but only for those who have embraced the true regula fidei. This was THE view of the majority of the early Church Fathers, and has been recognized as such by a consensus of patristic scholars; the following are but a few selections from this overwhelming consensus."
Here's a citation he used for support:The ‘ancillary view’ is Lane’s term for the sixteenth-century Protestant view, in which tradition functions as an aid, but not a norm, for the interpretation of Scripture… In spite of claims to the contrary, the Reformers did not return to the ‘coincidence view’…The Reformation posited a degree of discontinuity in church history… (Richard Bauckham, “Tradition In Relation To Scripture and Reason”, in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, ed. Drewery & Bauckham, p. 122.)
So, this quote from Bauckham is used as scholarly evidence that the Reformers posited a "discontinuity in church history" because they rejected the established God-given relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Since the Reformers rejected this, they therefore rejected the true regula fidei. The true regula fidei embraces the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
James has misread my thread; the primary focus of the thread was dealing with the view of the early Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition. James pulls one quote (out of context) from the nine scholarly citations I provided and ignored the relationship of that selection to all the others. What I find even more troubling is the fact that James later goes on to provide the broader context the quote I provided from Dr. Bauckham, which affirms what I (and the other scholars I cited) have said about the early Church Fathers—i.e. that early CFs held to the “coincidence view” of Scripture and Tradition, and not the “ancillary view” of the Reformers.
So, I cannot help but ask myself: “What was James (Swan) thinking” when he wrote up his post? Further, did he actually read the entire thread; and if he did read the entire thread, should I not question the motives of his post?
In ending, I would like to state that once I discovered this disappointing post from James, I felt compelled to respond—sincerely hope my readers have some sympathy with me for addressing a sub-standard issue…
Grace and peace,
David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
With the name of God, Peace be unto you David.
Now you know how I feel. Ken tried to do that to me recently.... sneaky sneaky he he he...
I haven't recieved the book(s) yet.
Greetings Grandverbalizer19-
Not trying to be sneaky - just separate out the politics ad hominem from the facts of bad arguments.
You easily found my article and all was out in the open.
I was trying to focus on your bad quoting out of context methods; yet you mix in all the stuff about Sarah Palin and Franklin Grahaham and Gary DeMar, and Theonomy and Dominion theology, etc.
I just don't have time to write about everything; especially when your methods many times are "throw out everything including the kitchen sink" methods.
But, I do hope to eventually get to some of your other points. (without the political stuff) Just don't have time now.
David,
Sometimes it takes longer to write a response to something; and you usually notice all the stuff at Beggar's All and other Reformed sites.
The Coincidence view works up until the universal church agreed on the canon, but it seems the ancillary view is correct after that. (In my opinion)
Because the Coincidence view assumes that reality means the apostles speak with one voice from one God, and they were preaching the same thing they later wrote down. the verses about "tradition" are happening at the same time that the writings are being written. Once they were finished being written, then the ancillary view is correct. But since not all churches had all the writings under one cover and there were false writings floating around, the regula fidei (rule of faith/basic trinitarian creedal formulas - in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius - which are all Biblical - functioned as a doctrinal standard until the dust settled on the doctrine of the Trinity and the 5-7 books that were questioned by some parts of the universal church, etc.
The Roman Catholic position, which you no longer hold, takes the coincidence view and says it can continue on throughout history and they can keep on declaring dogma and put RC dogmas back into the "traditions" that Paul and John taught, without any evidence based on the development of doctrine theory of Newman - ie, reading PVM, IM, BA, IP, Transubstantiation back into "tradition" passages such as 2 Thess 2:15 and end of John about many other things Jesus taught, etc.
In case other readers don't know:
Roman Catholic Dogmas read back into the Bible texts on "tradition" (2 Thess. 2;15; I Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess 3:6; John 21) - they claim secret oral tradition that only later comes out in the history of development of doctrine; centuries later
PVM = Perpetual Virginity of Mary
(500s-600s AD)
IM - Immaculate conception dogma of Mary - 1854
BA - Bodily Assumption of Mary - 1950 declared; read back into John 21 - "many other things Jesus did and taught", etc.
IP - 1870 AD declared - Infallibility of the Pope.
Transubstantiation - 1215 AD - read back into "this is My body", etc.
etc.
the Coinindence View of the RCC assumes that these things were there secretly orally (but not written in Scripture)
If the Early church fathers had a form of that, it was only that the early creeds (Trinity) were biblical and the biblical teaching, not other dogmas later read back into it. (as the RCC does)
this was also what the Gnostics claimed - secret oral tradition - "spoken by Jesus and the apostles in oral teaching, but not written explicitly" - Irenaeus rebuked that kind of thinking - Against Heresies 1:1:8
(I think that is the right reference)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.ix.html
the Irenaeus reference is 1:8:1
not 1:1:8
Hi GrandVerb,
Sent the book last week (sorry about the delay, but better late than never!!!). Hopefully its journey across the Pacific is near its end...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Ken,
Nice to see you back; you posted:
>>Sometimes it takes longer to write a response to something; and you usually notice all the stuff at Beggar's All and other Reformed sites.>>
Me: I check in on the BA blog about twice a week; though if the weather is good here, I can go well over a week without a visit. With that said, 5 months is an usually long period of time to respond to a specific thread.
>>The Coincidence view works up until the universal church agreed on the canon, but it seems the ancillary view is correct after that. (In my opinion)>>
Me: When do you think “the universal church agreed on the canon”?
>>Because the Coincidence view assumes that reality means the apostles speak with one voice from one God, and they were preaching the same thing they later wrote down. the verses about "tradition" are happening at the same time that the writings are being written. Once they were finished being written, then the ancillary view is correct. But since not all churches had all the writings under one cover and there were false writings floating around, the regula fidei (rule of faith/basic trinitarian creedal formulas - in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius - which are all Biblical - functioned as a doctrinal standard until the dust settled on the doctrine of the Trinity and the 5-7 books that were questioned by some parts of the universal church, etc.>>
Me: Don’t forget that the regula fidei of the early CFs also established certain boundaries of ‘orthodoxy’ via the baptismal creeds (which were viewed as infallible interpretations of the deposit of faith).
>>The Roman Catholic position, which you no longer hold, takes the coincidence view and says it can continue on throughout history and they can keep on declaring dogma and put RC dogmas back into the "traditions" that Paul and John taught, without any evidence based on the development of doctrine theory of Newman - ie, reading PVM, IM, BA, IP, Transubstantiation back into "tradition" passages such as 2 Thess 2:15 and end of John about many other things Jesus taught, etc.>>
Me: IMO, every theological tradition relies on, to one degree or another, the development of doctrine. And as you well know, what you say concerning certain RC dogmas, has been said about the doctrine of the Trinity, infant baptism, and many other dogmas that have developed within the broader Christian paradigm.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
You said:
>>the Coinindence View of the RCC assumes that these things were there secretly orally (but not written in Scripture)>>
Me: Correction - oral tradition (secret or public) attributed to the apostles but not included in Scripture is not the "coincidence view", but rather, is the "supplementary view" (which is rejected by many modern-day RC theologians).
Grace and peace,
David
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
Thank you very much @ David :)
@ Ken I love you. Your a good man! Not because of anything that you have done but because of what God does through you.
You may feel I throw everything but the kitchen sink, my purpose in my article Franklin Graham and the Christian message of hate is to show that it's not too hard to take something out of context.
Than to quote a man (A Zionist of all people the most disgusting lot of humans on the planet) and than I ask you if you know anything about the man and you said no.
You know I can agree that ad hominem tactics are bad. However, if I was a rapist, a person who hurls insults and uses abusive language, drinks occasionally and beats my wife don't you think that would obstruct my message as a Christian or as a Muslim?
I think that ad hominem plays a role if it can be shown the person is a hypocrite. If they are not measuring up to the standards they set for others.
If a person's argument is inconsistent that means the person is also inconsistent. Think about it.
You said lets'keep politics out of it, but than who was the one who went and quoted a Zionist piece about Islam and the theory of abrogation? That had politics written all over it.
I am simply trying to ask Christians for consistent standards. Let's not pretend that Rushdoony, Gary Demar and Reconstructionism is not at work in this country.
We can say that Gary Demar doesn't know what he's talking about and he misunderstands the Bible, in the same way that I can say that about Islamist; however I think we can both agree that Demar as well as the Islamist both feel they have scripture and historical context to support their views.
Any way I do enjoy interacting with you Ken, and you only strengthen my views or make me appreciate your own views more.
In the end it is the soverign will of God that will decide the outcome of all things. So in the mean while let us try and be gracious and respectful towards one another, and I suggest we all work towards the common good.
David Waltz: Me: When do you think “the universal church agreed on the canon”?
For the NT canon - Origen seems to have the same belief as Athanasius' list around 250 AD, though not all in one place (Jason Engwer has a good article on that at Triablogue); and Athanasius is 367 AD, the NT Canon that is, was pretty much wide-spread agreement to by 400 AD. I am saying "generally, wide-spread agreement, since there may be exceptions in some areas in the east and Ethiopia, etc.
But, the individuals books were all written between 48-69 AD, possibly John's writings in 90-96 Ad ( but I believe that they were all written by 69 AD, before 70 AD); except for Jude, which was probably written around 80 AD.
They existed individually and separately written to different communities; but took a while to get them all under one "book cover".
The Church was persecuted for 3 centuries, and many manuscripts were burnt by the Romans; so it is understandable why it took a whole for them all to get under one agreed to cover.
Marcion's canon of 140 AD was mutilating something that already existed. Because of his rejection of "the God of the OT" and the goodness of creation - so he did not want Matthew or Mark or John or quotes in Luke 1-3 from the OT nor the pastoral epistles.
The Muratorium canon of 160-180 AD seems to include most of 27 NT books also; except for James, Hebrews and I and 2 Peter - but it may be those were in a lost part of the fragment, just as the beginning of the fragment starts with "the 3rd gospel, Luke" (presupposes Matthew and Mark were 1st and 2nd).
David Waltz wrote:
Me: Correction - oral tradition (secret or public) attributed to the apostles but not included in Scripture is not the "coincidence view", but rather, is the "supplementary view" (which is rejected by many modern-day RC theologians).
But did the Pope or Magisterium rule on this?
Why or why not?; if the claim to be able to solve all disputes on earth is such a great thing.
Since they have not, RC apologists many times, it seems, back off and say they hold the "coincidence view", but argue in such a way that implies that those dogmas were there in Jesus and the apostles teachings, but did not come out clearly until centuries later. Modern RC apologists, who are trying to win Protestants to swim the Tiber, argue this way, and only back down to the coincidence view when challenged. They seem to want their cake and eat it too.
I am glad at least you have seen the problem with the claim of the Infallibility of the church and Pope.
But you still never answered the other issues yet. (smile - on further revelation beyond the NT in books and writings of other religions - Mormon, Islam, Bahai'ism.
Grandverb -
I pray you will come to know Isa Al Masih, the only way to peace with God.
I Timothy 2:5-6
Matthew 11:28-30
John 14:27
Romans 5:1-11
Your sins are a weight of condemnation until Christ takes them away - Mark 7:20-23; John 8:24; Romans 10:9-10; John 3:36
How do you know the guy was a Zionist?
where in the article does he even hint at that issue?
I don't even remember his name and I am not taking the time to look it up; I read the content of the information and argument; and it was true according to Islamic doctrine of abrogation.
What is your definition of Zionist?
Are there different kinds and levels of Zionists?
If I had quoted from www.answering-islam.org, you would have said, "You are just quoting people who agree with you". (Christians)
Besides, was the content of the article about abrogation in the Qur'an and Islam wrong?
Was it right or wrong?
Deal with the content, rather than the person.
The Qur'an Al Mai'da, verse 82 says:
Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
This is not against Zionism (desire of the Jews to get back to the land of Israel, which it was until 70 AD - 135 AD), but it is against the Jews as people.
There are also lots of Hadith that say the fighting will go on until the day against the Jews - why the racism and hatred against the Jews in the Qur'an and from Muhammad?
Palestine was under the Ottoman Turks; they sided with Germany in WW I; (1914-1917) - they lost. The Arabs wanted to get out from under the Turks ( Lawrence of Arabia, etc.).
Did not the Jews buy the part of the original partition from rich Arab land owners? (two state solution from 1880s - 1947) ?
If the Arab Muslims hadn't have attacked, the Palestinians would have had the Gaza Strip and the West bank (Trans-Jordan at that time); and they could have had their own state by now.
How about all the refugee camps that Lebanon and Jordan and Syria have that they won't let the Palestinians assimilate into their respective countries - they keep using them as a "political football" rather than giving them a better life. What about that?
If the Arab Muslims had accepted that (it was small then) and not attacked, they would have Palestine today if they lived in peace and stop Jihadist/Qatal - istic thinking - since 6 nations attacked the Jews, and they kept winning; what righteousness do they have?
Also, Islam attacked in aggressive warfare (Jihad/Qatl/harb) in 632-732 conquering all of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egpyt, N. Africa, Spain, Persia (and beyond into the 900s). What right did they have to do that?
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
I really want to give a special as salamu 'alikum to David :)
As for you Ken I strongly encourage you to repent of your sins and to submit to the one and ONLY God. To reject the doctrine of the Trinity and to worship what Jesus worshipped!
I wish more Christians would reflect upon 1 Timothy 2:5 "For unto us there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man (anthropos) Christ Jesus".
You can't be a mediator if you are God. Unless Christians are trying to tell us that Jesus is like Perseus from Clash of the Titans a godman.
John 8:40 Now you seek to kill me a man (anthropos) that has told you the truth which I heard from God (it's not me God telling u this) did this not Abraham?
The Greek word for man is anthropos. It is where we get the word anthropology the study of man. It has never ever in the Greek language meant anything other than mortal human being.
Any other verse that Tri-theist bring will clash with this verse.
Anthropos distinguishes one from the animals on one hand, and from God, deity and divine essence on the other hand.
25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (Acts 10:25-26)
The fact that Jesus is not both fully God and fully man is not even a subject of debate. It is not even worthy of a serious platform, podium or dialouge.
To be fully man is not to have the powers of a God. To be God is not to know everything contrary to to Mark 13:32.
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-jesus-does-not-know-everything.html < Thank God that some Christians like Daniel B Wallace are starting to get the big picture.
Think about it Ken. The reformers were people who were digging deep into Church history and felt that their were embellishments.
Did they go far enough? Michael Servetus obviously didn't think so.
Reformed Baptist obviously don't think so as they object to baptizing babies.
Pull back a few more layers and I think we will fine that we are all much better off without the Trinity doctrine.
As far as all that you just went to the trouble to write Ken I'll just leave you with a quote from a good friend of mine who also writes comments under the same name as you...
"But, I do hope to eventually get to some of your other points. (without the political stuff) Just don't have time now."
Yes, Jesus was a man, but He was also God, the word of God from all eternity - kalimat'allah - And David believes that also. (smile) [right David? -do you still hold to the one God in substance, three in persons; and one Person of Christ in two natures ?)
If you accept that I Timothy 2:5 is true, then you must accept Jesus' death on the cross, for the next verse tells us how He is the mediator - He gave His life as a ransom - similar idea and same root word in Mark 10:45, which in Farsi and Arabic is the same word (Fedieh) in Arabic in the Qur'an at 37:107 - "we have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice." See we beleive both, that God the Son, the word, became a man, flesh ( John 1:14; Philippians 2:6-8) and gave His life in substitute for us; and the "eid e qorban" of Abraham and his son was a prophesy/fore-telling of what Messiah would do and how He would be the one mediator.
I Timothy 2:5-6 - you must accept verse 6 and John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:6-8 and Mark 10:45 and then you can understand.
5 εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,
6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις·
As for you Ken I strongly encourage you to repent of your sins and to submit to the one and ONLY God.
I already did; the Bible's definition of repentance; and I have true peace; do you have peace?
Do you know for sure if you died you would go to heaven?
I John 5:13 - true Christians do; by Jesus' promise - John 14:27
I already submitted to the one and ONLY God - the God of the Bible, who is a Trinitas Unitas (Three [persons] in One [nature]. God is love, God is relationship; God is one. Mark 12:29; I John 4:9-19
To reject the doctrine of the Trinity and to worship what Jesus worshipped!
No. The Trinity is truth. Jesus allowed Himself to be worshiped and claimed to be God.
the magi worshiped Jesus as a baby. Matthew 2:11
καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ
"and falling down, they worshiped Him"
Matthew 14:33 - And in the boat, they worshiped Him, saying "truly this is the Son of God"
33 οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες· ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ.
also
John 20:28
Thomas said to Him, "My Lord and My God".
Jesus was both God and man - the "God-man".
Kalimat'allah
and
Ruh Allah
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
Ken I call you to repentence to believe in the absolute oneness of Allah. To reject the Trinity and to believe and to worship what Jesus worshipped.
I quote your text to you so that you may reflect upon it and it's implications.
As I said no need for debate on this one, no disrespect intended for all the ink that is spilled and all the the works that are written very simply said Jesus is not God.
Do you know Ken of any man or woman on this earth that ever existed that is also God?
That alone makes Jesus not man. It was a mask. As your own scriptures said the word became flesh John 1:14,but the more proper translation would be 'the word took on flesh'.
Infact if you think about it Christianity truly denies that Jesus is a human being. I know you can quote scriptures. You can say it with your lips. You can write books until the oceans are dry. To me it doesn't change anything.
Now if you were to start by saying that Jesus was human and than became divine than we might have something interesting.
But we can't do that can we? Why because we are stuck with total depravity and original sin that's why.
No one seeks after God, even though millions live and die for faith all over the world, books on religion sell like hot cakes, much ink and blood and tears have been spent by people looking for answers.
This to me sounds like there is something inside the human being a spark that is seeking to reach out.
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21.
Is the kingdom of God within us or among us? That manuscript difference makes a big deal to me.
When you say that God came down to the earth to see the tower that men built do you believe that literally? So God needs distance as an aid to help him?
Do you say that God 'merged' with the Earth since God would than have incarnated into the earth?
Do you believe as a Christian Ken that God is contained IN the universe or outside of it? If God is contained IN the universe and it is his creation has he 'merged' with it?
Muslims do not have any concept of God existing in community. Orthrodox Islam (Ashari, Maturdi, Tahawi) schools of aqeedah say that Allah existed bi dhati (in his essence) alone.
We do not believe that Allah occupies space, either one place or every place. However you believe that God is in heaven in a location. If God has always existed in a location than who or what created that location Ken?
So this doctrine of incarnation is nothing novel you people have been believing that God is incarnate in his creation from the beginning.
Luke 6:12 It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God.
So my sincere advise Ken is to stand upon what is revealed there since you believe in it. Jesus prayed to God so should you. If Jesus was praying to himself than how self serving and vainglorious is that?
Surely it wouldn't hurt you to follow the example of Christ Jesus and just pray to God? You can pray to God, or you can pray to the God of Abraham or metaphorically address God as father. You can even say in Jesus name it's not a problem.
But DO NOT address your prayers TO Jesus or to the TRINITY.
Don't do it Ken it's not worth it man.
God is absolutely one in nature and substance and essence and the Only Creator Sovereign, Eternal, invisible, immortal. But He is three persons within the one God; that is "God is love" is not possible without a personal relationship within Himself. The Father is Lover, the Son is the Beloved, and the Spirit is Love.
That God was willing to become man and suffer and die and love us that much, and be sinless, and be victorious by weakness and humility and by the power of the resurrection is amazing. That, my friend is beautiful. Truth is beautiful. The reasons the Sufis reject the dry legalistic doctrinal Islam is the have a longing in their heart to be connected to God. This points to Augustine's statement: "our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You, O God." and Pascal's "the human heart has a God-shaped vacuum in it until God fills it." The true believers, God will reveal Himself to and send the gospel.
Check out my article on the Incarnation, Atonement, and the Trinity. And the beautiful song by Phil Keaggy.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/incarnation-atonement-and-trinity.html
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
Ken you said,
"But He is three persons within the one God; that is "God is love" is not possible without a personal relationship within Himself. The Father is Lover, the Son is the Beloved, and the Spirit is Love"
God is love is not possible without an internal relationship with HIMself?
I'm sorry but what kind of mumbo jumbo is this? This sounds like self love to me. Did God learn to love? If you say that it also does little to inspire confidence in the absolute perfection of the creator.
In order for your tawheed to be correct Ken you have to believe that Allah existed in his dhat before ANY created thing. Allah existed in his essence with his attributes.
Do you know what this means? It means that Allah was creator even when there was no creation. Allah was the loving even when there was nothing to be loved. Allah was the forgiver of sins even when there were no beings in need of his forgiveness.
These attributes of Allah are NOT DEPENDEN upon anything.
So if God existed in community that love is a natural attribute but it's SELF LOVE remember that. It is not dynamic.
Not only that but the example you gave was very Anti-Trinitarian. The Father is the lover (so is he the source of love)
You gave a heiarchy that goes Father, Holy Spirit, Son, quite the reverse of what most Trinitarians believe Ken.
Also note that in the example you gave the Holy Spirit is the conduit he is not the source or the object. The Son also does not give any love of himself.
As far as your statement about the sufis and the lovers of God. You have no idea how much they love the Shari'ah. They are the upholders and maintainers of the Shari'ah.
You people have been reading too many comic books written by orientalist who say that sufism are some esoteric understanding of Islam. They are some sect.
Sufism/Tassawuf/Ihsan is a discipline of Islam just the same as Aqidah and Fiqh. You never heard Muhammed (saw) coin the term Fiqh but ask any Muslim (sunni or shi'a) if fiqh is a part of Islam.
This is what Protestant Christianity gives you. You have no magesterium, you rely so much on your own philosophical musings than revealed revelation it's amazing. All this coming from people who defend sola scriptura.
Also are you moving away from Calvinism? Let's examine this statement.
"The true believers, God will reveal Himself to and send the gospel."
Are they true believers before God reveals himself? Your statement smacks of anti-calvinism.
Go that extra step Ken. Michael Servetus had the courage and so can you.
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
Look at what the proof of Islam, the Sign of Allah, our Sheikh and Master of the outter and inner discplines of Islam Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali said:
"Allah is singular in His essence with no partner, Unique with no equivalent, Absolute, no opposite has He, Alone without peer. He is beginningless without predecessor, perpetual of being without end, singularly sustaining everything without stop. He is not victim to termination or cessation, or to the elapsing of spans or the passing of interims. Rather He is the First and the Last; the Outward and the Inward – and He has knowledge of everything.
He is not a body with form, nor is He a confined or quantifiable substance. He does not resemble bodies in quantifiably or divisibility. Rather He resembles nothing existent, nor does anything existent resemble Him. There is absolutely nothing like Him, nor is He like anything.
No measure confines Him, no space contains Him, no direction encompasses Him, nor do the heavens surround Him.
He is above everything until the farthest reaches of the stars – an above-ness that does not increase His nearness to the heavens; rather He is exalted in degree above the heavens to the same extent that He is exalted in degree above the depths of the earth.
Notwithstanding, He is near to all existence, and He is nearer to the bondsman than his jugular vein. His nearness, however, no more resembles the nearness of bodies one to another than His essence resembles the essences of bodies.
He is too sublime that space should encompass Him, as He is too hallowed that time should restrict Him. Rather He was, before He created time and space, and He is now as He was always. He is separate from His creation by His attributes. He is transcendentally holier than to be subject to change and movement. Rather He remains in His qualities of absolute majesty, not subject to abating, and in His qualities of perfection with no need of increase.
He is Living, Almighty, Irresistible, Overpowering; deficiency does not affect Him nor does incapacity. “No slumber can seize Him nor sleep.”11 Extinction and death do not counteract Him. He is possessed of absolute dominion, sovereignty, and grandeur; to Him is creation and command
continued...
continued from above...
He is matchless in creating and beginning, solitary in causing existence and originating. He creates all beings and their acts, decrees their sustenance and spans.
Nothing possible is outside His grasp, and He is never detached from the absolute governing of all affairs. His abilities cannot be enumerated, and His knowledge is boundless.
He knows all things knowable, encompassing all that transpires between the depths of the earths to the ends of the universe. Nothing of an atom’s weight in the earth and the heavens escapes His Knowledge; rather He knows the creeping of a black ant across a soundless stone on a lightless night. He knows the movement of the particles on a windy day. He knows the hidden and what is beyond. He presides over the thoughts of the conscience, the movements of the cerebrations, and the recondite subtleties of the psyche, with a beginningless, eternal Knowledge that has been with Him forever.
He is the willer of all that exists, and He is the director of all that occurs. Nothing occurs in the seen or unseen world, be it minimal or abundant, small or large, good or evil, beneficial or harmful, of belief or disbelief, knowledge or ignorance, triumph or ruin, increase or decrease, obedience or defiance, except by His decree, foreordainment, command, and volition. What He wills is, and what He does not will is not.
A servant has no escape from disobeying Him except through His conferred success and mercy; he has no power to obey Him except through His assistance and will. If all of mankind united together to move or retard a single atom in the universe without His will and volition, they would be unable to do so.
He hears and He sees. No audible thing, however faint, escapes His hearing, and no visible thing, however minute, is hidden from His sight. Distance does not impede His hearing and darkness does not obstruct His seeing. His attributes do not resemble the attributes of the creation to the same extent that His essence does not resemble the essences of creation.
Everything other than Him is an originated thing that He created by His power from nothingness, since He existed in eternity alone and there was nothing whatsoever with Him. He originated creation thereafter as a manifestation of His power and as a realization of His preceding Will, not because He had any need of it.
He is Magnanimous in creating and in imposing obligations upon His creation; He is not compelled to do it by necessity. He is Gracious in beneficence and reform, though not through any need. Munificence and Kindness, Beneficence and Grace are His. He rewards His believing worshipers for their acts of obedience according to generosity and encouragement rather than according to their merit and obligation, for there is no obligation upon Him in any deed towards anyone. Tyranny is inconceivable in Him, for there is no right upon Him towards anyone."
While these are the Islamic beliefs on Allah in written form, it must be noted that a person is not accountable for his intellectual understanding of them, but rather he is responsible for truly incorporating them in his heart. True conviction in Allah’s existence and in His actual relationship with every one of us comes only with His mercy and guidance. As such, Muslims ask Allah in every prayer for guidance unto His Straight Path.
The Grandverbalizer19 wrote:
In order for your tawheed to be correct Ken you have to believe that Allah existed in his dhat before ANY created thing. Allah existed in his essence with his attributes.
Yes, did you realize that all Christians and the Bible have always believed that?
خدا در ذات خودش قبل از هر چیزی که خلق شده، وجود داشت.
Translation: "God in His own ذات substance/essence, existed before any thing was created."
Jesus was always the Word of God, the Son from eternity past. John 1:1; 17:5 - He goes back forever; He is not a creature nor a created being. His human nature and human body were created by the conception of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary ( Luke 1:34-35); He existed eternally before He became human; He added an additional human nature to Himself.
And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"
And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God."
Luke 1:34-35
There is nothing (that I can tell) in Al Ghazzali's quote that is contrary to the Christian/Biblical doctrine of God. We also hold to all of that. God is Spirit and self-existent and had need of nothing and still needs nothing. God is and was Love from all eternity; invisible, Holy, all powerful, all knowing, wise; pure, perfect, true, beauty, complete, eternal, just, righteous, etc.
Can Allah sin and or deceive if He wants to? If He wills to?
In the Qur'an, Allah is the best deceiver. خیر المکارین
"Kheir Ol Makareen"
3:54; 8:30; 10:22
In Christianity, God cannot do anything that is against His nature (zat, or dhat) ذات
Titus 1:2, "God who is not able to lie"
I John 1:5 - "God is light and in Him there is no darkness."
God does not do the sin or the lying that happens; but He does allow it to happen, and decides (ordains) that it would happen; but He does not do it; He takes His restraining hand off of evil ( Job 1-2; 2 Cor. 12:7-10) and the Devil and evil men fill the power void with their own evil deeds and motives and words.
But, in Islam, it seems that Allah can sin and tricks and deceives and is the author of sin.
What do you think?
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their lord.
Ken you said you agree with what Ghazali writes but you seem to struggle with this part.
"Tyranny is inconceivable in Him, for there is no right upon Him towards anyone."
The three verses that you quoted above are noted. Do you have any other verses in mind?
For example could you show where the term Makr or Makreen is used in any context with people who are doing righteous, or intending to do something good?
If you could do that you would have a very interesting case.
However, as a Muslim and a person who believes in the creed of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah.
"Tyranny is inconceivable in Him, for there is no right upon Him towards anyone."
Again it is you who accuse your Lord of lying. May your punishment be light in the hearafter Ken.
You have no interest in truth, you and your missionary ilk who have used your deception and ploy against Islam are out of gas.
Al hamdulillah the people in Europe in the United States both Jew and Christian are waking up to the truth.
It is you people who run from verses such as the one below.
Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version):
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
It is you people who seek to deny the scriptures and deny what is plain and obvious.
Watch the difference in our approach and others can see it too.
I do not mince words or play semantic gymnastics with what you give me.
I have also quoted to you Sunni creed.
I ask you once again Ken. You believe you are the 'elect' of God chosen before the foundation of the world. I will grant you that God's basis for selecting anyone is love.
But the question is evaded. God selects on the basis of love, but tell me how John Calvin's god is not capracious in his decision?
How does he select the ones that will be loved and given regeneration by the holy spirit?
What did those people 'do' or 'not do'that merit eternal hell fire?
Infact if God gives you the Holy Spirit that means he guided you. What is the opposite of guidance Ken?
Why does the Calvinist deity not guide all? I'm sorry Ken but your deity sounds extremely cruel and small. He toys with his creation.
He puts babies in hell, he creates souls just for the purpose of having them eternally destroyed in hell.
In your creed your god can shut down his 'god powers' as in Mark 13:32 so he does go against aspects of his nature.
He "empties himself" Kenosis Phillipians 2:5-6 of what Ken?
He gives his life only to regain it. He gave his son only to regain him. What tomfoolry is this? What deception is this? There was no sacrifice if everything you give is taken back.
Your so called 'loving father' knowingly puts innocent children in a room with a horrible monster and than punishes those innocent children because the monster hurts them.
The evil one roams about looking for someone whom he can devour (1 Peter 5:8).
Than if that's not enough he punishes their children and their children's children.
Adam and Eve where put on Earth while God knows that Satan roams about?
Your so called 'loving father' puts naive innocent children in a room with a monster that seeks to devour! Enough said!
By Allah Ken we the Muslims will spread the light of Islam to the four corners of this earth.
We will fight against those evil doctrines with all that is in our hearts. We will finish what the reformed theologians started.
Though unlike them we will bring the people back by the grace of Allah to the true teachings of Christ Jesus!
Post a Comment