It was via a blog entry by Dr. Joel McDurman at Gary DeMar's American Vision (LINK) way back in June 2013 that I first came across what struck me as a very intriguing dialogue/discussion that was taking place within Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), a conservative, Reformed denomination.
Dr.
McDurman begins his blog entry with the following:
I
remember when I joined the PCA, my pastor told me an anecdote. He said when his
church was first being built in northwest Arkansas, he phoned a local Baptist
pastor to ask some advice on a matter. The Baptist pastor cut him off:
“Presbyterian, huh? You’ll be liberal in 20 years!” And he abruptly hung up on
my pastor.
A
bit later, he provides the following selection from a thread written by Lane
Keister (published at two separate blogs: link
1 and link
2):
Debate was rather heated in the PCA General Assembly this year over a motion to include a statement to the effect of saying that the Muslims and the Christians worship the same God. It is usually felt by people who believe this that such a statement can be an effective bridge for evangelism to Muslims. They will also usually state the obvious, that the Arabic word for God is Allah, and so Arabic translations have the word “Allah” in the Bible. Therefore they have the same God that we do.
There are a number of serious problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, the implication of such a statement is that the Trinity is not central to the Christian idea of God, but is an optional add-on. Folks, are we really willing to say that about the Trinity? That it is optional? I would think Athanasius would be rolling in his grave at the suggestion.
This
"rather heated", "[d]ebate", "in the PCA General
Assembly", was precipitated by a 'report' prepared for the 41st General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, with the full title: "THEOLOGY, GOSPEL MISSIONS, AND INSIDER
MOVEMENTS - A PARTIAL REPORT (PART TWO OF TWO PARTS) OF THE AD INTERIM STUDY
COMMITTEE ON INSIDER MOVEMENTS TO THE FORTY-FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA MARCH 20, 2013 [PDF copy of this report
available online: HERE].
Dr.
McDurman's opening paragraph 'set's the tone' for the rest of his contribution,
which depicts the PCA as a denomination headed for full-blown liberalism.
However, this post is not about Dr. McDurman's reflections on future of the PCA, but rather, it concerns whether or not, "the Muslims and the Christians worship the same God." This question, raised in the PCA report, created a flood of comments on a number blogs, the majority of which answered the question with a resounding NO. Though a few of the negative reponses exhibited some deeper reflection/s, most appeared to me to be emotionally based, with little consideration of the broader issues that are inextricably linked to the question.
More often than not, the negative reponses
revolved around the premise that if one rejects "the" doctrine of the
Trinity, then one worships a different God; and since Muslims reject
"the" doctrine of the Trinity, then by default, they worship a
different God. But, I am firmly convinced that the above premise is severely
flawed; and this, because of two very important issues. First, if the above
premise were true, then Jesus and the Jews of his day worshipped a different
God; and second, the vast majority of Christians (all ???) prior to Augustine
worshipped a different God.
I suspect that those who are not familiar with
this blog will view the above two ascertions as utterly false, but in a number of my posts
over the last three years under the lablels Monarchy
of God the Father and Trinity, I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that my reflections rest on a
solid foundation. Jesus and the Jews of his day did not worship a God that was
"one what and three who's" (a favorite construct employed by a number
of Christian apologists), but rather they worshipped the "God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob", the God the New Testament presents to us as "God
the Father". This "God the
Father", is "the one God" of the Bible, early Church Fathers,
and the Nicene Creed.
So,
if the rejection of one form of "the" doctrine of the Trinity (i.e.
the Augustinian/Latin construct) does not by default place one into the
category of one who worships a different God, can one say that Muslims and
Christians (and, of course, Jews) worship the same God ? I shall attempt to
answer this question in an upcoming post (the Lord willing).
Grace
and peace,
David
28 comments:
Interesting subject Dave.
Let me be the first to say that I agree with your conclusion, and that there is another reason to support it, at least from y perspective. We learn from Romans 1 that from visible created things, we may know the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and godhead, if recall correctly.
That is, the one true God is manifest to us in nature, by the light of natural reason. The Blessed Trinity is a mystery which can only be known by the supernatural light of faith. The Trinity is in this sense an "add-on". As worshippers, we may insist that the revelation of the Trinity brings light regarding the God knowable by reason. But we can not say that it is a different God.
If we thought we were theists, believing in the One God, and then became Trinitarian when we converted to Christ, would we say that before we became Christian we were really atheists because we believed in God, but not the true God? I don't think so.
Could anyone argue that Allah is different than the Creator God whose power is revealed by nature? Perhaps in the sense that Muslims might (I don't know), add false doctrine whereas Christians add true doctrine. But the naturally revealed God in which they believe is the same as ours.
Rory
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for your interest and thoughtful post. You wrote:
==If we thought we were theists, believing in the One God, and then became Trinitarian when we converted to Christ, would we say that before we became Christian we were really atheists because we believed in God, but not the true God? I don't think so.==
Me: I agree with you on this.
==Could anyone argue that Allah is different than the Creator God whose power is revealed by nature?==
Me: Allah is Arabic for God, and the God of the Qur'an is "the Creator God", for sure. So, whether or not one accepts the Qur'an as revelation from "the Creator God"—opting instead for a naturalistic explanation for it's origin—I would still argue that the Muslim's God is "the Creator God".
Grace and peace,
David
It is claimed that Trinitarianism is mono-theistic---perhaps those who have answered no to the question have confused trintarianism with tri-theism/poly-theism?
Allah and monotheism (or what Christians like to call "radical monotheism")and its connotations----Instead of coining a different word or inventing a new word---the Quran uses an existing generic word for God---one used by mono/tri--theistic Christians and polytheists. Why? ---ofcourse Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic are sister languages therefore it is't a coincidence they may have similar etymology. But, perhaps there may be a deeper meaning? Consider what is meant by One God, the creator? It means all of creation---including ALL humanity is created by this One God. The polytheists of Mecca, the Christians and Jews of Medina and outlying areas as well as the distant Hindus, the Buddhists, the Animists and various other human beings across the globe are/were created by the One God---whose compassion and mercy extends to ALL of his creation. Consider another implication---If there is only One God---and absolutely no other---then obviously all worship/prayer, is received by that One God---irrespective of what name/label/concept is attached to it---as no other Gods exists to receive it! In other words---the very concept of "true" God and "false" God already divides Divinity into poly-theism.
Allah of the Quran is not just a generic name---but a universal one. That is why the concept of One God in Islam is called Tawheed (Unity) because it is a concept that has the potential to Unite all of humanity by encouraging the understanding that all humanity worships the One God whose mercy and compassion extends to all his creation.
We are all brothers and sisters in worship of the Creator.
But...Christianity (Roman Catholic) also has a somewhat similar understanding---see CCC 839-843 for the whole doctrine---I will highlight CCC841---"the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the One merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.
I came across something recently which seems to allow for an intermediate position.
In his book, The Mysteries of Christianity, Matthias Scheeben definitely allows that Old Testament Jews acknowledged the true God. Speaking of this idea he offers a speculation regarding the question raised here at the blog:
"This observation affects also those who maintain that no one can have a correct and true idea of the real God unless aware of His triple personality. The Jews had a true idea of God, but knew nothing of the three persons. To be sure, such an idea is inadequate and incomplete, but it is not on that account false."
But he goes on to admit that the concept can become false:
"The concept becomes incorrect only when its further clarification and completion are excluded, that is, when a communication of the divine life to different persons is positively repudiated."
He goes on to mention the Arians and New Testament Jews who in opposition to the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, took a false position with regards to the one true God, adding to their doctrine, a negative proposition saying that the One God has a "sterile and uncommunicative divine unity."
To believe as the Muslim, that God cannot have a Son is in this sense perhaps to worship a different God.
Dave I'm late for work. No time now for proper referencing. Its on p. 31 and 32 of a 1947 edition.
After further reflection, I think I am comfortable with saying that Muslims worship a different God than Catholics and many Protestants.
Can we arrive at the doctrine of One God, the Beneficent Creator by the light of natural revelation? Yes, because..."the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable." (Rom. 1:20)
The God we cannot see is so well understood by His works that are visible, that those who would deny the truth of His power and divinity are inexcusable! How could it be stated more strongly? There is no reason which will stand up to scrutiny for saying there is no evidence of Almighty God.
In recent years, without affirming anything in the realm of religion, philosopher Antony Flew caused a stir in academic and religious circles by admitting to belief in God. Did he believe in the same God as the Trinitarian Christians. I would answer in the affirmative.
The reason why I would say that Flew believes in the same God and that Muslims do not is because by the light of reason alone, we all, Trinitarian, Muslim, Jew, and mere theist have only a rational knowledge of God's existence.
The only "reason" Trinitarians have for believing as we do about the Three Persons is the light of faith. Faith is suprarational, beyond reason. Reason tells us nothing either way about fecundity or communication of divinity in God. The problem with Muslim thinking is that when confronted with the Blessed Trinity, they do not say that they disbelieve the authority which teaches the Trinity. This would be fine.
If anyone merely denies the authority claiming Trinity we could still at least be worshipping and believing the same God of natural reason. Instead though, they invoke false reasoning, or false supernatural revelation and affirm that God CANNOT be a Trinity. This belief is NOT revealed either by natural or supernatural revelation.
The proper response to Rom. 1:20 is awe, wonder, and perhaps above all humility. It is to arrive at a place of "learned ignorance" that understands the profound truth that before this Creator God, our intellect is limited. If someone's proud intellect reasons that the God of Rom 1:20 can not have a Son, he is believing in a God of His own making, not that of supernatural revelation, nor even that of natural revelation.
If I am mistaken about the Muslim teaching, or about the Jewish belief or anyone else...felix culpa, a happy fault! I will be glad to acknowledge that anyone from Antony Flew to the Jews to the Muslims believes in the same God as I by the light of reason. But anything they add to this which positively denies the doctrine revealed to Christians by supernatural revelation, cannot be said to be the same God. That would be a corruption of the God of Rom. 1:20
So in conclusion, I do not say that one worships a different God if they merely lack belief in the Blessed Trinity. I would have to allow that the context of Lumen Gentium and of the Catholic Catechism correctly teaches that Rom. 1:20 knowledge is common to Non-Trinitarian theists. But if the Non-Trinitarian theist adds something false to this intellectually or from false faith based authority, then no, that is a different God. There is nothing in Rom. 1:20 belief which should make anyone confident that the Blessed Trinity is false.
Hi Kat and Rory,
I want to thank both of you for your interest in this thread and your posts. I do not want to respond too hastily for I am still reflecting on was has been written, trying to assimilate both viewpoints.
I have guests arriving for the weekend in anytime now, so it may be as late as Monday before I share my thoughts with you.
Hope that you both will be able to check back in, for I would like to see this dialogue continue.
Grace and peace,
Dave
Hello again Kat and Rory,
I think the following selections from the doctrinal deposit of the Catholic Church offers a good deal of clarity to the issue we are currently discussing (i.e Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God).
>>3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Note: 5. Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir) , King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.) [Vatican II - NOSTRA AETATE - http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.]
The following is an English translation of the above letter:
>>(Christian and Muslims adore the same God)
God, the Creator of all, without whom we cannot do or even think anything that is good, has inspired to your heart this act of kindness. He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2.4) and none to perish is well pleased to approve in us most of all that besides loving God men love other men, and do not do to others anything they do not want to be done unto themselves (cf. Mt. 7.14). We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world. For as the apostle says: "He is our peace who has made us both one." (Eph. 2.14) Many among the Roman nobility, informed by us of this grace granted to you by God, greatly admire and praise your goodness and virtues. [...] God knows that we love you purely for His honour and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in the present and in the future life. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long years of life here on earth.>> [The Christian Faith - Documents of the Catholic Church, edited by Neuner and Dupius, 2nd ed. 1995, "Gregory VII, letter to Anzir, King of Mauritania (1076)", p. 381]
Grace and peace,
David
Much as we would like to claim God for ourselves and remake him in our image, we must not forget that God is not a Christian or a Muslim. These labels are petty human classifications that divide brother from brother. To claim God loves one but not another is simply our pride and ego projecting our own desires onto God. God will love whom he wills---his compassion and mercy extends to all his creations.
Quran 2:62
Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans--those who believed in God and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.
---also repeated in 5:69
Hi kat,
In your last post, you wrote:
==Much as we would like to claim God for ourselves and remake him in our image, we must not forget that God is not a Christian or a Muslim. These labels are petty human classifications that divide brother from brother. To claim God loves one but not another is simply our pride and ego projecting our own desires onto God. God will love whom he wills---his compassion and mercy extends to all his creations.==
Me: Agreed, and well said !!!
Question: Have you read the book, A Common Word ???
I very nice PDF copy is available online for free:
A COMMON WORD
I would be very interest to hear what you (and others) think about it.
God bless,
David
Hi Kat. I was waiting for our blog host before I opined. I am afraid I cannot be quite as enthusiastic as he is about your latest post. I hope you'll consider my explanation why.
Kat says:
"Much as we would like to claim God for ourselves and remake him in our image..."
Rory replies:
If I know myself at all that is not my problem. I am a conformist. I was a Baptist minister. I have taken Islam seriously as well as Mormonism and the Bahai Faith before converting to Catholicism. The point I would make from my personal journey is that it seems difficult for me to think of myself as narrow minded about how God really is.
I seem to myself to have been unusually open-minded, and yet I take issue with what follows from what you say.
Kat says: "...we must not forget that God is not a Christian or a Muslim."
I reply:
Of course I agree that God is not a member of any religious sect, ethnic group, or political party. But if I am not mistaken, you mean that "we must not forget that doctrine is meaningless." If I am mistaken please correct me. But that is how I read you. And if that is what you mean, I could never agree with you.
Kat says:
"These labels are petty human classifications that divide brother from brother."
I reply:
That's it? There is nothing distinctive between Christianity and Islam? Only pettiness? Nothing of significance? And here I thought it would be a pretty big deal if I should become a Muslim.
Kat says:
"To claim God loves one but not another is simply our pride and ego projecting our own desires onto God."
I reply:
I am safe there. I hold as a Catholic that God loves everybody. Who says that God loves one but not another? Can you provide any references for that kind of partisanship in God that comes from authoritative Islamic or Christian sources? Do you even have anecdotal evidence? I have never met anybody who thinks that way, except maybe for the Reformed guys who got Dave started on this thread.
Kat says: "God will love whom he wills---his compassion and mercy extends to all his creations."
I reply: Yup. But I guess I don't see how this argues that differences in belief are unimportant, or that it means that we all worship the same God. It means the true God loves everybody. I can't see how it guarantees that everyone's notion of God is equally accurate.
Thanks Kat, for your consideration of my criticism. God bless.
Rory
David,
Muslims and Islam itself dogmatically asserts that the Trinity or Triune God of the Bible is not true.
Muslims and Christians cannot be worshiping the same God by definition, since Islam rejects the Deity of Christ, the eternal Sonship of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, etc.
Even your view of "Monarchy of the Father" is anathema to Islam, since it also says, if I understand you correctly, that the Son is eternally generated (into the past never with beginning) and homo-ousias (same substance as the Father). So both the Monarchy of the Father view and the western Trinitarian view are both Trinitarian and teach that "God is one what" by nature and substance and "three who's" in personal loving, spiritual relationship. Once one has that those 2 views, the western Trinitarian view of Augustine and Calvin (one God in substance and three persons in eternal, spiritual, personal relationship)
We agree that Islam and Christianity teach that God is one and Monotheism, but Christianity is Trintitarian Monotheism, whereas Islam is Unitarian Monotheism.
Your argument is based on semantics and language, it seems to me. You are woodenly holding to an exact statement of "the one true God" as the Father only, based on your understanding of John 5:44 and I think, I Cor. 8:6 and John 17:3 and Ephesians 4:6; and not allowing that the Son and the Holy Spirit is doctrinally and logically included in those verses, even though they don't explicitly say that. That was the whole reason why they had those debates for 451 years - to figure out how those verses harmonized with the others about the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
Your wooden way of looking at those verses seems to come from your Jehovah's Witness background; since they and others who think that way, say things like "the word Trinity is not found in Holy Scripture, therefore it is rejected", etc. You seem to be applying that same kind of woodenness to this issue also in your "Monarachy of the Father" view. But even that logically leads to Augustine and Calvin's view of the Trinity, since there is only one God and the categories of substance/nature/essence vs. person do not contradict each other and explain the harmonization of all the verses together.
"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" John 5:44
How do you know Jesus does not include the Son and the Spirit here, even without saying it, given what Jesus and the Scriptures say elsewhere in John and elsewhere in all the Bible? (John 1:1-5, 14; 20:28; 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:27-30; 19:1-7, 18:1-6; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; Romans 9:5; 1 John 5:20, etc. )
I am wondering why you are so intent upon some how making Islam as an acceptable religion/revelation?
Is it because you want Bahai-ism to be true, and in order for it to be true, Islam has to be a revelational stage of truth between the NT and Bahai'ism, according to Bahai'ism's teachings?
oops; sorry for this mistake:
Once one has that those 2 views, the western Trinitarian view of Augustine and Calvin (one God in substance and three persons in eternal, spiritual, personal relationship)
Should have been:
Once one has either of those 2 views, the western Trinitarian view of Augustine and Calvin (one God in substance and three persons in eternal, spiritual, personal relationship), or the Monarchy of the Father view, they are both by definition not the Allah of Islam, according to Islam itself.
David wrote:
Jesus and the Jews of his day did not worship a God that was "one what and three who's" (a favorite construct employed by a number of Christian apologists), but rather they worshipped the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", . . .
John 8:24
"Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."
John 8:56-58
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
I am always eager to emphasize common ground. There is certainly a significant sense in which Muslims and Christians worship/believe in the same God. At the most fundamental level. You don't need any religion at all to arrive at the "common ground" that Muslims share with Christians and Antony Flew.
My answer to the question remains in the affirmative. But there are many who will misconstrue the answer to be saying that nothing else is important. If I understand correctly, Kat says it means we are all brothers.
A follow-up question should ask if there are important ways in which Muslims and Christians disagree in their belief and worship of God. The answer is a resounding yes.
Muslims reference Jesus as a prophet, and Catholics are supposed to accept them as brothers when we think Jesus is God, and appears at the behest of a priest, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity to be worshiped as God on the altars of our churches. I guess Catholics should be glad that Muslims don't think Jesus was non-existent, crazy, or a philanderer like a lot of pagans today.
But objectively speaking, the distance between "crazy" and "prophet" is much closer than the distance between "prophet" and "God". It seems wrong to say to those who deny the deity of Christ, "You are my brother".
Does someone who is already my brother need to change? This is the mentality that destroys the missions. Be the best ______ you already are and forget about conversion.
As a disclaimer, my previous post did not assume that any particular position was true. The intent was to show the degree of difference between positions and the folly of claiming brotherhood between those who deny the faith claims of the other. If I am brothers with those who deny my faith claims what does it mean to be my brother?
Everyone is my neighbor and I am happily obliged to love my neighbor as God does and for His sake. But not all neighbors are brothers.
Hi Ken and Rory,
Thanks much for your comments !!!
I am out of town until tomorrow afternoon, and when I get back, V and I have a birthday dinner to attend, so it will probably be Friday before I can respond.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Ken, so good to see you back !!!
@ Rory
Doctrine is meaningless---If I felt this way, I would not be a Muslim! However, consider how language functions---it divides into categories, ....definitions exclude. So when we speak of the Divine, we have to keep in mind the limitations of language. Our labels of Christian and Muslim divide us---that is the purpose of labels. But, there is a concept that goes beyond language that can unite us---and that is the concept of One God.
Yes we have different concepts of God---but when we go to our sacred places to pray, your prayers and my prayers are received by the ONE God. The blessings and trials we all are allowed in life are by the same ONE Compassionate, Merciful God.
We can choose to focus on our labels which will differentiate and divide us. Perhaps this way of thinking may bring comfort to some. There is another way too. To focus our attention beyond the limitations of language to the One God.
So how we move forward in acknowledging our brotherhood while remaining faithful to our convictions?
---by moving away from language and engaging in conduct/actions.
Consider---two brothers in a family---both acknowledge they are from the same Parents---though they may have different opinions on a variety of issues. They both help and encourage each other to be good people and do good to all around them.
Likewise, we can all work together to alleviate the injustice,and suffering of the members of our human family and share the blessings that God provides us with. Our conduct is the best reflection of our convictions.
Hi Ken,
On Wednesday, you posted:
==David,
Muslims and Islam itself dogmatically asserts that the Trinity or Triune God of the Bible is not true.==
Me: Correct, and I affirmed this in my opening post:
>>More often than not, the negative reponses revolved around the premise that if one rejects "the" doctrine of the Trinity, then one worships a different God; and since Muslims reject "the" doctrine of the Trinity, then by default, they worship a different God. But, I am firmly convinced that the above premise is severely flawed; and this, because of two very important issues. First, if the above premise were true, then Jesus and the Jews of his day worshipped a different God; and second, the vast majority of Christians (all ???) prior to Augustine worshipped a different God.>>
==Muslims and Christians cannot be worshiping the same God by definition, since Islam rejects the Deity of Christ, the eternal Sonship of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, etc.==
Me: I think you are missing the broader issue here Ken. Did the Jesus and the Jews of his day worship a different God than Augustine, many modern day Christians, and Muslims ???
==Your argument is based on semantics and language, it seems to me. You are woodenly holding to an exact statement of "the one true God" as the Father only, based on your understanding of John 5:44 and I think, I Cor. 8:6 and John 17:3 and Ephesians 4:6; and not allowing that the Son and the Holy Spirit is doctrinally and logically included in those verses, even though they don't explicitly say that. That was the whole reason why they had those debates for 451 years - to figure out how those verses harmonized with the others about the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.==
Me: Once again, much broader issues are involved beyond your defense of Augustinian/Latin Trinitarianism. My position avoids logical inconsistencies and the twisting of Biblical and early Church Fathers language.
==Your wooden way of looking at those verses seems to come from your Jehovah's Witness background; since they and others who think that way, say things like "the word Trinity is not found in Holy Scripture, therefore it is rejected", etc. You seem to be applying that same kind of woodenness to this issue also in your "Monarachy of the Father" view.==
Me: Wrong, it comes from my reading of the early Church Fathers.
==But even that logically leads to Augustine and Calvin's view of the Trinity, since there is only one God and the categories of substance/nature/essence vs. person do not contradict each other and explain the harmonization of all the verses together.==
Me: Wrong again, it leads me to a much more Eastern Orthodox view.
==I am wondering why you are so intent upon some how making Islam as an acceptable religion/revelation?==
Me: Miroslav's Volf book answers that question much better than what I could produce in a combox.
Perhaps you should also be asking why a number of fellow Reformed folk brought up the question of whether or not Muslims worship the same God as Christians during General Assembly...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Rory,
I have pondering over your responses and am wondering how they 'fit' with certain statements made in Lumen Gentium and Nostra aetate. Those two documents seem to expand those who are 'brothers' to a much greater extent than you have been willing to do.
Have I 'missed' something ?
Grace and peace,
David
Dave, hi. In answer to your latest...
I support the recognition that there is a significant sense in which most Muslims and Christians believe in the same one God. This is not enough according to the references you are thinking about from the Second Vatican Council?
Before beginning a discussion of why I might be free as a Catholic to question a prudential decision or dogmatic proposal of the Council, I will do my best to consider the documents you have mentioned understanding them in continuity with what the Church has always taught.
I believe it is a loose usage of the term "brother" to apply it so widely as you think the Council has done. That is not to say that there could never be some use in employing the term in that way. Because every human being comes from a common father and mother, all men are my brothers. I insist upon this theological truth.
I agree with Lumen Gentium when it insists upon recognition of similarities we see between Catholics and others: "Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the people of God in various ways."
David, I am not attempting to minimize significant similarities. But I think there is good reason to use caution about affirming that all men, or even Jews, Muslims, and all Christians are brothers without qualification.
To be "related in various ways" seems to me to prudently recognize this difficulty. I have quoted the first sentence of Chapter Two, Paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium. The last sentence is also important. It reads: "Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature', takes zealous care to foster the missions. The context is not missions to atheists and witch doctrs. The context is missionary work directed toward those with whom we are "related in various ways".
Nostra Aetate speaks of our obligation of being good to all people, of seeing everyone as neighbour, going so far as to say that they should be treated in a "brotherly fashion". I believe this. I am obligated to love everyone. But if my "brother" is in error, especially in regards to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, love obliges a prudent attempt at correction rather than an overemphasis on a brotherhood that could be easily misunderstood by the parties involved and those who are only looking on.
While encouraging friendly interaction with other religions, Nostra Aetate insists that it should be with "prudence and charity". Of course. That prudence is called for is the assurance that there is danger of an imprudent approach. Paragraph 2 of this document tells us how we may know that any initiative at dialogue may have become imprudent. Immediately preceding the encouragement to dialogue, we read: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions...Yet she proclaims and is duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life. In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself, men find the fulness of their religious life." (para. 2)
This is why I insist upon a reserved and qualified sense in which I would say to those with whom I am "related in various ways" that we are brothers. If they are "brothers" who don't believe in Christ, prudent charity requires that while acknowledging what is good and agreeable in their religions, we cannot admit that they are fine as they are.
In my opinion, the questions you have raised are insufficiently precise. I can answer in the affirmative to the question about whether I am brothers with all men, and whether Jews and Muslims worship the same God as I do. My affirmative answer, although true, can be misleading. Do the Muslim and Jew worship the same God as I do without qualification? Are all men my brothers in an equally meaningful sense? To these questions, prudent charity regretfully replies in the negative.
Rory
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for your response. I ask that you forgive my somewhat tardy response, but I have been spending most of my 'free' time watching the Winter Olympics (I really like the speed and short-track skating, and the alpine events).
On the 8th, you posted:
==I support the recognition that there is a significant sense in which most Muslims and Christians believe in the same one God. This is not enough according to the references you are thinking about from the Second Vatican Council?==
Me: I would say that it is "not enough" in that you seem reticent to affirm that most Muslims and Christians also worship the same one God.
==I believe it is a loose usage of the term "brother" to apply it so widely as you think the Council has done. That is not to say that there could never be some use in employing the term in that way. Because every human being comes from a common father and mother, all men are my brothers. I insist upon this theological truth.==
Me: Of course, I too affirm the above.
==I agree with Lumen Gentium when it insists upon recognition of similarities we see between Catholics and others: "Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the people of God in various ways."
David, I am not attempting to minimize significant similarities. But I think there is good reason to use caution about affirming that all men, or even Jews, Muslims, and all Christians are brothers without qualification.==
Me: Understood.
==To be "related in various ways" seems to me to prudently recognize this difficulty. I have quoted the first sentence of Chapter Two, Paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium. The last sentence is also important. It reads: "Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature', takes zealous care to foster the missions. The context is not missions to atheists and witch doctrs. The context is missionary work directed toward those with whom we are "related in various ways".==
Me: I would like to suggest that you may be incorrect here. Note what LG states just before the command to, "preach the Gospel to every creature" we read:
>>But every often, decieved by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dyin in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, "preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:16) takes zealous care to foster missions.>> (Vatican Council II, General Editor Austin Flannery, 2nd ed., p. 368.)
I would argue, contra your view, that context that immediately precedes the command to "preach the Gospel to every creature" concerns "atheists and witch doctors."
cont'd
cont'd
==Nostra Aetate speaks of our obligation of being good to all people, of seeing everyone as neighbour, going so far as to say that they should be treated in a "brotherly fashion". I believe this. I am obligated to love everyone. But if my "brother" is in error, especially in regards to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, love obliges a prudent attempt at correction rather than an overemphasis on a brotherhood that could be easily misunderstood by the parties involved and those who are only looking on.==
Me: Agreed.
==While encouraging friendly interaction with other religions, Nostra Aetate insists that it should be with "prudence and charity". Of course. That prudence is called for is the assurance that there is danger of an imprudent approach. Paragraph 2 of this document tells us how we may know that any initiative at dialogue may have become imprudent. Immediately preceding the encouragement to dialogue, we read: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions...Yet she proclaims and is duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life. In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself, men find the fulness of their religious life." (para. 2)
This is why I insist upon a reserved and qualified sense in which I would say to those with whom I am "related in various ways" that we are brothers. If they are "brothers" who don't believe in Christ, prudent charity requires that while acknowledging what is good and agreeable in their religions, we cannot admit that they are fine as they are.==
Me: I think your position here is consistent with what a Catholic should espouse.
==In my opinion, the questions you have raised are insufficiently precise. I can answer in the affirmative to the question about whether I am brothers with all men, and whether Jews and Muslims worship the same God as I do. My affirmative answer, although true, can be misleading. Do the Muslim and Jew worship the same God as I do without qualification? Are all men my brothers in an equally meaningful sense? To these questions, prudent charity regretfully replies in the negative.==
Me: In my next thread, I will attempt to add some 'precision' as to why I believe children of the Abrahamic Faiths are in a different classification than "all men".
Grace and peace,
David
Hey Dave.
Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts.
I can make a clarification. You were correct in saying that preaching the gospel to all creatures includes atheists and witch doctors. I had said the following regarding whether Catholic missions should extend to Jew and Muslim: "The context is not missions to atheists and witch doctrs. The context is missionary work directed toward those with whom we are 'related in various ways'."
I accept your correction that missionary work would not exclude any non-Catholic. Were you suggesting that Muslim and Jew should be excluded?
I eagerly await your thoughts on how "children of the Abrahamic Faiths are in a different classification than 'all men'."
I accept the statement you make here but anticipate that you would probably mean more by it than I would at this time.
Thanks,
Rory
Perhaps you should also be asking why a number of fellow Reformed folk brought up the question of whether or not Muslims worship the same God as Christians during General Assembly…
Those folks are not saying the same thing you are implying. The motivation of those in the PCA is good; - for missions and contexualization (the Insider's Movement and C-5 issue is at the heart of this). But they take good contexualization (1 Cor. 9:19-23) too far. Doctrinally, they are not thinking consistently; and I can see how the missionaries and missiologists do that, until they are challenged by the logic of non-contradiction. The missiologists are arguing a linguistic concept and a referent issue (for example, Allah is still the best translation of Elohim in OT and Theos in NT and I agree. But doctrinally the God of the Bible is not the same god as the god in Islam.) Later revelation informs us of who Yaweh actually was in the OT - the Son and the Holy Spirit were always there from eternity past with the Father.
They also are looking at the Muslims who have never heard of the NT Jesus and revelation and they are calling out to the "one true Creator, eternal God, who created all things and is All powerful, all knowing, all wise, etc." - as Abdul Saleeb wrote in Answering Islam (with Norman Geisler), they are referring to the same referent, but they are ignorant of the content of the doctrine. Besides they cannot connect to the true God in prayer without Jesus as mediator (1 Tim. 2:5; John 14:6).
The missiologists are being naive and slopy in their thinking, but their motivation is good - it is to establish that there is only One God, on conversation and relationship; and they are hoping to eventually get to the Deity of Christ and Trinity issue, but they are using the Qur'an too much (as a starting point) and not getting to the NT soon enough and they imply the Qur'an is an inspired book, but extreme forms of it are re-interpreting the Qur'an(like you do with Surah 4:157 - they use the same sources and thinking- Joseph Cummings argues in the same way as Miroslov Volf argues the same way as Joseph Cummings does - they are the main authors also of the Evangelical Response to the Common Word - "Loving God and Neighbor". It seems that they are doing this in order to not offend, and to be able to establish a friendly relationship with Muslims, so that they can "get inot the same room and have discussions with them", because most areas of the Muslim world just deport you or imprison you or impose the death penalty (Sharia law of apostasy) when Christians preach the whole message too fast and converts are won and the Muslim cultures/countries/authorities react to that. There are different degrees of the Insider's Movement/ C-5 level of contextualization. I know all about that issue. I have written on it at Beggar's All.
These 3 articles, especially the last one, talk about the whole Contexualization controversy in missionary contexts, which is the background and contex for the PCA issue.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/common-questions-about-islam-and.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/03/another-mistake-by-ergun-caner.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/03/balance-of-apologetics-and-agape-love.html
Hi Ken,
You wrote:
==Those folks are not saying the same thing you are implying.=
A question for you: what do you think I was "implying" ?
Grace and peace,
Dave
You seem to imply something that will lead you to embrace Islam as revelation from God and Shi'ism and then Bahai'ism. (Unity of Monotheistic religions)
The PCA is just wrestling with contextualization in missionary contexts; they are not implying a unity of all monotheistic religions.
Hello again Ken,
Thanks much for responding; you wrote:
== You seem to imply something that will lead you to embrace Islam as revelation from God and Shi'ism and then Bahai'ism. (Unity of Monotheistic religions)==
Me: I went back and reread my opening post, and quite frankly, could not find anything therein that would lead one to such a conclusion.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment