Posted on 03/26/2013 6:56:09 AM PDT by NYer
Last week, Pope Francis received a collection of world religious leaders in his first ecumenical and interreligious event. His address to them contained diplomatic niceties and specific expressions of good will aimed at Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims.
His remarks to the latter recognized that Muslims “worship the one living and merciful God, and call upon him in prayer.” In this he echoed the 1964 dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, which gave a nod to “the Mohammedans, 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.”
Now, both Lumen Gentium 16 and Pope Francis’s words have a pastoral rather than doctrinal purpose. Their aim is to build interreligious bridges by generously acknowledging whatever can be found to be true in other faiths—not to make precise pronouncements about their theology. That said, Lumen Gentium is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, and even casual statements from a pope (be it this one from Francis or similar ones made by his predecessors) shouldn’t be taken lightly.
So, what does it mean to say that Muslims adore the one God along with us—to say, as can be reasonably drawn from these statements, that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics? We can consider the idea in several senses.
I think we can say with confidence that any monotheist who calls out to the Lord is heard by the Lord, whether it’s a Muslim, a pagan philosopher seeking the God of reason, or a Native American petitioning the Great Spirit. As Lumen Gentium 16 continues, God is not “far distant from those who in shadows and images seek [him].”
Likewise I think we’re on solid ground in saying that the subjective intention of Muslims is to worship the one God—moreover, the one God from the line of Abrahamic revelation. Whether or not their version of that revelation is authentic or correct, that’s what they “profess to hold” to. Furthermore, some of the attributes of the God to whom they address their worship are comparable to the Christian God’s: He is one, merciful, omnipotent, and the judge of the world.
Just as clearly, though, we cannot say that the God in whom Muslims profess to believe is theologically identical to the Christian God. For the most obvious example, their God is a “lonely God,” as Chesterton put it, whereas ours is a Trinity of persons. Beyond that difference, in the divine economy our Gods are also quite different: most pointedly in that ours took human nature to himself and dwelt among us on earth, whereas the Muslim God remains pure transcendence. To Muslims the idea of an incarnation is blasphemy.
And so perhaps we can distinguish between worship of God and belief in him, the former being more about the intent of the worshiper and the latter being more about the object of belief himself. Thus could Gerhard Müller, bishop emeritus of Regensburg and since last year the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, assert in 2007 that Muslims and Christians “do not believe in the same God,” and yet not contradict any magisterial teaching.
Of course, Jews believe in an utterly transcendent and “lonely” God, too; the idea that Jesus was God’s son, Yahweh incarnate, was likewise blasphemous to the Jews of his day. Is their theology as deficient as Islam’s? Ought we to put them in the same category as Muslims: subjectively worshiping the one God but believing in him, as least partly, in error?
Well, at least one difference suggests itself. Muslims “profess” to hold to the faith of Abraham but really don’t; their version of Abrahamic faith is false. (Of course, they believe that our version is the false one, a corruption of the Qur’an.) Jews, on the other hand, know and believe in their God according to his authentic self-revelation—what they have received from him is true, just incomplete. To be fully true, Jewish theology just needs to be perfected by Christian revelation, whereas, although we can identify many truths in it, Islamic theology needs to be broken down, corrected, rebuilt from an authentic foundation.
Now, it can be a bad practice to judge ideas by their sources. But if, as Benedict XVI has said, faith is at root a personal encounter with God, then the authenticity of God’s personal revelation of himself is of the utmost importance. In other words, the source of God-knowledge becomes the very question. We worship and believe in God because and to the extent that we know him. And we know him, above all other reasons, according to how he revealed himself to us.
In this sense, then, I suggest that we can correctly say that Jews worship and believe in a God who is qualitatively truer, closer to the God of Christianity, than the God of Islam. Both Jews and Muslims lay claim to the same revelation, but where Jews have an accurate record of it (and thus of the God it reveals) Muslims have a fictionalized adaptation.
This question of the theological similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam is perhaps more important than it ever has been. With religious folk of all kinds increasingly beset by secularism and moral relativism, we look across creedal lines for friends and allies—comrades-in-arms in the fight for unborn life, traditional marriage and morality, religious rights, and a continued place for believers in the cultural conversation. It can be an encouragement and a temptation, then, to look at Islam and see not warriors of jihad against Arab Christians and a decadent West, but fellow-soldiers of an “ecumenical jihad” against an anti-theist culture.
Can Islam be that reliable ally? (Shameless product plug alert.) That’s the subject of the newest book from Catholic Answers Press: Not Peace but a Sword by Robert Spencer. The evidence he presents will help us understand Islam’s God more clearly, and make us examine more shrewdly the prospects for any future alliance with followers of the Prophet.
“I understand this is what you believe, others believe differently...how would one go about proving or disproving any beliefs?”
Nothing in this present world shall “prove” anything to those that have eyes but will not see. The Bible contains non-human wisdom as proof of its divine origins. The final proof will be revealed beyond the grave when it is too late for second chances.
You imply that God is NOT objective reality? Are you absolutely sure of that?
The intended meanings of the author, God, is what matters.
If a human misunderstands and leads himself into a lie, God will be his judge.
The completed Bible has been studied for nearly 2,000 years by ordained scholars.
Most of the current crop of false interpretations have their roots in, for lack of a better word, wackos from the past 200 years. Their views were rejected roundly in their day, but over the years they built up followings. Nowadays, the mainstream denominations have fallen into apostasy; the influence of false doctrine was accepted by them.
Everyone today wants their own “interpretation” to everything - logic has flown out the window for many people. Every math student thinks he will solve a 2,000 year old math problem, even though it’s been worked on by scholars for 2,000 years. Everyone thinks they will come up with something new.
I am a programmer, I’ve seen this for 20 years - many people have not got a clue, but want what they “feel” to be actually true even though it’s not. It’s tiresome, like dealing with a wilful child.
All can talk, but who can listen and learn without answering back ?
Tiresome.
But the Bible describes ALL of this.
Ecclesiastes 1
“1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.”
For those who want to seriously study (not make up their own wrong ideas), the Bible is available all over; so no one has an excuse.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%201&version=KJV
Grace and Peace be unto you.
ok, thanks...but how do you, a human, know what non-human wisdom is, or that there are no second chances?
Of course not.
Has there ever been a public anathema against the beliefs and practicioners of Islam from the Catholic Church? We Reformers got one, so why not the Muslims? I guess Muslims and Catholics have so many beliefs in common, that theirs don't rise to the level of categorical, public, "no tolerance" condemnations of Islam, such as Protestants received at the Councils of Trent.
Don’t some people get different meanings from the Bible than others?
Yes, some are correct, others are incorrect.
I think that a Catholic would respond that the Protestants were in possession of truth but rejected it. They would argue that Muslims have “invincible ignorance” of the Gospel.
As a Christian who is not of the Roman Catholic faith, I don’t hold to that first interpretation, by the way. Of course, I think that the Catholic Church now recognizes Protestants as separated brethren, not as condemned heretics.
I’m guessing you’re among those that are correct.
Let me know when a new church council rescinds and repents of the "anathemas" proclaimed in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Sessions of Trent.
“ok, thanks...but how do you, a human, know what non-human wisdom is”
For you, I don’t imagine that I can give a short satisfactory answer. I can only suggest you compare the Bible against human religions and philosophies to decide for yourself. Someone once said that “Man couldn’t write the Bible if he would, and wouldn’t if he could”. I think there is some validity to that, because mankind generally rebels at God’s way and wants religion their way.
“or that there are no second chances?”
That comes by faith from reading. It all ultimately comes down to faith and there won’t be a definitive proof of that faith until beyond death. We will all see who walked the right paths on Judgement Day — or not, according to some.
I’m not asking to find out what non-human wisdom is, I’m asking how you know. I didn’t think you’d be able to give any answer, thanks.
It all comes down to faith, which can be very different from one individual to another.
If there is an infinite series of movers, then they should generate an infinite series of movements.
To prove that an infinite series of finite (i.e. non-prime) movers is capable of producing all possible movements, it is necessary to go beyond the movers to demonstrate the infinite completeness of their movements.
You neglected to ask whether everyone or anyone has a complete, perfect knowledge of Scripture, the answer to which is no.
I am familiar with the basics, but my knowledge of Scripture is quite limited, actually. I have a long, long way to go.
Almost all of what I know I learned from what amounts to commentary by various scholars. As Scripture says we should, I took every concept presented, with the Scripture proof references, and went back to the Bible, reading the entire chapter of the reference in context, bearing in mind my then current understanding of the whole of Biblical teaching (the rest of Scripture), to see if what the commentary said made sense and did not conflict with anything else. Of course, in the beginning, not knowing basic principles, this was a laborious process, and even now it still is.
I can’t claim any boast on my part.
It is better not to feed the beast, the beast does not want conversation.
That said, the following verses seem to preclude salvation except through belief in Jesus Christ. If you disagree, I like to hear your argument. If you just disbelieve them, there is nothing more to say. If you feel they are open to other interpretation, have at it.
Mark 16:16
Luke 8:12
John 3:17,17
John 10:9
Acts 2:21
Acts 4:12 check this one for sure
Romans 10:9
1 Corinthians 1:18
Romans 1:16
1 Thessalonians 5:9
2 Timothy 2:10
2 Timothy 3:15
Hebrews 2:3
Hebrews 5:9
Hebrews 9:28
So. To answer you, No, I do not believe that there is any Way to salvation except by Jesus Christ. If God has made an exception for those that are sincerely trying to find Him, but for some reason do not come to Christ before death, that is His business, and I can only praise His infinite mercy.
But how many people are actually trying to find the God that Is, rather than one made in their own image, and tolerant towards their favorite sins?
You are so right.
Pope Francis needs to get a pair...fast!
You said you learned it from Aquinas. Aquinas said there cannot be an infinite series of movers or causes. I asked why you agreed with him.
woof
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.