Posted on 10/01/2014 9:18:18 PM PDT by bad company
Those who engage in debates on a regular basis know that the argument itself can easily shape the points involved. This is another way of saying that some debates should be avoided entirely since merely getting involved in them can be the road to ruin. There are a number of Christian scholars (particularly among the Orthodox) who think that the classical debates between Christians and Muslims during the Middle Ages had just such disastrous results for Christian thinking.
Now when engaging in religious debates it is all too easy to agree to things that might make for later problems. It is possible, for example, to agree to a comparison of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and the Book of the Quran. After all, Muslims have a holy book – Christians have a holy book. Why should we not debate whose holy book is better?
It is even possible to agree with the Muslim contention that Christians (and Jews) are “People of the Book.” Of course Muslims meant that Christians and Jews were people of an inferior book, but were somehow better than pagans. Again, it is possible, nevertheless, to let the matter ride and agree that Christians are “People of the Book.”
And it is also possible to give wide latitude to the Muslim claim that the most essential matter with regard to God is “Islam,” that is “submission.” After all, if God is the Lord of all creation, then how is submitting to Him, recognizing and accepting that He is God, not the most important thing?
But each of these proposals had disastrous results in the history of Christianity and may very well be the source of a number of modern distortions within the Christian faith.
Thus, at the outset I will state:
The Bible is not the Christian Holy Book. Christians (and Jews) are not People of the Book. Submission to God is not a proper way to describe the Christian faith Further, any and all of these claims, once accepted, lead to fundamental distortions of Christianity. An extreme way of saying this is that much of modern Christianity has been “Islamified.” Thinking critically about this is important – particularly in an era of renewed contact with Islam.
The Historical Debates
Most modern Christians are unaware of the contacts and debates between Christianity (particularly in the West) and Islam (particularly in Spain) during the Middle Ages. A great deal of the learning in early European Universities, especially in the model of scholasticism, owed much to the encounter with Islam scholasticism – this was especially so for the work with Aristotelean philosophy. Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars, such as Thomas Aquinas, Moses Maimonides, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), are foundational for Medieval thought. (Averroes is sometimes called the “Founding Father of Western secularism“). But the rationalist movement represented by these schools had lasting effects in the Christian West – not all for the best.
The notion of the Scripture as the Book whose place and authority in Christian life are similar to the Quran in Islamic life is one such idea. Islam has no Church – no one stands between the believer and Allah. There are communities, to be sure, but not in the necessary form of classical Christianity. The exaltation of the sovereignty of God and the working of the Divine Will (predestination) are hallmarks of Muslim thought. They eventually become hallmarks within certain forms of Christian scholasticism.
The Protestant Reformation is rightly described as a product of Christian scholasticism. Other historical forces shaped it, but it is worth noting that Luther, Calvin and their like were all “schoolmen.” Their ideas, particularly in Calvin, were largely absent prior to the Medieval dialogs with Islamic scholasticism. It is not that the Reformers borrowed directly from Islam – but that Islam contributed certain key notions that have, in time, become foundational for certain segments of contemporary Christianity.
The Bible is not the Christian Holy Book
As I have recently written, the Bible is properly seen as the Holy Scriptures, a collection of writings that span some 1500 years or more. They represent a variety of genres, address very different situations and understandings of God, and lastly (in the case of the New Testament) represent the internal documents of the primitive Christian community. Christians treat these books as inspired, though there are some books not included, or only included by some Christians, that are also recognized as having a case for inspiration.
The Christian Scriptures are books (particularly in the Old Testament) that have a unique history of interpretation. Christians and Jews, traditionally, do not read these books in the same manner. In such a sense, they do not possess an “objective” meaning. Indeed, Christian Fathers have recognized more than one meaning being present in the text.
The Christian community predates its own texts (the New Testament) and is not described as in any way having a foundation on the Scriptures – the Apostles and Prophets are described as the foundation of the Church. And though the Tradition does not describe the Scriptures as somehow inferior to the Church, neither do they consider the Scriptures to exist apart from the Church. They are the Church’s book.
In short, the place of the Scriptures within Christianity are utterly unlike the place of the Quran in Islam. Any confusion on this point is a distortion of the Scriptures.
We are not People of the Book
Christians are not baptized into the Bible. Jews were circumcised and made part of the Covenant people before ever a word of Scripture was written. God revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob some hundreds of years before Moses ever wrote a line.
Christians may rightly see Islam as an ersatz version of Christianity – an attempt to create a rival to meet the peculiar needs and desires of the man, Muhammed. The Quran is Muhammed’s distorted idea of the role played by a “book” in the life of Christianity and Judaism. It is his attempt to create a rival. But this book, unlike any writing or utterance of a Biblical prophet, came with new claims. The Quran is what a misinformed desert preacher thought the Christian and Jewish holy books looked like. It is a poor substitute and a caricature of those writings. In this sense, the Quran is more akin to the Book of Mormon, a fabrication that tells what Upstate New York con-men thought an ancient religious book should look like. It tells us much about the mind of 19th century Upstate New York, but nothing about God. The Quran tells us about the perception of a 7th century Arabian merchant, but nothing about God.
It is thus a supreme religious irony that such a misperception should have changed how Christians saw their own sacred texts. But, it can be argued, this is indeed the case. The movement from authoritative Church to authoritative book that occurs over the 15th and 16th centuries (the Protestant Reformation), should not be considered apart from the dialog with Islam in the two or three centuries that preceded it. It is worth noting that scholasticism in the West was largely begun in Andalusian Islam. It was not a natural development from within. Scholasticism was ultimately rejected in the Christian East.
Martin Luther’s, “Hier, stehe ich!” (demanding that only a Scriptural argument would be an acceptable response to his position) would have been unimaginable four or five hundred years before. The “Bible” had not yet become a Christian Quran. Today, however, many Christians are indeed, “People of the Book.”
Christianity is not submission to God
On the face of it, denying that Christianity is submission to God seems ludicrous. Surely, if God is truly God, then submission to Him is the only proper response. But submission is not a word that passes the lips of Christ. His invitation to become a child of the Father is not a demand to submit to the Supreme Being. It is why there can be no conversion at the point of a sword in Christianity, and why conversions at the point of a sword have never ceased in Islam. (Such conversions have indeed occurred in Christian history – but have been later subjected to deep criticism and condemnation).
The question placed in Christian Baptism (Orthodox) is: “Do you unite yourself to Christ?” This is the language of union, reflecting St. Paul’s teaching that Baptism is union with the death and resurrection of Christ. The modern Evangelical phrase, “Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?” has more in common with Muslim submission. For there need be no union implied in the question – many who have become Christians under the guise of this question have no perception of union whatsoever.
Obedience to the gospel is, in critically important ways, not at all the same thing as submission. In proper Christian understanding, obedience is a cooperative action, a synergy between God and believer. As such, it is part of the eternal dance of union between Creator and created. Submission (particularly as taught in Islam) contains no synergy – it is the recognition of a force that can only move in one direction. It is the diminution of the human person, even its obliteration. Obedience, rightly understood, is an invitation into true Personhood – and, strangely, the beginning of true freedom.
Classical Christianity exalts the dignity of the human person and proclaims a gospel that unites humankind to God. The proclamation of Christ’s Lordship, though derived from Christian teaching, can easily become a distortion that takes on the submission demands of classical Islam. I have seen such a Christianity. It is not a pleasant place to dwell.
Contemporary Christianity needs to come to its historic senses and reexamine its various distortions of the gospel. Christ is not a cypher for Allah – they are nothing alike. The fullness of Christian distinctives is required in our present confrontation with Islam. The Bible is not the Christian Quran. It is nothing like it. Being able to articulate this is essential. Christians are the Body of Christ and not People of the Book. The absence of a true ecclesiology in contemporary Christianity is a hallmark of its Islamification. The call to relationship with God in Christ, true union in the Divine Life of the Triune God, must be rightly proclaimed and taught among Christians. We have centuries of unthinking to do if we are to reclaim the wholeness of the Christian faith and speak truth to error.
I’ve read it. Nowhere does it say to bury the dead. As should be obvious by the fact that they did not (always) bury the dead.
I see a lot of folks post stuff without benefit of the Greek.
I am guessing you made that up since we know the bible meaning of the bible word, Saviour...Savious means deliverer...
And if we connect the Old Testament word Savior we get a full definition...We are delivered from something and we are delivered to something...
Saviour
ישׁע
yâsha‛
yaw-shah'
A primitive root; properly to be open, wide or free, that is, (by implication) to be safe; causatively to free or succor: - X at all, avenging, defend, deliver (-er), help, preserve, rescue, be safe, bring (having) salvation, save (-iour), get victory.
Jesus is a 'full service' Saviour...
So yes, Mary knew she needed a Saviour just like we do...Somehow, Catholics don't need a Saviour as the article clearly implies...Good luck with that...
That would be true, to a Jew...The OT doesn't mention much about the Gentile church... The O.T. gives numerous prophecies about Jesus and there is not a single one that failed to come true...Historically...There are still some to be fulfilled but if the record stays true, we can count on them happening...
That not only separates those other religions you spoke of from Christianity, but that alone is a pretty good reason to take a serious look at the New Testament...
This may be so for Protestantism but not for Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Our faith is based on the testimony of the Apostles as it has been handed down by the Church. These men gave their lives for what they witnessed. They were commissioned by Jesus Christ as the first leaders of a living and visible church empowered by the Holy Spirit. This divinely established church continues today under the pastoral leadership of the pope (for Catholics, not the Orthodox) and the bishops. It is by the authority of the Church that the validity and inspiration of the Scriptures is received. This is the point that the (Orthodox) author was trying to make when he says that Christians are not People of the Book. He is also implying that the Protestant reduction of the faith to being a "People of the Book" is a distortion introduced from Islam.
I try to adhere to Judaism too. But you wouldn’t blanket condemn Christianity, would you?
No way the Jews could have founded the United States by themselves.
Lev_26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
Lev_26:1 Ye shall makeH6213 you noH3808 idolsH457 nor graven image,H6459 neitherH3808 rear you upH6965 a standing image,H4676 neitherH3808 shall ye set upH5414 any imageH4906 of stoneH68 in your land,H776 to bow downH7812 untoH5921 it: forH3588 IH589 am the LORDH3068 your God.H430
A graven image...
פּסל
pesel
peh'-sel
From H6458; an idol: - carved (graven) image.
Hmmmm...A carved graven image is an idol...
Standing image
מצּבה
matstsêbâh
mats-tsay-baw'
Feminine (causative) participle of H5324; something stationed, that is, a column or (memorial stone); by analogy an idol: - garrison, (standing) image, pillar.
This one's an idol as well...
any image
משׂכּית
maśkı̂yth
mas-keeth'
From the same as H7906; a figure (carved on stone, the wall, or any object); figuratively imagination: - conceit, image (-ry), picture, X wish.
No doubt about it...if you make it with your hands and bow down to it, it's an idol...
Savior: I’m seeing among those: “to cause to be safe,” “to free or succor;” “help, preserve,” “rescue,” “defend.” That’s a lot of synonyms that don’t mean to restore. And “deliver” is only one of fourteen, and even that doesn’t mean anything like, “restore,” “repair,” etc. In absolutely none of those is there any sense of something which was lost being returned. In fact, `
Catholics, on the other hand, are baptized following the Minor Rite of Exorcism, because, unlike Mary, we are not born sinless. And the article implies nothing otherwise.
Where did you come up with that bit of misinformation?
That is not true at all.
When Evangelical Christians say *savior* they mean *savior*, one who saves. Not a restorer, or rehabilitator or a renovator.
We don't need something to fix something that's partly broken. We need something that rescues us completely from total destruction.
We're not the ones who think that we're good enough that adding our good works to faith will result in salvation.
That's the territory of Catholics.
Anyone who thinks that way really would be better suited with a works based religion like Catholicism, rather than a faith based saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ.I don't know an Evangelical Christian who isn't aware of their totally depravity, that in our heart dwells no good thing and that no man can come to Jesus unless the Holy Spirit draws him.
In King James, in Genesis 37:10, the word for “bow” (shachah) is translated as “worshipped” 99 times! 17 times it is translated as “make obeisance.” That’s what you shall not do to any image of stone: worship it, or obey it. To say that a Catholic worships a statue is preposterous. For comparison, the pagan priests credited golden statues with wills of their own; Daniel, for one, needed to prove that the statues were mere rock. The pagan places themselves in service of the idol; the Catholic joins the Saint in service of God.
Lowering one’s head in prayer is “qadad.” Frequently, the bible makes two separate verbs out of “lowered his head (qadad) and worshipped” because these are two separate actions.
In this very context, the person I was responding to was suggesting that the fact that Mary needed a savior meant she had fallen. I was arguing that no restoration was needed. If you don’t believe that Mary had fallen, great!
That source tells the truth. What evidence do you have that Luther EVER questioned 2,3 John and 2 Peter? Plus, as the source I gave you stated, Luther did not "defame" any of the New testament books. What you keep oddly leaving out is that Luther was FAR from the only one who considered the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books as non-canonical - not as Divinely-inspired Scripture. He had plenty of company both in the early church as well as Roman Catholics leaders going into Trent. Would you like a link to that documentation as well?
None needed. Contrary to your assertion, I referenced that in my original post. Although I would hardly call 2 out of hundreds, “plenty.” The purpose of an ecumenical synod is to reach a consensus through argumentation and reason. there is no need for an ecumenical synod if such a consensus already exists. Indeed, several key Catholic doctrines were infallible because the pope found a consensus already existing (against abortion, for the immaculate conception, for the assumption of Mary, etc.)
Since you have continued to assert the outright ludicrous assertion that Luther merely “questioned” what has become known as “Luther’s Antilegomena,” here’s what Luther wrote in his own bible, to say nothing of his response to the Catholic refutation of his claim that the particular Catholic doctrines were not found in scripture. You tell me if they sound like he was open to the idea that they were in fact canonical:
“I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow:
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works... He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. “
“My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.”
“these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” (Note: this is is contrast with Luther’s emphasis that ALL of scripture is necessary for doctrine.)
As for Luther’s rejection of 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John, these are admittedly less clear that he rejected their canonicity. He did not enumerate his reasons for rejecting them. But he left out 2 Peter and all 3 letters of John when enumerating the New Testament works which “show us Christ” and are needed for doctrine. And he bases the legitimacy of his opposition to Hebrews, Revelations, James and Jude on their omission by certain ancient sources, which also exclude 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John.
While Luther included the NT deuterocanonicals, or Antilegomena, in a seperate section of the bible, out of order, and with disparaging notes that they were not authentic, subsequent Lutherans published bibles completely removing them, including Jacob Lucius, J Vogt, and Gustavus Adolphus. It wasn’t until the alliance between Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists that bibles excluding the Antilegomena were rejected by Lutheran churches.
But yet you bow down to and pray to these statues...Like you say, the bible calls it worship, you say that's preposterous...
Why would one reject the bible's position/definition and accept yours???
If you think Catholics pray to statues, there’s no point writing another word to you.
Have witnessed it numerous times...
But in the RC fantasy of unity under sola ecclesia, differences btwn EOs and Rome are marginalized, but beyond the kisses are substantial odds, with no less than papal infalliblity - upon which Rome rises or fall - being rejected by EOs. Among other things.
Thus such warnings as,
A fatal heresy, increasing in prevalence today, directly counters these instructions that St. Paul commands us to follow. This heresy appears not to divide the church, but rather unite it; it appears to be loving, accepting and good. But this is not the case - what it really does is undermine the foundations of the Church and tear it apart internally, allowing for innovations and changes in traditions and practice, putting physical unity above truth, and preparing for the antichrist. It is the heresy of ecumenism, a terrible and false teaching as deceitful and destructive as a wolf in sheep's clothing...
there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago...
The ecumenical patriarch and the pope have prayed and worshipped side by side in services. There are Orthodox who fully consider the Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ. With this disregard for the importance of theology, practice is diminished, fasting is often not observed, and the rigor of the Christian life is rarely taught, and the list goes on and on. - http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html
And from the Roman side are mutual feelings:
As the reader is aware, there exist powerful demonic forces operating within the Church attempting to dissolve every truth of our faith of its substantial nature and concise doctrinal formulation. Such efforts are an attempt to destroy Christ Himself. A
Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation. Finally, and very crucially, they embrace radically different views of the final destiny of man. In this respect they both employ the concept of "deification", but possess very different understandings of what this term signifies.
Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. - http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii
But both are a manifestation of the deformation of the NT church , which needs much more reformation.
It is not that the Reformers borrowed directly from Islam – but that Islam contributed certain key notions that have, in time, become foundational for certain segments of contemporary Christianity. The Bible is not the Christian Holy Book... The movement from authoritative Church to authoritative book that occurs over the 15th and 16th centuries (the Protestant Reformation), should not be considered apart from the dialog with Islam in the two or three centuries that preceded it. .
..Martin Luther’s, “Hier, stehe ich!” (demanding that only a Scriptural argument would be an acceptable response to his position) would have been unimaginable four or five hundred years before. The “Bible” had not yet become a Christian Quran. Today, however, many Christians are indeed, “People of the Book.”
That is absurd and as valid as saying that since the devil quoted from the Bible - slightly misrendering it -as authoritative in Mt. 4, then the Lord adopted this idea of a book as supreme from the devil! Which explains why He so often referenced Scripture and established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation, which even miracles were part of.
If Christianity was not a religion of a book, why did the preaching of the church rely upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power to establish it, and reference the OT about 250 times?
What not just quote oral tradition and not reprove ignorance of Scripture?
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said.. (Mark 7:9,10)
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:44-46)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)
I think this "father" reads little of the Bible, and instead the centrality of "that which is written being borrowed from Islam, the latter is simply the devil is again using a text (from an oral tradition as authoritative), as Christ did, but this time it is a text later written which partly depends upon misrendering Bible texts again, as the devil knows where the power lies.
The Christian community predates its own texts (the New Testament) and is not described as in any way having a foundation on the Scriptures
What blindness! It is easily shown that the Lord and His apostles and the NT church established their oral and written Truth claims upon what was written. href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial ">Go thru the NT and see Thus while oral tradition preceded some of what was later written, it was dependent upon conformity with it.
The exaltation of the sovereignty of God and the working of the Divine Will (predestination) are hallmarks of Muslim thought. They eventually become hallmarks within certain forms of Christian scholasticism.
More nonsense, as by this logic the Psalmist and Paul were influenced by Islam:
But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. (Psalms 115:3)
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:8)
Jews were circumcised and made part of the Covenant people before ever a word of Scripture was written. God revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob some hundreds of years before Moses ever wrote a line.
Indeed, and souls were thus not as accountable as after the giving of the Law, as to whomsoever much is given (grace), much shall be required. (LK. 12:48) And the Lord revealed Himself thru nature and men of God with supernatural attestation, most supremely thru His Law-giver Moses, the man of God.
But as the written word appeared, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Christianity is not submission to God.. His invitation to become a child of the Father is not a demand to submit to the Supreme Being. It is why there can be no conversion at the point of a sword in Christianity,
Here a false dilemma is employed, yet to confess the Lord Jesus is a confession of submission, but which does not mean compelled such as under Rome's "coercive jurisdiction." . How one can have Christ as Lord and not indicating submission may be modern, but it is not Biblical.
The absence of a true ecclesiology in contemporary Christianity is a hallmark of its Islamification.
Which is neither an infallible perpetuated papal office nor EO "priests," both of which are contrary to Scripture, and thus the attempt to marginalize Scripture and elevate men "above that which is written."
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1 Corinthians 4:6)
This gibberish does nothing but prove exactly how little the Papists think of God’s word.
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.