Is the God of Christianity and Islam the Same?

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='musturde' date='Jan 16 2006, 09:34 PM']Are you still sick? If so, I pray you get a fast recovery. It's nice to see you around too.
[right][snapback]858323[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'd send you a PM but I'm not entitled to that privilege .

Unfortunately I will never recover. I have Crohn's disease which is an immune disorder that will slowly eat up my intestines for the rest of my life. It has taken a while adjusting to it, but I have confidence that through this God will enable me to serve Him better. As I have been studying from Lamentations lately pain is never impersonal and should not be left as 'coincidental occurances'. Sin is the cause on one level or another and it should help drive us to a closer walk with God.

I have wondered on occasion how your family is doing in Lebanon. I hope they are doing well still? I haven't heard much in the way of news in that area in quite a while since Syria started their pull-out.

[musturde]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jan 16 2006, 08:50 PM']I'd send you a PM but I'm not entitled to that privilege  .

Unfortunately I will never recover.  I have Crohn's disease which is an immune disorder that will slowly eat up my intestines for the rest of my life.  It has taken a while adjusting to it, but I have confidence that through this God will enable me to serve Him better.  As I have been studying from Lamentations lately pain is never impersonal and should not be left as 'coincidental occurances'.  Sin is the cause on one level or another and it should help drive us to a closer walk with God.

I have wondered on occasion how your family is doing in Lebanon.  I hope they are doing well still?  I haven't heard much in the way of news in that area in quite a while since Syria started their pull-out.
[right][snapback]858333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm sorry, just remember that God holds those who suffer close to him. You'll be suffering just as he suffered and he'll be by your side through it all. I'll be praying for you. My family in Lebanon is doing fine. I appreciate your concern. One of the bombing a while ago was near them but besides that, they've all been well. The political conditions are kind of crazy but very hopeful.

[Guest JeffCR07]

It is interesting to me that [i]I[/i] am being accused of not holding fast to supernatural revelation, when I am the only person in this discussion to refer to the infallible declarations of the Nicean Council, which, guided by the Holy Spirit, speaks authoritatively on the revelation of God with regards to the Trinity.

The fact is, if anyone objects to the "words" that I use when talking about the Trinity, then they are objecting to the words used by the fathers of that infallible, ecumenical Council, and we have come to an impasse. I will not leave behind the terminology that the fathers felt was so critical in being able to speak properly about the Trinity.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 17 2006, 12:27 PM']It is interesting to me that [i]I[/i] am being accused of not holding fast to supernatural revelation, when I am the only person in this discussion to refer to the infallible declarations of the Nicean Council, which, guided by the Holy Spirit, speaks authoritatively on the revelation of God with regards to the Trinity.

The fact is, if anyone objects to the "words" that I use when talking about the Trinity, then they are objecting to the words used by the fathers of that infallible, ecumenical Council, and we have come to an impasse. I will not leave behind the terminology that the fathers felt was so critical in being able to speak properly about the Trinity.
[right][snapback]858539[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Jeff is correct in this debate. One might have different opinions about a substance but that doesn't change the substance in itself. Just because the Arians had a mistaken Trinitarian theology that doesn't mean that they did not worship that same God as the Catholics. If I have two friends and one knows me better or worse one gives a false description of me than doesn't mean I am two different people for my two different friends: one corresponding to the correct description and one corresponding to the fallacy. Its true that the Muslim view of God is wrong but they are not speaking of a different substance.

[Circle_Master]

You keep using the word substance as if it has magical properties or something. From what I gather, your definition of substance is this: Whatever similarity exists between all world religions. My own definition of substance is this: The culmination of your understanding of God based on all general revelation and all special revelation.

From your own logic it would seem appropriate to say that polytheists are also just 'misguided' whereas they are a little confused about the 'oneness' but might have the right idea.

[Theoketos]

C_M I have a tremendous respect for your academic honesty and charity.

Keep in mind what Sait Paul did and said in Acts 17:

[quote] 22
    Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: 6 "You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.
23
    For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.' 7 What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.
24
    The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands,
25
    nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything.
26
    He made from one 8 the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions,
27
    so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us.
28
    For 'In him we live and move and have our being,' 9 as even some of your poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.'
29
    Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination.
30
    God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he demands that all people everywhere repent
31
    because he has established a day on which he will 'judge the world with justice' through a man he has appointed, and he has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead."
32
    When they heard about resurrection of the dead, some began to scoff, but others said, "We should like to hear you on this some other time."
33
    And so Paul left them.[/quote]

The desire to worship God is inscribed on every man's heart. But those that knowing reject are the ones that Paul left.

[Circle_Master]

edit: deleted for lack of clarity

Edited January 17, 2006 by Circle_Master

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jan 17 2006, 10:16 AM']You keep using the word substance as if it has magical properties or something.  From what I gather, your definition of substance is this: Whatever similarity exists between all world religions.  My own definition of substance is this: The culmination of your understanding of God based on all general revelation and all special revelation.

From your own logic it would seem appropriate to say that polytheists are also just 'misguided' whereas they are a little confused about the 'oneness' but might have the right idea.
[right][snapback]858673[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Neither of these two definitions of "substance" are even remotely similar to what philosophers throughout all of history have meant by the term. The Catholic Encyclopedia says of susbtance: [quote]Substance, the first of Aristotle's categories, signifies being as existing in and by itself, and serving as a subject or basis for accidents and accidental changes. [/quote]. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has this to say about substance: [quote]The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’.[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jan 17 2006, 01:04 PM']What defines in your mind how much must be agreeable to be of a 'proper amount of substance' to be the same God?
[right][snapback]858721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What can be known by reason. St. Paul expounds on this in Romans 1, recalling Wisdom 13, verse 5:

[quote]For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. [/quote]

The principle is also seen in Romans 2:

[quote]Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? [/quote]

If a person is honestly ignorant of Divine Revelation, but keeps the precepts of natural law, and acknowledges of God what can be known by reason (which includes God's essential nature), then he walks justly with the God of Abraham. Reason is what the Fathers would call the "Semina Verbi", the seeds of the Word. It isn't the end of the journey, but the beginning. It is the basis for a more perfect knowledge.

Edited January 17, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

And if erroneous conceptions of Revelation meant everyone worshipped a separate God, the consequence is scary. A Christian who worships a Jesus that requires Baptism would be worshipping a different Jesus from a Christian who worships a Jesus that doesn't have such a requirement. A Christian (eg, Anglican, Lutheran) who believes Jesus made himself physically present in some way in the Eucharist would be worshipping a different God from an Evangelical who does not believe Jesus made (and makes) himself physically present in any way, whether through transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

[Circle_Master]

I will reply later. All I can say for the moment is I'm going to avoid dealing with religious pluralism for the moment as that is an entire debate in itself and one worthy of my full attention, not a sideline.

[Theoketos]

[quote]Islam and Judaism have accepted false special revelation and so pursue a different God than Christianity pursues. In my opinion.[/quote]

I would agree with the qualification or addition of the word when.

When Islam and Judaism (espcially Judaism) accept false special revelation and so pursue a different God than Christianity pursues. In my opinion.

...But when they hold to those trues which they share with Christianity they are indeed praying to God.

[Circle_Master]

Besides the contradiction between JeffCR07's post about substance and then Era Might using natural revelation synonymously with how Myles used substance, I will make a final statement. Last one for me because I get weary of the arguing. You'll just have to find another protestant to pick on in this thread .

What it seems to be coming down to is there is no consensus among Catholicism on this issue, but there is a 'hedge' that must not be crossed. Since Catholicism (post Vatican II) has accepted a form of religious pluralism that allows for those who don't know special revelation to receive the grace of God, it creates a hedge. The hedge is that if these people who do not believe special revelation are worshipping a different god, then they can not receive salvation. If they are just 'mis-informed' it allows Catholic theology to grant them grace. In this logic ignorance is an excuse.

As you may have gathered from my posts I can not agree with that. Romans 1 is clear that the invisible attributes of God can be seen, and passages such as the Ethiopian Eunuch, and the entire missionary emphasis of the OT show the necessity of spreading the Word of God. Jesus Himself has stated that He is the way the truth and the life, 1 Corinthians 15 also confirms that it is our shame that not all men know the gospel, and Romans 10:13-15 goes on and on about how people cannot be saved without hearing the gospel and how the gospel cannot be spread unless we preach it. What I see in 'similar' religions is not encouragement, but subtle deception. "For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14)" and "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9)". Jesus even tells us that "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction" and it leaves me with little doubt that "many died through one man's trespass (Rom. 5:15)" and many more will. In my logic ignorance is never an excuse. It is our responsibility to preach the good news. We are the image bearers, and it is us who will someday have responsibility of judging (1 Cor. 6).

Final answer: I speak with an islamic friend, and he tells me his god is one. I remember monophysitism was condemned as heretical (which is a somewhat similar belief), and I must conclude, that the god he worships is not the God of Abraham Isaac Israel and the Apostles, but a veiled Satan disguised as an angel of light.

[Era Might]

[quote]Era Might using natural revelation synonymously with how Myles used substance[/quote]

Not sure what you mean here. Substance is the essence of who we are. Reason is a path to understand substance (in this case, God's substantial nature).

[quote]What it seems to be coming down to is there is no consensus among Catholicism on this issue[/quote]

There is not necessarily a consensus in this thread. But we do not speak for the Church, and our consensus, or lack thereof, is not indicative of what the Church actually teaches. I have cited Pope John Paul II. He did speak for Catholicism, and so his words are directly relevant.

[quote]Since Catholicism (post Vatican II) has accepted a form of religious pluralism that allows for those who don't know special revelation to receive the grace of God, it creates a hedge.[/quote]

Well, this is a bit unclear. All men receive the grace of God. Life itself is a grace. He causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust alike. The grace in question is salvific grace; how he bestows the grace merited by Christ in his paschal mystery.

The Church's nuance on this question well precedes the Council. Pope Pius IX relates in an Encyclical Letter of 1863:

[quote]There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

--Quanto Conficiamur Moerore[/quote]

[quote]The hedge is that if these people who do not believe special revelation are worshipping a different god, then they can not receive salvation.  If they are just 'mis-informed' it allows Catholic theology to grant them grace.  In this logic ignorance is an excuse.[/quote]

Not quite.

This is all a matter of personal conscience. What we are culpable for believing, or not believing, is not something any man can judge. God alone judges the heart. It is true, as Pope Pius IX says, that God does not hold us guilty unless our sins, or errors, are deliberate. Again, only he can judge our hearts, which is why the Church does not say only so-and-so can be saved. The Church announces the ordinary means of salvation (faith in Christ and incorporation into his Mystical Body, the Church). Outside the ordinary means given by Christ, she leaves it to God to do what he will, knowing that God looks at the honesty of the heart.

[quote]entire missionary emphasis of the OT show the necessity of spreading the Word of God.[/quote]

Of course. We agree completely. Pope John Paul II devoted an entire Encyclical letter on the mission Ad Gentes, entitled "Redemptoris Missio". He also emphasized the duty to evangelize at World Youth Day '93:

[quote]Do not be afraid to go out on the streets and into public places, like the first Apostles who preached Christ and the Good News of salvation in the squares of cities, towns and villages. This is no time to be ashamed of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:16). It is the time to preach it from the rooftops (cf. Mt 10:27). Do not be afraid to break out of comfortable and routine modes of living, in order to take up the challenge of making Christ known in the modern ``metropolis''. It is you who must ``go out into the byroads'' (Mt 22:9) and invite everyone you meet to the banquet which God has prepared for his people. The Gospel must not be kept hidden because of fear or indifference. It was never meant to be hidden away in private. It has to be put on a stand so that people may see its light and give praise to our heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5:15-16). [/quote]

[quote]In my logic ignorance is never an excuse.  It is our responsibility to preach the good news.  We are the image bearers, and it is us who will someday have responsibility of judging (1 Cor. 6).[/quote]

There is more to conversion than simply hearing the Gospel. Conversion is a supernatural confirmation of Truth, that goes beyond mere reason. Of course, we must do our best to present this Truth. But it is always done with respect for the conscience of each individual, and the designs of Providence. Evangelization must be a dialogue, and not a monologue.

[quote]Final answer: I speak with an islamic friend, and he tells me his god is one.  I remember monophysitism was condemned as heretical (which is a somewhat similar belief), and I must conclude, that the god he worships is not the God of Abraham Isaac Israel and the Apostles, but a veiled Satan disguised as an angel of light.[/quote]

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. The nuance of Catholic theology, and the essential role played by conscience, reason, and natural law, leads us to different conclusions.

As always, we will respectfully agree to disagree.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

Era, substance is [i]not[/i] the essence of who we are. Substance and Essence are two completely, totally different things.

Without intending offense to anyone, this is one of the reasons that I am extremely skeptical of this kind of discussion. It seems that almost no one here actually understands the philosophical and theological terms that are relevant to the discussion, let alone the terms as used and intended by the Nicean Fathers.

C_M if you are really interested in the topic, I invite you to read the Catholic Encyclopedia or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on "Substance" as well as the teaching of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea. If it is still unclear to you how the persons of the Trinity do not alter the substantial existence of God, then please PM me.

But I would ask that until then, this discussion come to a halt, since clearly no one understands Trinitary theology enough to make a point that is worth discussing. I am not trying to sound rude, I just don't want people to think that some of the things being said here are actually correct.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 18 2006, 10:54 AM']Era, substance is [i]not[/i] the essence of who we are. Substance and Essence are two completely, totally different things.[right][snapback]859702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I wasn't giving a formal definition, I was using the word in a common sense, just to clarify that we were not talking about the same thing (ie, between substance and reason). Substance is the opposite of accidents, between what is essential to a being and not essential (eg, the color white is not essential to the Eucharist). You are correct that Essence has its own formal definition, but I was not using the word in that sense. A poor choice of words on my part, perhaps, but my argument was not philosophical. I was simply responding to Circle_Master's post, which was lumping everyone's arguments into one.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

I understand that, but this is exactly my point. The issue is a subtle one, needing precise philosophical and theological distinctions to be made. I totally understand where you are coming from, but C_M clearly was not able to make the distinction between your common usage and the actual technical meaning of the term. All I'm saying is that multiple people using the same terms in different ways extremely complicates the matter.

I am confident that, if he reads those articles, the council of Nicea, and talks to me, he will understand why the Trinitarian dogma cannot result in the Muslims and Jews worshipping a different God. But until he does that, talking about substance in anything less than its absolutely, fully, entirely correct meaning is harming his ability to understand the issue.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff