Big Chris writes:

1

How dare you use logic proofs without warning! My brain now hurts from having to remember the painful memories of my course in Logic at Bethel Seminary. All joking aside, I appreciate you spelling this out as you have. Few spend the time of working the proof, and when push comes to shove they make mistakes in their assumptions, which makes us all look bad. I think theology deserves to be thought out, and I'm glad there are smart people willing to help the rest of us along the way to that understanding.

Big Chris
Because I said so blog

posted on 11.15.2005 2:36 AM

Terence Moeller writes:

2

Muslims definetly do not believe in the same God as Christians. But the Jews do. They merely have an incomplete concept of who he is -- as did all the patriarchs of the OT. And in that respect they are every bit as lost as Muslims because they do not know who their Messiah is.

posted on 11.15.2005 4:40 AM

Terence Moeller writes:

3

Muslims definetly do not believe in the same God as Christians. But the Jews do. They merely have an incomplete concept of who he is -- as did all the patriarchs of the OT. And in that respect they are every bit as lost as Muslims because they do not know who their Messiah is.

posted on 11.15.2005 4:42 AM

Meph writes:

4

Joe,

I agree with what I believe to be your chief intutions about watering down religious and theological differences. However, I believe the way you are coming at this may be overstated. You say...

"Because both Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God I believe it is a fallacious claim to say that these three monotheistic faiths worship the “same” God. When making this claim we are essentially saying that Jews and Muslims worship Christ…they just don’t know it."

You seem to conflate some things. There's a difference between some covert religious imperialism that implicitly makes Jews and Muslims into unknowing Christians by way of theological sleight-of-hand...and the idea that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same God as the ultimate object of worship. It appears to me that you are confronting the former (rightly), but by attacking the latter. Bad move, imho. Let me show you why.

The Quranic text talks about Jews and Christians as being "followers of the Book." What "book" does this refer to? Let's see...from the "Cow" Sura...2.83-2.87

-------------------------
And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you and (now too) you turn aside. And when We made a covenant with you: You shall not shed your blood and you shall not turn your people out of your cities; then you gave a promise while you witnessed.

Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the re ward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do. These are they who buy the life of this world for the hereafter, so their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be helped.

***And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit,*** What! whenever then an apostle came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew.
-----------------

It's a safe bet that the "book" that Muhummad is talking about is the TORAH. (Reputedly, the 5 books of Moses) Now, when Muhammad wrote about Musa (Moses) and (Isa) Jesus, son of Marium (Mary)...and he relates ALL of these to being Allah's servants...which "god" do we think that he's refering to. Let's ask the question another way.

Is the God of Islam **as devout Muslims see it** the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Israel?

Undoubtedly, yes! It seems patently incorrect to say that this is not true. And it's very clear that Judaism and Christianity believe in this YHWH God as well.

Now, we can DEFINITELY say that these three religions have different takes on **God's revelation** (meaning God's inscripturated Word, the Bible and, more importantly, God's incarnated Word, Jesus) which lead to significant differences which may have salvific implications. Explaining. If we think about it, failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (purported stumblingblock for Judaism) and the incarnated Son of God and part of the Trinity (purported stumblingblock for Islam) is an issue of failing to recognize God's novel movement in the world for what it truly was...not a failure to worship the God of Israelite salvation history as such. Perhaps we need to go back to the words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman here...

------------------------

"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. **You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.*** Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

-----------------

What I would highlight is that Jesus seems to claim that it's possible to worship God in such a way that God is not truly "known." It was clear that the Samaritans did worship YHWH, but had an incomplete or erroneous picture of the Being they worshipped. This was an important gap to be bridged, to be certain...but it could not be said that they didn't worship (or give allegiance to) the same god. I believe that the same thing can be said with regard to Judaism and Islam.

Again, I agree with you that orthodox Christianity excludes either denying Jesus as Messiah or as Son of God. I also agree that covert religious imperialism that assimilates all religions into itself in blithe fashion does a disservice to all the beliefs in question. I just thought you were overstating things a bit in denying that Jews, Muslims, and Christians don't all worship the same God.

Thanks.

posted on 11.15.2005 5:50 AM

Meph writes:

5

Briefly [and probably unnecessarily ;o) ]

Your last idea...

"If Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God then Muslims and Jews do not know the Father. {Simplification, Modus Ponens, 7, 9}"

If we take the Samaritan woman story seriously, then "knowing the Father" may not be **perfectly** synonomous with a person intentionally and sincerely worshipping the God of the Torah.

Would you agree, Joe?

posted on 11.15.2005 5:59 AM

Meph writes:

6

Hmmm...one more thing. A person could say this...

"The main point is that if God is triune, and if Jesus is indeed "God the Son", second person of the Trinity, then one cannot speak of "God" without speaking about who Jesus **truly** is. Insofar, as Jews and Muslims are inaccurate about who Jesus truly is, Jews, Muslims, and Christians cannot even speak of the same God, let alone worship the same god."

To respond to this imaginary person, I would ask them to recite the Shema (Deut 6:4-5). This is the fundamental Jewish declaration of worship and creedal understanding about who God is...one Jesus affirmed with his teaching on the Great Commandment(s). One that is ALSO accepted as being divinely revealed truth by devout Muslims. Thus, in a very real sense, all three religions really DO worship the same God insofar as they all hold firmly to this declaration of worship as revealed in the Torah. Now, it could be argued that all religions don't "know" God to the same extent, but again, I believe that is a slightly different matter than just talking about intentional worship of God.

posted on 11.15.2005 6:22 AM

Jeff Burton writes:

7

I am sympathetic to what you are trying to accomplish, but I can't agree with this line of argument. "A Christian cannot speak of “God” without including Christ." The Old Testament seems to accomplish this pretty well, and as a Christian, I am worship the same God the Jews of the OT did.

posted on 11.15.2005 7:44 AM

jd writes:

8

It always bothers me when people say we all (jews, Muslims, christians) believe in the same God, so can't we all just respect each other's beliefs. It's often in reference to some mealy-mouthed separation of church and state mumbo-jumbo, or whether or not Merry Christmas is offensive to one group or another. I think Jews believe in the same God, but I can see that logically it is difficult to hold my position. I wonder if Jews would agree that they don't believe in the same God as Christians.

Islam is so obviously a ripoff of Judaism and a heresy of Christianity that it makes me angry to think that so many billions of people can fall for it. Of course, I realize that in many places in the world you either "fall" for it, or you lose your head, so the numbers of "converts" is questionable.

I really have only one quibble with you, Joe, and it's with this statement: "One of the basic axiomatic truths of Christianity is that God is Triune. While this can be a difficult doctrine to understand,..."

I don't care who you are, how smart you are, how much logic you've studied, you will never convince me that you "understand" the existence of the Trinity. In fact, when you say you understand it, I think you are in danger of driving off would-be believers. I believe it to be true, but it's even more incomprehensible than the doctrine of election, or the virgin birth, or any of the other truly goofy things we Christians believe. Of course, I mean goofy in the best sense of the word. Seriously, you don't honestly think you can explain it, do you?

posted on 11.15.2005 7:55 AM

Matthew Goggins writes:

9

I would say that I have sufficient confidence (63% certainty)

So is this an example of the "Christian math" we've all been waiting for? :)

posted on 11.15.2005 8:23 AM

cdm writes:

10

"Muslims definetly do not believe in the same God as Christians. But the Jews do. They merely have an incomplete concept of who he is -- as did all the patriarchs of the OT. And in that respect they are every bit as lost as Muslims because they do not know who their Messiah is."

Deny the Son, deny the Father. Jews deny the Son, thus they deny the Father. And Abraham looked to the day of Christ and rejoiced. Jews (and all unbelievers) nash their teeth.

Same God? Not at all.

"One of the basic axiomatic truths of Christianity is that God is Triune. While this can be a difficult doctrine to understand,..."

I think its more accurate to say we apprehend the doctrine of the Trinity (that is we submit and accept it as it is clearly put forth in scripture) but we can not understand in entirety the one true God who is eternal and infinite as our minds are finite.

posted on 11.15.2005 8:44 AM

Darrell DeLaney writes:

11

-I would say that I have sufficient confidence (63% certainty)

-So is this an example of the "Christian math" we've all been waiting for? :)

No way! Christian math is accurate to at least .01%! :)

posted on 11.15.2005 8:58 AM

Tim writes:

12

Why do you suppose people started saying that we (essentially) believe in the same God? (It is obvious that we share some biblical tradition and history)

While I admit to not knowing the answer to that, I do submit a possible reason. I believe the thought caught on exactly because of the way "we" treated Muslims and Jews.

In fact even within Christian circles a common dismissal regarding biblical interpretation is "...... does not believe in the same God I do". Quite insulting if you ask me.

I think that you guys are right, you have a good argument. But overall, I find the argument irrelevant.

posted on 11.15.2005 9:19 AM

Richard H writes:

13

I see at least twoproblems:
1. The word "know" is equivocal. We - like Jesus and the bible - use it with a variety of shades of meanings.
2. There is dispute about whether JOhn 3:16 is presented by JOhn as a quotation of Jesus or as his commentary on what Jesus has done and said. Your English bible may have it in red letters, but the Greek text doesn't.

posted on 11.15.2005 9:21 AM

Pastor Jeff writes:

14

Joe,

Good post - sure to drive some people mad. Do you think President Bush agrees with you (public statements to the contrary notwithstanding)?

Richard H.,
1. Joe has chosen only a few representative verses to simplify his argument. The emphasis is not the word 'know.' Try John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Or John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." Or 1 John 5:12 " He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

2. Whether it's a direct word of Jesus or not is irrelevant. Nothing could be clearer from dozens of verses that Jesus is the unique Son of God.

posted on 11.15.2005 9:51 AM

Joe Carter writes:

15

Meph What I would highlight is that Jesus seems to claim that it's possible to worship God in such a way that God is not truly "known." It was clear that the Samaritans did worship YHWH, but had an incomplete or erroneous picture of the Being they worshipped. This was an important gap to be bridged, to be certain...but it could not be said that they didn't worship (or give allegiance to) the same god. I believe that the same thing can be said with regard to Judaism and Islam.

I’m glad you brought in the passage with the Samaritan woman. If I had been a bit less lazy I would have included it in my original argument, for I think it backs up my main point. While I completely agree that Jesus is claiming that is was possible to worship God when he wasn't truly “known”, we must look at the rest of the passage to get the complete context:

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. [emphasis added]

Christianity is based on progressive revelation with Jesus being the primary focal point. We have new information (i.e., knowledge of Jesus) that changes the old paradigms. Because Christ has now come there is a division between what was applicable then and what is applicable now. Jesus makes it clear that true worship requires worshipping "in spirit and in truth." The question then becomes, "If Jesus is the 'Truth' can anyone worship God without worshipping him?" In my view I would have to say no.

I just thought you were overstating things a bit in denying that Jews, Muslims, and Christians don't all worship the same God.

I think we have to be clear about what we mean by “same God.” All theistically based religions have some concepts of God that are the same or similar to Christianity. The ancient Greeks, for example, believed that the gods could take human form. Just because we share common ground on that one concept, though, does not mean we worship the “same God.” The Jews and Muslims may have a clearer understanding of many of the attributes of God than most religions but that does not mean that the God we all worship is the same.

Two of the most basic rules of logic are the law of identity (A is A) and the law of noncontradiction (A is not not-A). When we apply these to the statement “Jesus is God” we are saying A is A while the Muslims and Jews saying that A is not-A – Jesus is not God. We can’t both be right, either the Christians are wrong or the Jews and Muslims are wrong.

Jeff The Old Testament seems to accomplish this pretty well, and as a Christian, I am worship the same God the Jews of the OT did.

But you are discounting progressive revelation. Jesus made it quite clear that if you didn’t know him you didn’t know the father. All of the patriarchs and other heroes of the OT would have recognized Jesus as God. In essence, Jesus is like a Rosharch test for God: either you see him as God and believe in Yahweh or you do not, and so cannot claim to know God.

JD I don't care who you are, how smart you are, how much logic you've studied, you will never convince me that you "understand" the existence of the Trinity.

There is, in my opinion, a hugh difference between having a basic understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity and understanding the Trinity. I only claim to have a rudimentary understanding of the first, not the second.

Matthew So is this an example of the "Christian math" we've all been waiting for? :)

Applied Christian mathematics, perhaps. ; )

Pastor Jeff Do you think President Bush agrees with you (public statements to the contrary notwithstanding)?

No, I think he’d probably disagree with me on this one. I wrote a similar post in response to his statement a couple of years ago that Muslims and Christians worship the “same God." That's originally what got me to thinking about this topic.

posted on 11.15.2005 10:52 AM

Bryan McWhite writes:

16

Interesting stuff, Joe. But I think you've exemplified what can go wrong in systematic theology that does not properly take account of the entire scope of Scripture, running roughshod over biblical theological concerns in a rush to get to the systematic payoff. In other words, deductive logical categories are almost never the best way to unfold the bearing of the canon and the course of redemptive history on a given topic. I think you've opened yourself up to all of the errors of which the above commentators have accused you, unfortunately.

Setting aside your case concerning Islam (which is sort of a slam dunk), one passage that you have not properly represented is Romans 11. As Paul talks about the predicament of his "brethren," the Jews, he never casts it in terms of their belief in the wrong God. Rather, he casts their predicament in terms of a "partial blindness," meaning that some Jews, by grace, will come to see Jesus as the Messiah of God, but most will not. However, at the end of the age, when the "fullness" of Gentiles have "come in," the blindness will be lifted for the remnant. This lifting of blindness will resulting in trusting in the Messiah, not in believing in a different God.

As far as I can tell, nowhere in Paul's (or in any NT author, for that matter) writings is the Jews' error cast in terms of belief in the wrong God, but in terms of a rejection of the Messiah of God, which is a different error. The Jews still believe in the same master of the vineyard (Matt 21:33), but they do not understand and believe that they have killed his son (21:39). One day, by grace, a remnant will see this and not believe in a different vineyard master, but will repent for killing his son, and will embrace him.

posted on 11.15.2005 11:12 AM

Jim Anderson writes:

17

When making this claim we are essentially saying that Jews and Muslims worship Christ…they just don’t know it.

Sounds like the position Aslan takes in The Last Battle.

"Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me... Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him..."

But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. "Beloved," said the Glorious One, "unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."

posted on 11.15.2005 11:14 AM

The Raven writes:

18

"I'm a uniter, not a divider. - G.W.B.

One reason Bush got a lot of traction with that statement is because it resonates with the desire of nearly every American that we draw together as a people, regardless of the small distinctions that separate us.

Yet here, we see an overly-elaborate argument that could be simplified thus: Christians believe in Jesus, those other guys don't, so we're right and they're wrong." That's really all that's being "proved" by Joe's syllogism.

A quick primer: Christians believe that Jews hold part of the faith, but not all of it. Their scripture is incomplete (lack of NT). If Judaism is N, then Christianity is N+1.

Now, remember that Mohamed comes along some 500 AD. In the view of Muslims, it is the Christian who holds only a partially received faith. The Christian lacks the revelations of the Prophet, and so has a deficient scripture. In this light, Islam is demonstrably N+1+1, a further revelation and a complete doctrine. That's why Muslims tend to make room in their societies (grudgingly or not) for Christians. It's all over the Islamic literature that Christians are to be tolerated, not slain outright as heretics, because they are imperfect followers of Allah. They pity you, but grant you a place in an Islamic world because you are doing the best you can with a flawed religion. This is also, n.b., how most Christians seem to view Judaism.

Back to the main point: In actively searching for the differences in your respective doctrines and holding your own to the be only true path, you are holding fast to petty divisions in your faiths. Not very Christ-like.

In previous posts here, I've mentioned that it appears that there are no Christians who can claim to have an understanding of what God is. In your discussion here of the meaning of the Trinity, you are essentially agreeing with me, but I'd still go further and suggest that your claims of having different views of God are specious since none of you, Jew, Christian, or Muslim, has a clear and concise grasp of what, exactly, you mean when you say the word "God."

posted on 11.15.2005 11:22 AM

Joe Carter writes:

19

Bryan,

One day, by grace, a remnant will see this and not believe in a different vineyard master, but will repent for killing his son, and will embrace him.

This sounds a lot like a dispensationalist view. While I'm not saying that it is necessarily wrong, I don't think it provides a sufficient answer to the Jews view of God.

You make the point that Paul does not say that the Jews are worshipping the wrong God. That is true but it's nothing more than an argument from silence. I think we'd need to find more substantial backing than that if we are going to set aside Christ's claims as the foundation for our interpretation on this point.

posted on 11.15.2005 11:29 AM

Meph writes:

20

Joe:
"Christianity is based on progressive revelation with Jesus being the primary focal point. We have new information (i.e., knowledge of Jesus) that changes the old paradigms. Because Christ has now come there is a division between what was applicable then and what is applicable now. Jesus makes it clear that true worship requires worshipping "in spirit and in truth." The question then becomes, "If Jesus is the 'Truth' can anyone worship God without worshipping him?" In my view I would have to say no."

Meph:
The same principle was applied by Paul when he spoke to his audience in Acts on Mars Hill. Jesus' coming brought clarity and focus to what was being worshipped erroneously or ignorantly. It is this clarity of worship that God does seek, undoubtedly. But this is NOT the same thing as saying that Jews, Muslims, and Christians don't all orient themselves to the God of the Torah. They do. If you are saying that, from a Christian perspective, a person cannot worship God **in truth and full clarity*** without worshipping Christ, I'd have no complaints. If you are saying that, from a Christian perspective, that worship that doesn't have Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God in it is NOT worship of YHWH ***IN ANY SENSE***, then I'd say that this is flat out wrong, imo.

_________________________________

Joe:
"I think we have to be clear about what we mean by “same God.” All theistically based religions have some concepts of God that are the same or similar to Christianity. The ancient Greeks, for example, believed that the gods could take human form. Just because we share common ground on that one concept, though, does not mean we worship the “same God.” The Jews and Muslims may have a clearer understanding of many of the attributes of God than most religions but that does not mean that the God we all worship is the same."

Meph:
I have not been speaking about any general theistic conception of God. I have been speaking of the God of the Torah who made covenant with Abraham, Moses, and Israel. If THIS is the God we are talking about, then it seems very apparent that Jews, Muslims, and Christians do worship the same God. Again, Christianly speaking, only worship that accepts Jesus as the full revelation of God (this incorporates Jesus being Lord and Messiah) is worship in "spirit AND truth." But as far as worship PER SE, they all have the same target.

______________________________________________

Joe:
"Two of the most basic rules of logic are the law of identity (A is A) and the law of noncontradiction (A is not not-A). When we apply these to the statement “Jesus is God” we are saying A is A while the Muslims and Jews saying that A is not-A – Jesus is not God. We can’t both be right, either the Christians are wrong or the Jews and Muslims are wrong"

Meph:
Hmmm. That declaration is a product from biblical testimony...or the inferences drawing from the interpretation of such. As such, there is a serious disagreement about the nature of God because of the disagreement about GOD'S REVELATION in Scripture and in Jesus. Christians believe the revelation leads to the deity of Jesus. Jews and Muslims do not. I grant all this. But this is not the same thing as saying that the God of the Torah is not the END GOAL of the religious activities of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Surely, you see this.

It seems that you just want to say that because Jews and Muslims don't believe in the deity of Jesus that they, in point of fact, do not and CANNOT be referring to the same God as Christians do when they are worshipping in their synagogues or mosques, respectively. This is just not true, Joe. All three categories of believers believe that YHWH is the sovereign creator and sustainer of the universe who is gracious and merciful.

Let me state this clearly here. I am NOT saying, Christianly speaking, that Jewish or Muslim worship is satisfactory. Insofar as Jesus is God, any worship of YHWH that doesn't incorporate YHWH's Messiah is grossly inadequate. So, please don't think me minimizing the significance of Jesus's deity here. I AM saying that I believe that too much is attempted by saying that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity do not have the same God (the God represented in the Torah) as their end goal.

Thanks.

posted on 11.15.2005 11:29 AM

Joe Carter writes:

21

Raven,

Back to the main point: In actively searching for the differences in your respective doctrines and holding your own to the be only true path, you are holding fast to petty divisions in your faiths. Not very Christ-like.

To borrow a line from The Princess Bride: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “Christ-like” but it was Christ himself who set up the “petty divisions” our faith. He says that he is the way, the truth, and the light and that no one can come to God except through him. For you to say that “holding your own to the be only true path” is “not very Christ-like” is the height of absurdity.

posted on 11.15.2005 11:34 AM

Joe Carter writes:

22

I grant all this. But this is not the same thing as saying that the God of the Torah is not the END GOAL of the religious activities of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Surely, you see this.

I think our disagreement is rooted in our different views of the “God of the Torah.” While I don’t want to accuse you of this error, I believe that many Christians think the doctrine of the Trinity is a nice “add-on” that is not essential for understanding God. I disagree completely with this view. I think that any concept of God that does not take into account the triune nature of God is so deficient that it is erroneous to say that it is the “same God.” The “God of the Torah” is a triune God and so there is no way to remove that and still have an even partially adequate understanding.

I think the Gospel makes this point rather clear. The reason the Jews in Jesus day didn’t recognize him as the Messiah is because they did not know God. They knew some things about God but that is not the same as knowing Him. The same is true today. The Jews today know some things about God but they do not know Him. You can’t claim to know God and reject Jesus. It isn’t as if there are three Gods and you can choose to know one of them. They are all one God.

I AM saying that I believe that too much is attempted by saying that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity do not have the same God (the God represented in the Torah) as their end goal.

I think this resorts to special pleading on behalf of these monotheistic faiths. All religions that believe in a god(s) have as their "end goal" the worship of the true God. But they are all deficient precisely because they do not worship the Triune God of the Bible. Admittedly, the Jews and Muslims come closer in their knowledge about God than other religions but I don't see how we can say that Jesus is God and still claim that they are worshipping the same God as us.

posted on 11.15.2005 11:49 AM

A Christian Prophet writes:

23

There have been messages on The Christian Prophet blog recently about the underlying common spiritual nature of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. It seems like this underlying oneness will soon trump surface differences.

posted on 11.15.2005 12:30 PM

Bryan K Mills writes:

24

I find it both amusing and sad that we are so obsessed with not ever asserting that someone else is wrong.

What is wrong with agreeing that all of the world religions are mutually incompatible? If we take each religion's teachings seriously, this is the only reasonable conclusion.

The desire to water down each so that we can all get along is understandable, but is intellectually dishonest.

I have no problem with a Buddhist or Taoist or ... telling me I'm wrong. I would EXPECT that.

The world has gone crazy.

posted on 11.15.2005 12:38 PM

Rob Ryan writes:

25

"but I don't see how we can say that Jesus is God and still claim that they are worshipping the same God as us."

What is so difficult about this? Can they not worship the same god even if, in your opinion, they are more ignorant than you with regard to its nature? Perhaps they are not worshipping it as you would, but they are worshipping the all-powerful creator. How many of those do you think there are? Really, these discussions remind me of the anecdote of the blind men examining an elephant and coming to different conclusions. Their hands are on the same beast, just different parts of it.

posted on 11.15.2005 12:56 PM

Richard Hall writes:

26

Trackback doesn't seem to be working, so just letting you know I blogged this today, Joe.

posted on 11.15.2005 1:00 PM

Pastor Jeff writes:

27

Joe,

Ditto Richard. I've blogged about this at Conblogeration.

Raven,

I think Joe's already answered your post, but I will just add that when Jesus came, he explicitly claimed not to be rejecting the Old Testment, but to be fulfilling its promises and prophecies. The New Testament also makes it quite clear that Jesus is God's final authoritative revelation.

In contrast, the Koran teaches that Jesus is not God's Son, is not the Savior, did not rise from the dead, and is not Lord. That's hardly adding to or fulfilling the New Testament revelation. It's another religion altogether.

posted on 11.15.2005 1:21 PM

Verne writes:

28

“Jesus made it quite clear that if you didn’t know him you didn’t know the father”

No doubt about it if you are worshiping a god with different attributes from Jesus then you are not worshiping the same God. Despite the fact that you may be close to having it right. But in reference to

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.

Were what you said seems to come from, doesn’t to seem to you that this may be more of a proclamation that Jesus is God rather than a statement of the proper path to take to be saved? But then I may splitting hairs.

posted on 11.15.2005 1:33 PM

Patrick (Gryph) writes:

29

Just out of curiosity, do Christians believe that the triune always existed? I know there are prophecies in the old testament about the messiah, but is there any thing in there that supports the concept of a triune God? Any mention of the holy ghost?

posted on 11.15.2005 2:11 PM

Bryan McWhite writes:

30

Joe - Thanks for the response.

Still, I completely disagree with your rebuttal. I am about as far as one can be from dispensationalism, which I believe goes to the extreme of the problem of systematic theology of which I spoke previously - generating extra-biblical categories out of thin air! I am simply reading Romans 11. If you can tell me how else to read Rom. 9-11, you might have something to proceed on.

Also, you said, "You make the point that Paul does not say that the Jews are worshipping the wrong God. That is true but it's nothing more than an argument from silence."

The fact that it is an argument from silence does not make it an uncompelling one - especially since Paul (and others) talks plenty about the predicament of the Jews. If they viewed this predicament as belief in the wrong God, would we not expect them to say this somewhere?

But, to appease the (Evangelical Outpost) gods, I'll offer something that I hope you'll agree is more "substantive backing":

An excellent case study would be how Paul talks about what happened to him. Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrew and Jew of Jews - a super-Jew, if you will. If anyone can speak from experience about what happens when a Jew becomes a Christian, it's Paul. But nowhere does Paul, when speaking about what happened when he was converted, speak of coming to belief in the "right" God. Instead, he says that God was "pleased to reveal his Son to me" (Gal. 1:16). The assumption is that it was the very same God as Paul believed in before - the only difference is His revelation of His Son. Or in Acts 26:6, Paul tells Agrippa that he is "on trial because of [his] hope in the promise made by God to our (the Jews') fathers." Paul assumes that he hopes in the promise of the same God as the unconverted Jews worship. The problem with the Jews is that they rejected the fulfillment of the promise.

To suggest that Second Temple Jews did not worship the same God as Paul is to do violence to the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. It is only correct to say that the Jews rejected the Son, and in doing so, rejected the Father. Essentially, what you're saying is that the Jews were wrong because they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. But this was not their sin - no one before the coming of the Son would have fully grasped the Trinity (a foundational text for the Jews was Deut 6:4, which asserts radical monotheism). Even so, there is evidence in the OT that the Jews ascribed divinity, in some sense, to the Spirit. But their great sin was ultimately their rejection of the Son.

posted on 11.15.2005 2:13 PM

MT writes:

31

Father Richard John Neuhaus disagree. From First Things on this very topic:

“Islam is a religion of peace,” President Bush has said on several occasions. One fervently wishes there were more evidence to support that assertion, but I understand that there are compelling reasons for Bush to avoid any suggestion that the war on terrorism is, at bottom, a religious war between Christianity and Islam. Then, at a news conference during the state visit to Britain, a reporter asked whether “Muslims worship the same Almighty.” Bush replied, “I do say that freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every person. I also condition it by saying freedom is not America’s gift to the world. It’s much greater than that, of course.” Then there was a definite pause, as though he knew he might get in trouble for saying, “And I believe we worship the same God.” That did ruffle some Christian feathers in this country. An official of the Southern Baptist Convention said Bush “is simply mistaken.” He added, “We should always remember that he is commander in chief, not theologian in chief. The Bible is clear on this: the one and true God is Jehovah, and his only begotten Son is Jesus Christ.” The president of the National Association of Evangelicals issued a statement: “The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity, and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations, and dispositions of the people that serve them. Muhammad’s central message was submission; Jesus’ central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities.” If I understand our separated brethren, we got a competition between gods going here, with our God (upper case) being much nicer than their god, as revealed, so to speak, in the superior niceness of those of us who serve Him. Of course this is theological nonsense. It would seem to suggest a kind of polytheism. Christians confess that there is one God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jews worship the one God whom Jesus called Father and taught us to worship, although Jews do not recognize that the God whom we both worship has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Muslims worship the same God (although calling him Allah, as do Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians), believing that His definitive revelation was given through Muhammad. So also St. Paul preaching in the Areopagus: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth.” The dispute between Jews, Muslims, and Christians is not over whether they worship the same God, but over how the one God is rightly understood and worshiped. It is true that Bush is commander in chief, not theologian in chief, but on this question he is a better theologian than some of his evangelical critics.

Subsequent issue following a few choice letters:
Again, there is only one God. The Arabic word for God is Allah. Arabic Christians, as well as Muslims, pray to Allah. Christians believe that Muslims are profoundly wrong in their understanding of the one God (or Allah) to whom we both pray. And yes, it is a difficult but inescapable challenge to convince Muslims that they misunderstand the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, and Mohammed. As some scholars contend, Islam may best be understood as a Christian heresy, and was so understood by many Christians in the seventh and eighth centuries. But that is a story for another time.

posted on 11.15.2005 2:20 PM

Meph writes:

32

Joe:
"I think our disagreement is rooted in our different views of the “God of the Torah.” While I don’t want to accuse you of this error, I believe that many Christians think the doctrine of the Trinity is a nice “add-on” that is not essential for understanding God. I disagree completely with this view. I think that any concept of God that does not take into account the triune nature of God is so deficient that it is erroneous to say that it is the “same God.” The “God of the Torah” is a triune God and so there is no way to remove that and still have an even partially adequate understanding."

Meph:
It seems that you and I have indeed been using different centers for this discussion. My center has been "the God of the Torah revealed to Moses as YHWH". Yours has been "the triune God as revealed in Jesus" I suppose, to me, it seemed quite obvious that neither conservative Jews nor Muslims worshipped the triune God as revealed in Jesus. It's like a "duh" type of thing. What didn't seem to be noted is that they DO give supreme veneration to the God revealed to Moses as YHWH...****as do orthodox, trinitarian Christians.***** The self-revelation of God in Jesus did not NEGATE God's self-revelation to Moses but BUILT and expanded upon it. Actually, the Shema (Deut 6:4) was one of the main reasons for not falling into tritheism, as you well know.

I see your perspective. However, I do believe that there is another perspective wherein which actual practitioners of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity could say with integrity...

"I believe that the divine testimony of the Torah regarding God's self-revelation to Moses and the Israelites as YHWH is truth about who God is...and I worship the God revealed therein."

This is NOT some attempt at politically-correct ecumenism. Again, I wholeheartedly affirm that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are distinct religious perspectives with mutually-exclusive views about who God has revealed Himself to be. And of course, all of the views cannot be right, with respect to this mutually-exclusive views. What I've been trying (but failing) to say is that ***IF one were to have God's self-revelation to Moses as YHWH be the PRIMARY criterion involved***, then that one could say that the supreme veneration of devout, orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians is aimed at the same general idea of God.

Hey, if this don't work, we can always agree to disagree.

Oh, and Bryan McWhite...I'm SOOOOOOO trackin' with ya! Go, man.

:o)

posted on 11.15.2005 2:30 PM

Bryan K Mills writes:

33

Do Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons all worship the same Jesus?

Just because you use the same name, "Jesus" or "God", filling that name with different content can (and I argue does) mean that you end up with a different person.

"Many will say on that day, Lord, Lord..."
This verse has always scared me. What if we've misunderstood the nature of God and His ways to such a degree that we've missed Him entirely?

posted on 11.15.2005 2:38 PM

Kevin T. Keith writes:

34

I don't have any comment on the substance of your post - it's not my issue. But it seems to me you could have made your whole argument with the second paragraph alone: Christians believe in a trinitarian god and Muslims and Jews do not; thus the God referred to by the latter cannot be the same in its essential characteristics as the God referred to by the former. It doesn't require any complicated logic. (Note, though, that they could be referring to the same God and merely be in disagreement about its characteristics. For instance, if someone mentions "The only President of the US to go AWOL from the National Guard" and somebody else mentions "George W. Bush, the great military hero", they are clearly referring to the same thing but may not realize it because they have different beliefs about some, but not all, of the identifying characteristics of the thing referred to.)

All that notwithstanding, though, I have to take exception to your logical proof. You have some of the logical rules wrong.

For instance, "Modus Ponens" is a very simple rule applicable to one conditional ("if . . . then") statement plus a simple proposition equivalent to the antecedent ("if" part) of that conditional; the conclusion is the predicate ("then" part) of the conditional:

If p then q
p
-------
Therefore: q

If today is Tuesday, then this is Belgium.
Today is Tuesday.
--------
Therefore: This is Belgium.

You cannot apply Modus Ponens to just one statement, or to three statements together, especially if none of them is a conditional, so neither of your lines 5 or 6 can be right.

Line 7 is fine; that is a correct Hypothetical Syllogism (but it begins with unjustified premises, since 5 and 6 were invalid).

Line 9 is not a correct Conjunction. Conjunction is simply combining two propositions together with "and":

p
q
-----
Therefore: p & q

It is raining.
I have a well-trimmed beard.
------
Therefore: It is raining and I have a well-trimmed beard.

You have:

5. If you deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God then you do not know Jesus.
8. Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God.

The Conjunction of these would simply be the obvious:

9. If you deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God then you do not know Jesus and Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God. [5, 8 Conjunction]

Instead, you have a conjunction of only part of one line with all of the other. (Note, also, that Line 9 isn't really doing any work anyway, since it is merely a conjunction of premises you have already developed elsewhere, and the entire conjunction itself is not useful to you. You could have skipped it and just used the existing lines 7 and 8, as below.)

Line 10 is kind of garbled: again, Modus Ponens seeks to produce the predicate of a conditional by asserting the antecedent. Instead, you start with a conditional (Line 7) and come up with another conditional in Line 10. It would work better (and get you to the conclusion you really want) like this:

7. If you deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God then you do not know the Father.
8. Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God.
---------
Therefore: 10. [revised] Muslims and Jews do not know the Father. [7,8 Modus Ponens]

Even with all these changes, though, this conclusion does not follow formally from your premises 1-4 and 8. Note that those premises all express fact claims about God and Jesus. Your argument, beginning with 5, hinges on what different groups assert or deny about God and Jesus, not what is actually true about them. You would need to recast the whole argument to come up with something really formally valid - but again your point is simple enough that you don't really need any of this anyway.

A closing word on notation: it isn't usual to create new letters to represent the conclusions of previous logical moves. The output of a given piece of logic simply retains the old letters in whatever new combination results. For instance:

Premises:

1. - p v q
2. q --> r

Proofs:

3. p [Assumption]
4. q [1, 3 Disjunctive Syllogism]
5. r [2, 4 Modus Ponens]
6. q & r [4, 5 Conjunction]
7. p --> (q & r) [3-6 Conditional Proof]

Notice that q, r, (q & r), and (p --> (q & r)) do not appear in the premises, but do appear as conclusions further down. They are not given new symbols - the formulations produced in each successive line simply carry over to the subsequent lines without new letters. The only propositional symbols (letters) you should see in a proof are those that appear in the original premises or as conditional assumptions.

posted on 11.15.2005 3:00 PM

Joe Carter writes:

35

Bryan Still, I completely disagree with your rebuttal.

You are making some good points even though I’m not quite convinced that they damage my argument. For example, you write:

But nowhere does Paul, when speaking about what happened when he was converted, speak of coming to belief in the "right" God. Instead, he says that God was "pleased to reveal his Son to me" (Gal. 1:16). The assumption is that it was the very same God as Paul believed in before - the only difference is His revelation of His Son.

I completely agree. Our difference in opinion, I believe, rests on how Paul reacted. When the Son was revealed to Paul, the apostle recognized him as God. The reason he was able to do so is that he already had the belief in the “right” God. When presented with a more progressive revelation of God (i.e., Jesus) he was able to recognize the “right” God.

Imagine that a young Jew grows up alone on an abandoned island. He has the Torah so he has an understanding of God but has no knowledge of Jesus. Now let’s say that he is rescued and while on the plane back to civilization picks up a copy of the New Testament. When faced with the “new revelation” of Jesus he will have one of two reactions: he will either recognize him as God or reject him.

My contention is that all Jews face the same choice. If they truly know and worship the true God then they cannot help but recognize Christ as His son. Jesus doesn’t even allow that possibility as an option. He comments are not merely about salvation but about the very act of knowing God.

MT Father Richard John Neuhaus disagree.

As much as I respect Father Neuhaus, I have to add this to the long line of theological issues on which I believe he is wrong. ; ) (Also, his argument is extremely weak.)

Meph What I've been trying (but failing) to say is that ***IF one were to have God's self-revelation to Moses as YHWH be the PRIMARY criterion involved***, then that one could say that the supreme veneration of devout, orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians is aimed at the same general idea of God.

I agree. But that is like saying that when we have a discussion about the “winner of the World Series” that saying the New York Giants are the champions is accurate because it was, at one time, a true statement.

Perhaps I am overstating the case because it is my belief that Jesus changes everything. I don’t believe he is necessary just for salvation but is necessary to know God because…well, because he is God. To say that you can reject Jesus and still worship God implies that Jesus is somehow a separable entity and not really necessary.

Kevin You cannot apply Modus Ponens to just one statement, or to three statements together, especially if none of them is a conditional, so neither of your lines 5 or 6 can be right.

I’m not claiming that the statement is an example of MP but is derived from using that form and the three premises.

If I had written out the MP form it would look like:

If P (you deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God) then Q (you do not know Jesus).
P (you deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God)
Therefore, Q (you do not know Jesus).

#6 would take a similar form.

Line 9 is not a correct Conjunction. Conjunction is simply combining two propositions together with "and":

That is what Line #9 does. It combines T (You deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God) and W (Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God).

Instead, you have a conjunction of only part of one line with all of the other.

That’s because “if” is not a part of premise T.

You could have skipped it and just used the existing lines 7 and 8, as below.

True. I was just trying to be thorough.

Line 10 is kind of garbled: again, Modus Ponens seeks to produce the predicate of a conditional by asserting the antecedent. Instead, you start with a conditional (Line 7) and come up with another conditional in Line 10. It would work better (and get you to the conclusion you really want) like this:

Again, this is not an example of MP, but the rule from which the statement could be derived.
Even with all these changes, though, this conclusion does not follow formally from your premises 1-4 and 8.

Premises 1-4 are used to provide a basis for the argument made in 5 and 6. #8 is a completely separate premise that applies only to the conclusion.

Note that those premises all express fact claims about God and Jesus. Your argument, beginning with 5, hinges on what different groups assert or deny about God and Jesus, not what is actually true about them.

Lines 1-4 set up the premises for what is true about God and Jesus (at least from an evangelical point of view). Therefore, they perform the exact function you claim is needed.

You would need to recast the whole argument to come up with something really formally valid - but again your point is simple enough that you don't really need any of this anyway.

While it could be argued that it could be stated in a simpler manner, I disagree with your contention and think that the argument is both sound and valid.

Good grief. We can’t even agree on logic ; )

posted on 11.15.2005 3:44 PM

Terence Moeller writes:

36

On Mars Hill Paul says of the altar to the Unknown God:

"Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Compare Christ's admonition to the woman at the well:

"Ye worship ye know not what . . . "

From these two examples one may deduce that it is possible to be ignorant of who God is on a personal level, yet have a general knowledge of him. What Jesus said to the woman at the well may be a microcosm of his message to the entire nation of Israel.

Concerning Christian Arabs referring to God as Allah,
that is vastly different from the Muslim concept of Allah and therefore it is not the word itself that is important, it is the concept behind the word.

posted on 11.15.2005 4:00 PM

Joe Carter writes:

37

Terrence,

From these two examples one may deduce that it is possible to be ignorant of who God is on a personal level, yet have a general knowledge of him.

I agree. In fact, I think that all people (including atheists) have some general knowledge about God. I even think that the Jews and Muslims have more general knowledge about God then most other groups. But that is a completely seperate issue of whether they would be able to pick God out of a line-up.

posted on 11.15.2005 4:03 PM

Jon Rowe writes:

38

Excellent post.

Let me ask Joe or those who agree with Joe's argument a question.

During the Founding, religious freethinkers were overrepresented among the elite, and our founders were by in large the elite thinkers of society.

Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin without question denied the Trinity, and they in turn made up a majority of the drafting board of the Declaration. (In fact, Adams, in a private letter to Jefferson went so far as to write that "the laws of Nature" themselves reveal "Nature's God" to be unitarian, not Trinitarian in His attributes.)

Although there is uncertaintly (mainly because of their conspicuous silence) it's also likely that Washington and Madison were likewise small u unitarians. There is certainly no good evidence to the contrary. And when all five of the above PUBLICLY invoked "God," they always invoked a generic monotheistic God, never referring to Him in Trinitarian terms.

But, if the God they invoked was not the "real" God, then these key framers and the Declaration itself essentially made supplications to a False God (Nature's God = False God).

My question is: does this offend this conscience of "real" Christians, and would it have been better, then, if such non-true believers as the first four Presidents of this nation and Ben Franklin, kept their mouths shut and didn't reference God at all? And if so, should this be imputed as a constitutional standard?

posted on 11.15.2005 4:05 PM

Joe Carter writes:

39

Jon My question is: does this offend this conscience of "real" Christians, and would it have been better, then, if such non-true believers as the first four Presidents of this nation and Ben Franklin, kept their mouths shut and didn't reference God at all? And if so, should this be imputed as a constitutional standard?

While I disagree with their theology and believe that they should not refer to themselves as "Christians" I wouldn't say it offends me or that I thing that should have "kept their mouths shut." They have as much right to speak as would a President who was a Muslim or a Jew. After all, this isn't a "Christian nation."

Also, I wouldn't want to include some sort of conscience muzzle that says that it is acceptable for a President to have religious views but that they should not be expressed publicly.

posted on 11.15.2005 4:15 PM

Meph writes:

40

Joe:
"I agree. But that is like saying that when we have a discussion about the “winner of the World Series” that saying the New York Giants are the champions is accurate because it was, at one time, a true statement."

Meph:
Ouch. Can we say "supercessionism", boys and girls? I knew you could... :o)

_______________________________

Joe (emphasis mine):
"Perhaps I am overstating the case because it is my belief that Jesus changes everything. I don’t believe he is necessary just for salvation but is necessary to know God because…well, because he is God. ***To say that you can reject Jesus and still worship God implies that Jesus is somehow a separable entity and not really necessary.***"

Meph:
How about this:

Understanding Jesus as Messiah and Son of God is absolutely necessary to worship the "God of the Torah" **IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH.**

Worshipping YHWH "in spirit and truth" means offering supreme veneration to YHWH in full, accepted view of the complete revelation of God in Jesus by way of the Spirit. I would wager that most orthodox Christians would agree with this. Along with this, I'm saying that it is possible for someone to worship this God INACCURATELY and/or INAPPROPRIATELY. And, Christianly speaking, post-Jesus Judaism and Islam do just this. Given all this, only trinitarian believers can worship YHWH "in spirit and truth."

Agreed?

Love the site, BTW ;o)

posted on 11.15.2005 4:15 PM

Webruary writes:

41

Joe,

I believe it is possible to REFER to the same person, yet, NOT KNOW HIM ENOUGH TO BELIEVE WRONG THINGS ABOUT HIM.

Bear with me for a moment as I provide an analogy via an illustration...

Take for example the person of George W. Bush... Many Democrats believe that he is a liar, they believe (like Michael Moore) that he invaded Iraq and even Afghainistan to help his cronies in Halliburton profit from oil prices, construction, and even building pipelines. They say that he lied about his service in the Air National Guard, that he only joined the ANG to avoid going to Vietnam... etc. You get my drift.

Republican supporters of Bush on the other hand believe that Bush invaded Iraq because he sincerely believed that it will help protect America from terror, that he bravely served in the Air National Guard, that he even volunteered to fly in Vietnam, etc.

Now what does this have to do with the Muslim, Jewish and Christian idea of God ?

It would be silly for us to say that those who hate Bush and those who love Bush are talking about two different individuals because they clearly ARE NOT. It is the same Bush they talk about. The only difference being --- THEIR PERCEPTION, UNDERSTANDING, KNOWLEDGE OF HIM.

Clearly both cannot be right at the same time. The Law of Non-Contradiction precludes this.

How does this apply to Jews vs Christians as it relates to the one God ? SAME PRINCIPLE. Christians believe that God is Triune. Jews DO NOT. Yet, they BOTH CORRECTLY REFER TO THE SAME GOD ( just as Dems and GOPers correctly refer to the same person of Bush ).

If God exists and He did reveal His nature to us, then clearly, Jews and Christians CANNOT BE BOTH RIGHT ABOUT GOD. THIS IS NOT TO SAY HOWEVER, THAT THEY DO NOT WORSHIP THE SAME GOD.
THEY DO.

ONLY, one's idea of this same God is NOT QUITE RIGHT and the other's is. Hence, as I said before, YOU CAN REFER TO THE SAME PERSON YET HAVE WRONG IDEAS AND BELIEFS ABOUT HIM ( again think of Bush ).

Similarly, Jews, Muslims and Christians can refer to the same God, yet many of them have WRONG BELIEFS ABOUT HIM.

How does this apply to us relationally to God ?

God accepts CORRECT WORSHIP. If we worship Him, we must do so in SPIRIT and IN TRUTH. Both Cain and Abel worshipped the same God. God accepted the worship of Abel but rejected Cain's.

If the God of the Bible ( both OT and NT ) is true, then only Christians are worshipping God in TRUTH. The other two are worshipping the SAME God, BUT NOT IN TRUTH.

My two cents worth.

posted on 11.15.2005 5:18 PM

Pastor Jeff writes:

42

Patrick(Gryph) asks:

Just out of curiosity, do Christians believe that the triune always existed? I know there are prophecies in the old testament about the messiah, but is there any thing in there that supports the concept of a triune God? Any mention of the holy ghost?

If someone's already answered, please forgive me, but I didn't see it. Patrick, the short answers to your questions are:
1. Yes
2. Maybe

Longer answers:
1. Yes. Although more implicit than explicit in the New Testament, an honest reading forces us to conclude that there is one God eternally existing in three equally divine persons. See Matthew 3:16-17 and 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Peter 1:2, 1 John 5:5-6. Most of the heresies in the early church had to do with misunderstanding the nature and relationships of the members of the trinity.

2. There are hints at the triune nature of God in the OT. There is the frequent mention of the Spirit of God in creation, in coming upon priests, prophets, and others, and so on. In David's great confession of sin, he prays that God would not take his Holy Spirit from him (Ps. 51:11). Some also take appearances of the angel of the Lord to be the Son before his incarnation (e.g., Genesis 16, Joshua 5, Judges 6). There is also the curious use of the plural when God speaks of himself in Genesis 1:26 and 11:17 and appears as three persons to Abraham in Genesis 18.

I hope this helps.

posted on 11.15.2005 5:28 PM

Pastor Jeff writes:

43

Even if devout Jews and Muslims are sincerely worshipping God according to their knowledge, it still does them no good. People are condemned not for not knowing Jesus, but for sin. And for a Jew to devoutly and properly worship God, there would have to be reinstituted Temple worship based on the sacrificial system.

"19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water." Hebrews 10

How can anyone else approach God? Because they're sincere? "The LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." Nadab and Abihu were sincere and God struck them dead for worshipping him in an unauthorized manner. There is no way to draw near to God apart from Jesus. If you don't know Jesus, you don't know the Father (John 8:19). If you don't have Jesus, you don't have the Father (1 John 2:23).

If Jews and Muslims can worship God adequately apart from Jesus, then they're better off not hearing the gospel and being held accountable for that knowledge. Jews and Muslims are closer to the correct knowledge of God than Buddhists or Hindus - no doubt. That knowledge may make them more disposed to the gospel - or not. But in the end, it doesn't matter whether you miss heaven by an inch or a mile. Jesus did not come simply to "supersize" anyone's religion, because apart from Him they are not just a little off, but fatally deficient. Jesus did not come to show a better way to the Father, but to show the way to the Father.

posted on 11.15.2005 5:57 PM

Anonymous writes:

44

Just wanted to say this is an interesting topic.

posted on 11.15.2005 6:43 PM

MT writes:

45

Webruary nailed it. He states the Neuhaus argument perfectly.

Joe, why do you think this a weak argument? You obviously believe there is only one God. And, presumably you take Jews and Muslims at their word when they say they are sincerely worshipping Him according to their beliefs. Hence, the are worshipping the one true God we do, albeit incorrectly according to our Christian faith. Your initial argument - assuming you're an orthodox Christian - makes the case that Jews and Muslims are wrong in their understanding of the one God we believe exists, not they don't sincerely worship him.

posted on 11.15.2005 9:10 PM

Terence Moeller writes:

46

Pastor Jeff:

"There are hints at the triune nature of God in the OT. There is the frequent mention of the Spirit of God in creation, in coming upon priests, prophets, and others, and so on. In David's great confession of sin, he prays that God would not take his Holy Spirit from him (Ps. 51:11). Some also take appearances of the angel of the Lord to be the Son before his incarnation (e.g., Genesis 16, Joshua 5, Judges 6). There is also the curious use of the plural when God speaks of himself in Genesis 1:26 and 11:17 and appears as three persons to Abraham in Genesis 18."

Well said. I would also add Daniel 3:25. Three men are cast into the furnace for not worshiping the King. Although there is some debate among modern translaters over whether the word "God" should have been pluralized, I trust the KJV:

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

There is also Isaiah chp 40 in the OT where God says that he is the "first and the last" and besides him there is "no other savior."
Fast forwad to the NT in Revelation where Christ identifies himself as the "Alpha and Omega." Undoubtedly Jesus procalimed himself to be God and thus part of the Trinity.

posted on 11.15.2005 9:14 PM

Boonton writes:

47

I'm a big fan of the HBO series Rome, which prides itself on being very historically accurate. In one of the episodes Ceasar enters Egypt and talks to the boy King there and his advisors. They are a bit immature and his aid informs them of the huge amounts of money they owe Rome. They are informed that by law all their debts to various other Roman officers are now transferred to Ceasar. They ask "under Roman law?" and Julias responds angrily "is there another kind of law?".

Jews & Muslims say they worship the God who created the universe & is superior to everything else. Joe says they are worshipping some other God than the Christians but I ask "is there another God?" Is there some other God who created the universe & everything in it? If not then the entire argument collapses (as do most of Joe's arguments, if his arguments were houses I doubt any insurance company would cut a policy for them nor would they ever get past a building inspector who wasn't on the take).

posted on 11.15.2005 9:41 PM

Kelly Madden writes:

48

Is the bit about religious liberty basically just a defensive disclaimer? I don't see how it follows that glossing theological differences is either intolerant, or that religious liberty is necessary. To tolerate something, you must believe that it is wrong. We do not "tolerate" that with which we agree. So to the extent that Christians believe--incorrectly, I would say, for reasons similar to yours--that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same God, they are not tolerating such worship, because they do not believe it is wrong. But I can't see how such glossing is "intolerant."

For related reasons, I don't see how religious toleration follows from any of the rest of your position. It certainly can't follow from the belief that others worship a different God. Does it follow from the claim that because God allows people to reject God, Christians should also? I don't see how.

But to answer this question we would have to look more closely at what is being tolerated. I guess it could be argued that we shouldn't "shackle freedom of thought." Okay. I'm not sure how you prevent people from thinking incorrectly anyway, strictly speaking. Servetus wasn't killed for thinking incorrectly, but for talking about it, and refusing to renounce it. So perhaps you are referring to speech and acts that come out of differences of thought. You say that Christians should give the "respect due to fellow humans made in the image of God", for example. But you don't show how this respect entails tolerance. Although I think that Christians should be tolerant, for a host of very different reasons, I don't see how it follows necessarily from such respect.

posted on 11.16.2005 7:24 AM

Patrick (Gryph) writes:

49

MT Father Richard John Neuhaus disagree.

As much as I respect Father Neuhaus, I have to add this to the long line of theological issues on which I believe he is wrong. ; ) (Also, his argument is extremely weak.)

Not to mention he writes some of the most pretentious, snobby, elitist, and pompous articles I've ever seen. I've been reading First Things for over a year now, and I have come to the conclusion that regardless of his scholarship achievments, I don't think he is really qualified to speak on anything other than what it's like to be a Class-A Jackass.

posted on 11.16.2005 11:15 AM

Jon Rowe writes:

50

Patrick:

I'll take Neuhaus and Joe Carter and Marvin Olasky over the Hal Lindseys or Rod Parsleys, (not to mention Robertson and Falwell) of the world any day.

posted on 11.16.2005 1:42 PM

peter writes:

51

Very troubling post! Trying to reduce our Devine Creator to human-limited logic.

Trinity, trinity, trinity. Not one of you can explain it. Attempts to explain always end up in circular logic. Just read "One God or Three" by Stanley Rosenthal. It starts at a=b=c.....=x=y=z. Then z=a. One can't accept a trinity theory on logic alone. How about accepting it on a "feel it in my soul" basis. Maybe, but it's not natural. Not natural as in accepting an all powerful God of Creation. That comes mighty easy, at least to a mere mortal such as myself. Evidently most of our Founding Fathers agreed. Not bad company to be in.

Why then this trinity thing? Me thinks it may have something to do with God's very clear admonition against worshiping other gods (polytheism) on the one hand, and also worshipping Messiah Jesus. At first take, this would clearly be polytheistic. How then does the very limited human mind get around this paradox? Simple. It creates a conglomerate of Jesus and God and glues it together with the Holy Spirit. Why can't the beauty of Messiah Jesus as the Word of God, endowed with the Spirit of God, be accepted without a trinitarian paradigm? Evidently this was troubling the early church, hence the Nicene Creed.

Islam? I agree with those who discount it as being hijacked from Judo-Christianity. It deserves no more theological consideration than that. As for history-determining geopolitics and future wars, it deserves near total consideration, whether we like it or not.

Judaism? To say that the people of the bible (OT and NT), those our God saw fit to entrust with his Commandments, the people from which came Messiah Jesus, don't worship the same God (complete, incomplete, or otherwise) is not only absurd in the limited mind of this writer, but it is wrong (in the limited soul of this writer).

Joe, I am sure you mean no ill intent with this post, it being just another mind wrenching exercise of yours in something that is in fact simple (read "faith"), but this line of reasoning worries me. While I, and apparently most commentors to this post, dismiss Islam for what it is (or should I say what it isn't), the Jews are something all together different and don't deserve to be even mentioned or compared in the same paragraph as Islam! Your benignly intended exercise in logic here serves to completely remove the hyphen in Judaeo-Christian, a hyphen that should in fact be strengthened at all expense. It will indeed be strengthened when they write "The Rest of the Story", as Paul Harvey would say.

But, while your intent is surely benign, this whole post gives creedance to anti-Semitism from yet another angle. While some of the best friends of Judaeism in this country are those with a deep belief in the teachings of Jesus (I might hesitate to call them all Christians lest some of them be foung to privately hold a more unitarian view), one familiar mantra of anti-Semitism in some ?Christian? circles is "the Jews killed Christ", therefore they're lost and no good. While most of the commentors on this post seem to be dealing with your mental (certainly not spiritual) exercise with good intent, can you just imagine the fuel this would be to the fire of Jew-hating? I can see it now, "the Jews don't even worship our God". Didn't it start off like that in Germany 70 years ago?

I guess Messianic Jews really have it wrong, right?

Peter

posted on 11.16.2005 2:22 PM

dopderbeck writes:

52

I don't buy this line of argument. I think you're mixing who God actually is (ontology) with what we know and believe about Him (epistemology) and what sort of belief in Him results in salvation (soteriology).

God is no less God, as an ontological being, if our understanding and knowledge of Him is imperfect. If we follow your line of reasoning all the way, no one would truly be worshipping God unless the worshipper has a perfect knowledge of God. Since no one can claim a perfect knowledge of God, we'd all be excluded as worshipers.

Pastor Jeff, while I agree with the substance of what you've said, it seems the proof text you and Joe are citing have to specifically with saving faith (soteriology). Clearly, the New Testament scripture teaches that saving faith is only faith in Christ; no one is saved apart from Christ; no one who rejects the divinity of Christ can claim to have saving faith.

That's a different question, however, than the question whether Muslims and Jews have at least some degree of knowledge of and faith in the same God, as an ontological being, that we Christians worship. As others have observed in this thread, scripture reveals God's nature progressively. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob clearly is presented in scripture as the same God we Christians worship. We Christians believe we understand more of His triune nature than Abraham, Isaac or Jacob did because of God's progressive revelation of Himself in scripture and in the person of Christ. The epistle to the Hebrews certainly confirms the continuity between genuine faith under the Old and New Covenants. God has not changed, but we now know more about Him through Christ and are offered a new covenant based on that deeper knowledge.

So, I think it is more accurate to make a distinctions based on progressive revelation and what constitutes saving faith under the new covenant rather than to define a non-triune understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as constituting a "different" ontological being than the God Christians worship.

This distinction between ontology, epistemology, and soteriology gives us Christians common ground with Muslims and Jews on many basic things relating to the nature of man, morality, and natural law, while leaving us free to differ on matters specific to soteriology without resorting to universalism.

posted on 11.16.2005 2:22 PM

Joe Carter writes:

53

Hey David,
This distinction between ontology, epistemology, and soteriology gives us Christians common ground with Muslims and Jews on many basic things relating to the nature of man, morality, and natural law, while leaving us free to differ on matters specific to soteriology without resorting to universalism.

The primary point of my post is that the way we talk about this issue tends to obscure some essential differences. If we say that we worship the “same God” but that Christians just know more about “who God is” then we can say it is a matter of epistemology. This is the standard Christian belief because it seems (at least if your not a Jew) to be rather non-controversial. But saying this obscures the different claim’s we make about ontology.

We are saying that God is triune, while the Jews think this concept is nonsense. But God is either triune or he is not. We can’t say that he is triune in relation to Christians and unitarian in relation to the Jews because the two are contradictory.

The problem I have with the standard claim that the difference is epistemological is that we are essentially saying that the Jews are so religiously ignorant that they even when faced with revelation from God himself that they still don’t recognize him – and yet continue to worship him just the same. This claim is both condescending and confused. If we want to treat the modern Jews belief with the respect it deserves then we should have the courage to admit that their conception of God is so incomplete that we cannot even claim to be worshipping the same being.

Also, I’m rather concerned by the unintentional implications in your comment that Jesus is only really important for soteriology. I think knowledge of Jesus shakes the very concept of God to its core and is essential for any claim to know God. It is one thing not to have ever heard of Jesus as was true during the early church period. But anyone who claims to be worshipping the God of the OT must change their conception when faced with the incarnation. I don’t see where Jesus leaves that open to dispute.

posted on 11.16.2005 2:47 PM

dopderbeck writes:

54

we are essentially saying that the Jews are so religiously ignorant that they even when faced with revelation from God himself that they still don’t recognize him

What about passages like John 1:10-12:

He was in the world, and though the world was made by him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who beleived in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God..."

There is a strong theme in the NT, I think, that both Jews and Gentiles don't recognize Christ even though he has been revealed as God. The NT typically portrays this as a matter of willfullness and of being blinded by the devil, the flesh, and the world rather than mere ignorance, true, but it is a matter of knowing and believing in this newly revealed aspect of God's nature rather than believing in a completely different ontological being.

I think knowledge of Jesus shakes the very concept of God to its core ...

But if this is so, how do you account for the continuity of the Old and New Testament, the unchanging nature of God, and the relationship between the old and new covenants? This seems to suggest that the God Christians worship is dramatically different than the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob worshipped. I don't see that anywhere in NT Theology.

posted on 11.16.2005 3:17 PM

Kelly Madden writes:

55

No takers on my first post, so I'll try to add something to what's been posted since.

What if "God" is a title, not a personal noun, such as "Yahweh"? If it turns out that God is something generally revealed in some way to all, but without enough specification, apart from specific revelation, to describe much more than negatively, then we are arguing about the identity of the same "God". If we start putting content to the title, then we are not.

I'm thinking of the Kripke/Putnam theory. In the central illustration proposed by Putnam, we imagine the existence of another world, Twin Earth, identical in every way, save one, to our world. In Twin Earth there is a transparent, odorless, colorless liquid that its English-speaking inhabitants call “water.” The Twin Earth liquid functions as H2O does in our world as a solvent, agent of biological hydration, and so forth. The liquid is not H2O, however, but a chemical abbreviated, say, as XYZ. (Compare “heavy water” which has exactly the same structure as water, except the hydrogen atoms are isotopes of hydrogen called “deuterium,” and has practically all the same properties as water. It is a “form of water in which the hydrogen atoms of mass 1 (1H) ordinarily present in water are replaced by deuterium (symbol D or 2H), the heavy stable isotope of hydrogen of mass 2. The molecular formula of heavy water is D2O (or 2H2O).”) www.accesscience.com/Encyclopedia/3/31/Est_311450_frameset.html

Would we be correct to say that XYZ is water? No, we would not, because water is identical to the properties of the chemical H2O. Water = H2O and non-H2O is not water. Names and natural-kind terms (what we call water in our world, for example) are “rigid designators” (Kripke) so that both of these identity statements concerning water, if true, are necessarily true in all possible worlds.

Even inhabitants of our world 300 years ago (before discoveries required to identify the liquid we call water as H2O) would have been wrong if they had learned of that alien world and had believed that that alien liquid was water. If there is a hidden structure of a natural kind, it is that structure that determines what it is to be a member of the natural kind. Whether we have discovered its hidden structure or not, the nature of what we in our world call water—-according to our best account so far, it is H2O—-is the same in all possible worlds.

One implication of this observation is that terms such as “water” are not therefore precisely synonymous with any description we happen to have at the time. As in the case of the example of our forebears of 300 years ago, it could turn out upon further discovery that the nature of what we point at with our description turns out not to be what our description said it was. Although we use operational definitions, and must do so, they are not analytically true of what they index. Criteria are not necessary and sufficient conditions for identity, but are only our best approximations of entities that exist independently of our theories.

Application. If by "God" we are referring to "that entity that is revealed to all through nature" then we are talking about the same entity, if indeed we are all pointing at the same thing. If we are discussing candidates for the position, however, then those who worship Allah, God-without-the-Son, the Triune God revealed in the 66 books, or for that matter, Jupiter or the Unmoved Mover, then we are not worshipping the same entity. On the basis of what I take as God's revelation of Godself, the Christian understanding is a better candidate than the others. To the extent that they are worshipping those entities, existent or not, they are not worshipping the same God. To the extent that I am not worshipping what I index by "God" or my misconceptions of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I am not worshipping God.

posted on 11.16.2005 3:33 PM

Kelly Madden writes:

56

Instead of "pointing at the same thing" I should have said "pointing at the same manifestations in nature." There may be other spiritual entities that manifest themselves in very different ways than God does. By referring to different manifestations we would not be referring to the same entity.

posted on 11.16.2005 4:00 PM

ex-preacher writes:

57

Do Protestants and Catholics worship the same god?

Do Arminians and Calvinists worship the same god?

I don't see how anyone can read Matthew and John objectively and reach the conclusion that the writers described the same Jesus or believed in the same god.

posted on 11.16.2005 6:40 PM

dopderbeck writes:

58

I realized that something I said above came out less clear than I'd like, so here is a clarification:

I think knowledge of Jesus shakes the very concept of God to its core and is essential for any claim to know God.

I agree that, under the new covenant, knowledge (in the NT sense of an intimate relationship with) of Jesus is essential for any claim to have a saving relationship with God. But I don't think it's correct to say the knowledge of Jesus "shakes the very concept of God to its core." The orthodox Christian view, I think, is that the revelation of God in Jesus is perfectly consistent with everything God revealed about Himself before the incarnation. Jesus doesn't "shake" the OT concept of God. This sounds a bit too much like the heresy that there is a "bad" OT god and a "good" NT god. Jesus rather fullfills and completes God's self-revelation prior to the incarnation. God's nature remains ever the same.

posted on 11.16.2005 9:45 PM

mark writes:

59

i get what you are saying, but i think it is dangerous to assert that we do not worship the same God as Jews do. Isn't our God not also the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Yes, we know him through Christ, and therefore know him in a way that Jews (and Muslims) do not (yet?) know him -- just as Moses knew God in a deeper and more meaningful way than did Abraham (Moses having been given the Law).

But when Paul discusses the mystery of God's election in Romans, it is quite clear that Jews and Gentile Christians are in fact dealing with the same God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- yes; but still the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob nonetheless (even if Abraham et. al. did not understand the Triune nature of God).

posted on 11.17.2005 3:29 PM

mark writes:

60

one more point -- you wrote:

...I even think that the Jews and Muslims have more general knowledge about God then most other groups. But that is a completely seperate issue of whether they would be able to pick God out of a line-up....

But is this even the relevant question? Isn't it rather the case that on the day of judgment there will be many who say to Christ, "Lord, Lord," and to them he will say: "Depart from me for I knew you not"? Meanwhile there will be others who seem ignorant of their ministry to Christ, and yet they are treated as though they knew Christ? And what about what Christ says in John (and I'm paraphrasing): "I have many sheep who are not of this fold..."?

posted on 11.17.2005 3:40 PM

Gordon Mullings writes:

61

Joe et al:

Quite a hot debate back and forth, on an excellent topic. I am also happy to see the irenic tone and serious substance, unlike my experience with some other recent threads. Pardon a relatively lengthy post for this thread, but I think some explicit addressing of Pauline NT teaching will help clarify some of the issues at stake.

I will also give here a link to a discussion on the Abrahamic Faiths from a recent conference held in Barbados, to understand and assess then respond to the complex of challenges presented by Islam, the Gospel and the Caribbean.

_________________

Main remark:

I think Terence is on to something in citing Paul's Mars Hill address:

AC 17:16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." . . . .

AC 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

AC 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.'

AC 17:29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

The trick in this is that the cite from Greek poets was inter alia from Cleanthes, writing a hymn to ZEUS. But, Cleanthes recognised that there is a Creator and Sustainer, so that was enough for Paul to speak in terms of a partial, blind grasping for God -- who therefore remains as significantly unknown, in need of further enlightenment. Indeed, the Gk word for feeling out for God is used of the Cyclops after Ulysses has put out his eye, as he gropes for his attacker: blind, i.e. handicapped, but one can get some degree of knowledge through other senses -- consider here the infamous six blind men of 'Industan and the Elephant. [Carson's deconstruction of the poem in his The Gagging of God is well worth the read!].

This is consistent with his teaching in Rom 1 - 2, which speaks of knowiung enough of God to be morally inexcusible, through what is evident to the eye of reason in nature and conscience; but equally so with 1 Cor 1, which discusses how we cannot come to fully know God through human brilliance, but rather through hearing and trusting accurate proclamation of what God has to say -- again, given credibility by the resurrection from the dead and the consequent power that flows from the power of that resurrection.

I suspect though that a key underlying concern is that there are those who are in effect "informationally BC" and so how will God treat such. Paul answers in a passage that does not get the headlines it should:

RO 2:6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. . . . 11 For God does not show favoritism . . . . 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Here, Paul points out God's fairness, indicating that our problem is not our ignorance of God, but our refusal to walk by the light we do have, or to open our eyes and heart to further truth. His remark on patient persistence in doing well further implies sorrow over moral failings and willingnes to turn towards the right and pursuit of the right. In short, C S Lewis -- as usual -- was dead on in his story of the Calormene Lieutenant who found himself to have been reaching out for the true God even though he was in deep ignorance of just who that true God was. Similarly, the traitorous Dwarves found themselves -- within reach of Aslan's Country -- to be in a prison of their own making.

++++++++++++++++

So, I think that we need to recognise that the differences of worldview and associated errors due to ignorance are significant, but not ultimately significant. the killer issue is: what do you do with what you do know, or should know, starting with the testimony of mind, heart and conscience within and the majesty of the cosmos without? How do you or I respond to credible further illumination and proclamation? Why? Are we fulfilling the intellectual and moral duties we face? Where we fail, are we penitent?

Trust that helps.

Grace open eyes

Gordon

posted on 11.18.2005 5:02 AM

Tim writes:

62

Aren't we all sons of God?

Middle eastern folklore gives spiritual hope of salvation from the death of the body and the evil demons of the 'underworld.' This hope is a desire so great, that masses are induced to suspend disbelief in absurdities, fritter their days away in the intellectual playground of the Bible, and even kill on behalf of big Oil (or whoever happens to be running the show at the time).

Thomas Jefferson, great founder of our nation that he was, tried to edit the nonsense out of the Bible to no avail. But at least he and the others put religion out to pasture when it comes to debating and resolving serious matters of governance, rights and freedom. Something that takes place in the House and Senate among grown-ups who have overcome their salvation anxiety and emotional need for PDM - public display of myth.

Another 'great' American, Joseph Smith, on the other hand, just plagiarized the Bible to create his own kingdom. Evangelical "pastors" do the same.

I'm not an atheist. I'm a statist, actually. And a Roman Catholic. (We don't need absolute faith because we have confession and purgatory to s