Debating a Muslim

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robyn_p said:
Well, the simple fact is, we’re not. We believe in one God. There are three relationally distinct Persons in One Being. But not three gods. They all perfectly possess the one and the same divine nature.

I think he’s under the (understandable) impression that the person/being ratio must be 1:1. But point out to him this isn’t the case, even in our own experience. A statue is a being. It exists. But it’s not a person. If we can have a being that exists as zero persons, and a being that exists as one person, why can’t we have a Being that exists as Three persons?

We’ve never experienced that, but I think your friend would agree that the almighty God should transcend our experiences.

I also think this analogy by St. Augustine would be helpful to show him how it’s not irrational to say there can be three relationally distinct realities in only one being:

I speak of these three: to be, to know, and to will. For I am, and I know, and I will: I am a knowing and a willing being, and I know that I am and that I will, and I will to be and to know. Therefore, in these three, let him who can do so perceive how inseparable a life there is, one life and one mind and one essence, and finally how inseparable a distinction there is, and yet there is a distinction. Surely a man stands face to face with himself. Let him take heed of himself, and look there, and tell me. But when he has discovered any of these and is ready to speak, let him not think that he has found that immutable being which is above all these, which is immutably, and knows immutably, and wills immutably.

In God, the Father is the being one, the Son is the knowing one, and the Holy Spirit is the willing one. Just like in us, these three are really distinct, but they also subsist in one being.

Now obviously this isn’t perfect, no analogy is. Our knowing, being, and willing are not each infinite as the persons of God are. They subsist in one being in us, but they are not persons.

None of this will probably convince him, but I think if you give him these two examples, it might help him see why we’re not polytheists.
Click to expand...
You wrote, " A statue is a being. It exists. But it’s not a person."

A statue is not a being or a person.

Say it is a marble statue, it is NOT a being but is a piece of marble shaped like whatever it is shaped like by the shaper.
 
SPH1 said:
If that’s their simplistic, knee-jerk response, then okay. Would then have to emphasise that it’s the two persons in one body that alludes to the concept of the Trinity being several persons in one godhead. Nature has a very good example alluding to the Trinity, how it is possible.

Perhaps studying Islam more (I had a smidgen in Religious Studies at my University back in the day) would be in order. My main recollection I formed back then was that Islam didn’t really know who God is; or how to be “saved” (other than martyrdom).

All Islam is is a Judeao-Christian heresy.
Click to expand...
You wrote, “All Islam is is a Judeao-Christian heresy”.

That is your opinion.

My opinion is that islam was/is a revelation by a created supernatural being.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living[16] and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...x-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-compact.svg.png
Click to expand...
You wrote, “This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

So it is not by “faith in God” that anyone is saved but by “faith in the catholic faith” with the stipulation that that faith be believed “truly and firmly” that one can be saved, is that what you are saying?
 
The best analogy I can give in the differences between Islam and Christianity is this. Christianity offers us a chance to join the household of God as sons and daughters. Islam offers us a chance to be a slave of God. So it really comes down to would you rather be a Slave or a Son?

Peace be with you.
 
That’s an odd point for a Syriac Christian to make. How many patriarchs, saints, priests, etc. have names like Abedaloho (or, since Arabization, Abdullah), Abdelahad, etc.? I am more than proud to be a servant of God, and refuse to hand that over to Islam on theological or any other grounds. Perhaps it is better said that Islam, on account of its infantile theology, is stuck with a very basic and externalized view of God and the relationship of God and humanity, whereas Christianity allows for a much richer, multifaceted, and deeper relationship with God.

But still we are nothing if not servants of the one true God.
 
You raise a good point DZ. If I was Lebanese or of middle eastern descent it would be odd indeed. However, as I am 3rd generation Norwegian who simply fell in love with the Maronite theology. Sadly, I don’t speak a lick of Arabic. I actually would love to read any Syriac theological literature but aside from a book on st Ephrem and the Maronite Catechism Captivated by your Teachings, and the set of holy quorbonos that my church gave away when the new missal came out, I don’t have much. Any Syriac book titles would be appreciated though. I don’t necessarily like ceding anything to Islam perse so your analogy in preferable.
 
We believe that if Jesus existed as God and with God He is God.

(Sunni) Muslims believe the Qur’an has always existed with God and yet isn’t God; but was never created. We accept that anything which proceeds from God and has eternally been with God (aka God’s Word) must be God, because anything eternal and uncreated is God.

So how can Muslims explain that the Qur’an is the eternal word of God (which we believe about Jesus) and not God?
 
So how can Muslims explain that the Qur’an is the eternal word of God (which we believe about Jesus) and not God?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to about the Qur’an, but Jesus Himself is called both the “Spirit of God” and the “Word of God” in the Qur’an.
 
Matthew_Light said:
I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to about the Qur’an, but Jesus Himself is called both the “Spirit of God” and the “Word of God” in the Qur’an.
Click to expand...
He is referring to the Islamic teaching (I assume it is an Islamic teaching, my knowledge is limited) that the Quran has always existed and was never created. If this understanding of Islamic teachings is correct, then we are faced with the Quran being the equal to and not from God.

The titles used to describe Christ in the Quran are of no real value since their usage ignores the underlining theology of them. Christ is the “Word of God,” but He is also God. This is denied in the Quran as it teaches that Christ was just a prophet.
 
I’ve found that someone can’t understand the trinity if they don’t want to. If they refuse to listen to the Christian definition of certain words, concede that definition and try their best to understand it is impossible for them to even begin. Muslims have against them an inherent dislike of the trinity, to them it is pagan, it destroys monotheism, it makes that which is God not God.

You need to ask your friend, does God have a substance? Does God have an essence? The Greek word the fathers used to talk about the trinity, the thing which is the oneness of God was Ousia, substance or essence or being. Muslims I find are hyper apophatic in this regard and I have heard Muslims say “No he has no substance.” Now when I hear that, I then must think he doesn’t exist but when the muslim says it they think God is so far above this reality that we cannot constrain him with such words. If you ask the muslim “Is your God something?” they will have to answer yes. If they are open to accepting our use of certain words this may lead them to accept that God has a substance, that there is an existence which is God which is completely different from everything else.

Then I think it might be best to go on to the concept of the simplicity of God. God is simple, in that he is not made up of multiple parts, he is one essence alone and that is divinity, that is God. Once the Muslim is willing to agree their God is of one substance of divinity then one can begin to talk about the concept of person hood, a concept I find almost no one except Christians understands. That is we mean by this word, a mind, an intelligence, capable of acting, thinking and has personality. If they understand that, then we need to make sure the three persons are sharing the one simple divine nature which makes them all the One God.

I think if you want to get into the trinitarian debate, you really need to educate yourself on how the fathers, how the church over the past 1700 years has talked about this subject. Become so intimately familiar with it so that you can answer objections like “How is the son God when he says he does not know the time or the date?” The answer to that was provided by Saint Maximos the confessor. How is the son God when he has a human body? The answer to that lies in the hypostatic union doctrine of Chalcedon.

Don’t expect to convert the Muslim in this, but rather just teach them about what Christianity actually says. Muslims often time have no idea what Christians really believe.
 
Tom_Baum said:
You wrote, “This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

So it is not by “faith in God” that anyone is saved but by “faith in the catholic faith” with the stipulation that that faith be believed “truly and firmly” that one can be saved, is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs: the catholic faith what has been described; it’s not “faith in the catholic faith”, it is holding that which is objectively True - “the Catholic faith” as True, or at least attempting to do so.
 
Tom_Baum said:
Sounds to me that you seem to think that God was a Trinity but that with the Eucharist, God is now an untold number of Persons in One God.
Click to expand...
It can definitely seem as this might be the case, especially when considering eternal actions, however, my understandings recognize God always was, is, and will be the Holy Trinity. And even though God shares his divinity with humanity through the Eucharist granting an untold number of persons in one God, does not change that there are only three distinct persons in one God.
 
jochoa said:
God shares his divinity with humanity through the Eucharist granting an untold number of persons in one God
Click to expand...
Can you explain what you mean by this? This is the first time I’ve ever seen or heard any such statement from a Catholic, and I can’t for the life of me figure out how it’s supposed to be understood. “An untold number of persons in one God”? :confused:
 
Tom_Baum said:
You wrote, " A statue is a being. It exists. But it’s not a person."

A statue is not a being or a person.

Say it is a marble statue, it is NOT a being but is a piece of marble shaped like whatever it is shaped like by the shaper.
Click to expand...
What you are proposing is not the classical philosophical understanding of what a “being” is.

A “being” is, classically understood, anything that exists. Anything, if you will, the “Be(s)”. Anything that “is”.

Thus, as a statue “is”, a statue “exists”, it is, indeed a being. It is just not a human being.

Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin addresses this very point here. catholic.com/audio-player/13474
Start at about minute 28:15

Curiously, I was just listening to that radio show a few hours ago. I guess I was meant to find your post and correct it. 🙂
 
jochoa said:
And even though God shares his divinity with humanity through the Eucharist granting an untold number of persons in one God, does not change that there are only three distinct persons in one God.
Click to expand...
dzheremi said:
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Click to expand...
Thanks for requesting further clarification! These are my understandings of the application of the Catholic Faith, and here are a few ways of recognizing my understandings as Catholic:

A) Catholicism knows
  • CCC#1374] Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity) is the Eucharist, as well as God Nicene Creed].
  • Church Father, St. Augustine declared, “Be what you see, receive what you are.”
    Therefore, each one of us is to be what we see in the Eucharist, receive what we are, which is God.
B) Catholicism knows
  • the Son of God is a person and child of God.
  • CCC#1: men might become adopted children of God in the Holy Spirit.
    Since children are persons, therefore, there can be an untold number of persons of God. Since all the adopted children of God are persons of God in the Holy Spirit, there are still only three distinct persons of God: Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
C) Catholicism knows
  • CCC#460: “…so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
  • Communion with Jesus/Word is through Communion with the Blessed Sacrament.
    Therefore, humanity receives divinity through the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ, aka the Sacrament of Eucharist.
Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and request! I really enjoyed reflecting, refining, and finding further documented support for my understandings!
 
I’m muslim, but I think some of my beliefs fall outside of orthodoxy in some cases, but I don’t think it’s really relevant to my advice… but from what you said that you feel flustered panicked and sort of uncomfortable in answering his questions, and my advice to you is that you really don’t have too.

I dislike debating religious topics where people press you, we learn from each other by communicating, and we can’t really communicate unless we’re comfortable with each other, thats my 2 cents anyway.

You could do the same too him if you really wanted too, in pointing out seeming contradictions in whatever religious tradition. A lot of them are obvious but its resolving them that requires intelligence not just pointing them out.
 
gmcbroom said:
The best analogy I can give in the differences between Islam and Christianity is this. Christianity offers us a chance to join the household of God as sons and daughters. Islam offers us a chance to be a slave of God. So it really comes down to would you rather be a Slave or a Son?

Peace be with you.
Click to expand...
St Peter mentions both being “servants” of God and children of God. TBH I don’t know if there is a difference (during the first century) between a “servant” and a “slave.”
 
The arabic word actually translates to servant, its in the translation of the meaning where scholars who thought up the current translation thought because there exists no power except for gods in the world, the translation is better suited to “slaves” but this sort of disturbs the meaning imo.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Sorry, that’s actually a heresy called modalism. The Church has condemned this interpretation.

But the Church has never offered an actual interpretation either. Probably because it is a mystery that we are not capable of understanding. It has been said, in a semi-joking manner, that nobody since St. Thomas Aquinas has taught about the Trinity without making a heretic of himself - and we’re not sure about Aquinas.

An idea has been put forth to explain why God MUST be at least two divine beings. It is based on the idea that “God is love.” If God is love, and God is eternal, what did God love before Creation? What will God love after the universe goes cold? If God loved only himself, it would be selfish love. Unselfish, committed love requires another entity. Thus, the Father and the Son, who perfectly love each other.

TO THE OP: Don’t worry about the Holy Spirit at this point. You don’t need to demonstrate the logic of trinity, but only of duality. Duality is demonstrated much more easily than trinity, and it is enough to call a unitarian belief into question.
Click to expand...
I used the water analogy yesterday but I did preface it by saying that all analogies are imperfect and pointed out some of the analogies given by my students as ‘weak analogies’. After explaing the water analogy, I explained its limitations that God is not at different times Father, Son & Holy spirit as with water (no point dragging in modalism, I thought).

I don’t think it is easy to explain something as deep as the Trinity without using analogies but I think we should avoid using a single analogy as a simple answer to explain the Trinity. Use two or three (any more would be confuisng) to illustrate different aspects of mystery but make sure the limitations of each analogy is understood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top