Do all "monotheisms" worship the same God?

[englands123]

As it so happens, we Catholics worship God, not a Catechism promulgated within living memory. The CCC is a teaching tool, not revelation.

Probably the best post I’ve ever read on this site. Well Said Sir.

 

[Niblo]

Excuse me, Niblo, but differing as to the nature of God is rather important, is it not? You say, “We differ as to His nature, that is all.” That is ALL? Listening to an early Self-naming of God, to Moses at the Burning Bush, we learn that God is “I AM” - the ONE whose Being is Who He Is. He IS - He did not come to be, He is not becoming, He eternally and ever IS. We cannot understand reality, that which is, until we understand the One Who Is absolutely.

As a former Catholic I appreciate that the dogma of the Trinity is of critical importance to those who believe it; to those who have no doubt that a person’s very salvation depends on its acceptance.

Muslims, of course, do not share this belief. It is enough that we have faith in Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla), and that we express this faith in good works. The Exalted promises Heaven to all who do this; including, of course, Jews and Christians.

He would have us do His will, rather than squabble over His nature.

‘Moses said to Yahweh: “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And Yahweh said to Moses: “Ehyeh- Ašer -Ehyeh.” He continued: “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’” And Yahweh said further to Moses: “Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.”’ (Exodus 3:13-15).

The meaning of the Hebrew ‘ehyeh ašer-ehyeh’ is uncertain; and has been variously translated: ‘I Am That I Am’; ‘I Am Who I Am’; ‘I Will Be What I Will Be’; ‘I Am’; or ‘I Will Be’ (see: ‘The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition’).

If we say that the correct translation of ‘ehyeh ašer-ehyeh’ is: I Will Be What I Will Be’; then HaShem might well be referring to what He will become; namely the Protector of the Israelites in their long journey from Egypt to the Promised Land.

‘Ehyeh ašer-ehyeh’ says nothing about HaShem’s nature, and everything about the love He has for His people.

 

[fide]

As a former Catholic I appreciate that the dogma of the Trinity is of critical importance to those who believe it; to those who have no doubt that a person’s very salvation depends on its acceptance.

Muslims, of course, do not share this belief. It is enough that we have faith in Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla), and that we express this faith in good works. The Exalted promises Heaven to all who do this; including, of course, Jews and Christians.

He would have us do His will, rather than squabble over His nature.

I appreciate, by the way, reading of your journey to date, that you wrote on your public profile page. It is important. - as you have done - to be willing to search, not counting the cost, for holy Truth. Our time here is limited, thus as the Lord says, “Make the most of the time, for the days are evil.” (Eph 5:16).

There is no time to “squabble” over anything - certainly not the inner Truth of God Himself, as He is in His inner Life. He will, I believe, lead any who search and seek, into the light that only He can give, into the Truth we seek and search for. It is one thing to study words and concepts, and draw conclusions, and decide whether that is true or acceptable to me and my understanding. It is another to “hear” (for lack of a better word at the moment) “His voice” (again, words are shallow) of Self-disclosure. Moses heard, at the burning Bush, obeyed, lived in obedience not following natural reasoning but supernatural and divine guidance.

St. Paul expressed the same truth:

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

This faith - this saving faith - is not from the human natural works of mind or heart or body. This saving faith is gift - unearned, gratuitous, received in poverty and in hunger - gift from God and of God:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—
Eph 2:9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

So it is not a matter of one man convincing another. We can bear witness to what we have seen and heard - and if we have heard from God, we have a certitude that what we have heard is true: God cannot lie. He cannot deceive or be deceived. This faith is not natural; it is supernatural, gift received, that aches to be shared as the goodness and beauty that it is. It is truly Good News.

 

[Niblo]

Agreed.

May the Exalted continue to guide you along the path He has chosen for you. May He bless you, and all those you love, and bring to Himself.

 

[OneSheep]

Im saying that the catechism does not tell moslems what they believe. They decide what they believe and if they believe they worship a different god from us, clearly that is what they are doing.

Clearly that is what they think they are doing, but CCC 841-842 says that they are basically incorrect in their assessment. Do you see what I mean? If someone is thinking that Muslims are worshiping a different God, CCC 841 stands as a truth to correct that thinking, even if that particular Muslim disagrees.

By the way, I take the opportunity to remark that I heartily dislike the technique of telling someone “so you are saying that…”

I agree completely. I was asking a question:

So you are saying that the opinions of an unknown number of Muslims is more important than CCC 841 and 842?

Without that important question mark, it would be an uncharitable statement. I will make a mental note to change “you are” to “are you” to make it sound more like a question. Does that work?

 

[meltzerboy2]

Poor choice of words on my part. Thanks for the correction.

 

[anon16282382]

I was thinking yesterday, John 17:3 says that the Father is the only true God (well, F, S, and HS). I was thinking, I’m not sure how Allah could be considered the F, S, and HS. Peter Kreefr teaches that Allah is the same God.

 

[pnewton]

“Theological correctness” is an essential part of the matter

I do not agree. I find that no where in the Gospel. Like I posted earlier, entry into Heaven is not based on some sort of SAT we take at the gate. I guess we will have to disagree.

Now we might have a different view of invincible ignorance, but that is not the question here. The question is whether there is one God that was being worshiped. I won’t stray from the essential Church teaching found in Lumen Gentium, even for an auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan.

 

[AlNg]

if they believe they worship a different god from us, clearly that is what they are doing.

I don’t think that follows. I believe that the coffee at Starbucks is from a different source than the coffee at Pete’s, but my belief could be wrong and either coffee I am drinking could come from the same source.

 

[TMC]

I do not agree. I find that no where in the Gospel. Like I posted earlier, entry into Heaven is not based on some sort of SAT we take at the gate. I guess we will have to disagree.

In fact, Jesus is quite explicit about how we will be judged, just read Matthew 25:31-46. Here is a hint, the filioque does not come up.

 

[otjm]

But Islam’s deity does / says wildly different things than our God. They are distinct.

You are confusing attributes with the fact that they, the Jews, and Christians all hold - that there is one God, not a plurality of gods. Misunderstanding of attributes of God does not negate that all three religions believe there is one God, that he is creator, and that he is involved with our lives.

 

[otjm]

There’s nothing wrong at all w/Vat II

I don’t recall saying there was. When you read one of my comments, you may need also who I was responding to.

 

[fide]

I won’t stray from the essential Church teaching found in Lumen Gentium, even for an auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan.

Not impressed by “an auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan”? How about Cardinal Raymond Burke?

Cardinal Burke: ‘Highly questionable’ to say Islam worships Christian God and is therefore peaceful

Burke said much of today’s response to Islam is influenced by a religious relativism and holds “we’re all worshiping the same God” and “we all believe in love.”

If “God is love,” how can He be “the same God that commands of Muslims to slaughter infidels and to establish their rule by violence?” Burke asked.

“I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshiping the same God,” said Burke. “To say that we all believe in love is simply not correct.”

“Everything that I’ve said about Islam, including especially what’s in the book, is based on my own studies of the texts of Islam and also of their commentators,” the cardinal said. The religious relativism that equates Catholic and Muslim teaching on the nature of God doesn’t “respect the truth” about what each religion teaches, he said. “This is not helpful.”

“Let’s examine carefully what Islam is and what our Christian faith teaches us,” said Burke, because they’re not the same thing.

“Nothing has changed in the Islamic agenda from prior times in which our ancestors” had to defend Christendom from Muslim attacks, Burke said. “They saw that Islam was attacking sacred truth.”

How about St. Thomas Aquinas?

“On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, the point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

-St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Theologian and Doctor of the Church. Quoted from his De Rationibus Fidei Contra Saracenos, Graecos, et Armenos and translated from Fr. Damian Fehlner’s Aquinas on Reasons for the Faith: Against the Muslims, Greeks, and Armenians (Franciscans of the Immaculate. 2002.).

 

[fide]

The question is whether there is one God that was being worshiped.

This is another thing to read, from Crisis Magazine: Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?

 

[ReaderT]

It would be how many Jesus’s were there. Their mistake did not make the object of their mistake someone else

That is true. But Jesus was a guy with a body - of course he could be an object of reference. The Trinity and the Islamic deity are not visible entities, and so the argument doesn’t apply here.

The Bible says that satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14) - he has also appeared as the Virgin Mary and even as Christ Himself. This alone shows that we can’t believe people whose “god” is different than ours, even if he calls himself God or Christ.

Misunderstanding of attributes of God does not negate that all three religions believe there is one God

Oh sure, I agree that all three religions are monotheistic - but the deity of Islam is not the same as the deity of Christianity. Why should he be?

 

[ReaderT]

There is only One. We differ as to His nature, that is all.

How often, I wonder, does this need to be said?

Are the Wiccans, who worship the Goddess (the LGBT-promoting, naked-ceremony, queen of Sex Magick) also worshipping your God, Niblo?

How about the antichrist, who “sits as God in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess 2:4)? Can we Christians believe he is the same god as ours?

 

[pnewton]

Not impressed by “an auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan”? How about Cardinal Raymond Burke?

I did not say I was not impressed. I am simply not going to deny Church teaching based on his opinion any more that I would have followed Arianism after the Council of Nicaea. Thomas Aquinas did not address this topic in the quote, so I have no idea why you posted it. I also do not know why you posted Crisis Magazine, of all places. I will not depart from Church teaching for Robert Spencer.

 

[fide]

Aquinas was speaking of the teachings of Muhammad - is that not Islam? Is not that to the point at issue?
Arianism is an interesting example for you to point to - in that case, the Church was almost whole-heartedly into the heresy - the majority of high churchmen were “all in” - it was the few, such as St. Athanasius, who went against the wave and insisted on the traditional Catholic teachings - not the innovation of Arianism. Here this Bp Athanasius Schneider is following the example of his namesake and insisting that the traditional Catholic teachings on Islam were correct - not the innovations of religious relativism and indifferentism which is part of the modernist intrusion into the Church. The majority is NOT necessarily right - that is the point of Arianism which God allowed us to learn from, so thank you for bringing it up.

Was Vat II infallible? That is an open question, I think, because it was not called as a Council to define doctrine, but as a pastoral Council. It would be difficult to argue that this new attitude toward Islam is an authentic development of doctrine - and if it is not, then the interpretation of many on some - for example this one we discussed - of the teachings of the Council cannot be true, because it would then be in conflict with the teachings of the Tradition, and thus would be an innovation at odds with the established Catholic faith.

It is possible to bend this problematic teaching back toward Tradition, but such bending - due to careless and ambiguous language in the document - should not be necessary. It ought to be corrected.

 

[otjm]

Oh sure, I agree that all three religions are monotheistic - but the deity of Islam is not the same as the deity of Christianity. Why should he be?

All you have shown is that people - you included - focus on the attributes one group or another assigns to God. That is not God, that is our understanding of God.

I see you are Russian Orthodox; I don’t know what the Orthodox say as to Islam; I am relying on what the Catholic Church says - and I will willingly accept what Pope John Paul 2 has said on the matter. He had a PhD in both Theology and Philosophy, and I don’t, so I will accept his comments - both as Pope, and as someone far far more educated in the matter than I.

 

[ReaderT]

All you have shown is that people - you included - focus on the attributes one group or another assigns to God. That is not God, that is our understanding of God.

Where does it stop then - are the Muslims worshipping our God, but monotheistic Wiccans aren’t? How about those who will worship the antichrist, who "sits as God in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess 2:4)? If you say “The Muslim god may have the wrong attributes but he is still God”, then why not the deity of Wiccans and the Antichrist-worshippers also? Where do you draw the line, and based on what hard criteria?