Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

[gerhardc]

I, for one, think that Islam is a work behind which is the Devil, I do not believe in the least that Mohammed received any revelation, at least none from any being from Heaven.

However, that is not what we are discussing here, is it?- You’re compounding issues. What we are discussing is whether Muslims worship the one true God- That is wholly different.
You can turn to the true God and still be completely mistaken as to the truth about him. Otherwise, how do you explain St. Paul’s telling the pagan Greeks who were idolaters and polytheists that they actually worshiped the true God without knowing it? Was he not aware of those truths illustrated in the passages you quoted? Isn’t he better placed than any of us to determine which people worship the True God? Clearly he does not think that:

• only the people who have received a special revelation, such as Jews and Christians worship the true God; nor that
• only the people with the right beliefs about God worship the true God- These guys had so many gods that they put out an extra alter just in case they forgot one- And st. Paul grants that they worship the true God!

You make a good point. However, it cannot be said that St. Paul acknowledged that the Athenians worshiped the true God. Otherwise he would have not tried to convince them of their error - an unselfish act of love for his neighbor. Instead, he spent considerable effort preaching in Athens’ synagogue, marketplace and Areopagus to turn people to the true God whom can only be worshiped following repentance and faith towards Him. In the words of St. Paul:** "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”** (Acts 17: 30-31).

Seeking the true God and worshiping the true God is not the same thing. The question here is whether or not Muslims worship the same God as true Christians - the answer remains no.

St. Paul was saying something like this:* “Well, if you want to send a letter to the President of the United States, which it seems as something you wish to do, then you need to address it to the White House, … currently you are addressing your letters to No. 10 Downing Street, London, which is not where the President lives. The Prime Minister (of the UK) lives there but not the President.”*

**Seeking the true God and worshiping the true God is not the same thing. Muslims may be seeking the true God but they are not worshiping Him. Scripture - not I -says that those who worship Him must “worship Him in spirit and in truth”. Look at what Jesus says to the woman at the well who claims to be worshiping the true God:

"You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.” (John 4:22-26). Note the use of the word “true” as in “true worshipers”. Moreover, Jesus is showing the woman that those who worship the Father will acknowledge Him as the Messiah. It follows that those who do not acknowledge Jesus as the Mesiah - such as the Muslims - do not worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

Again, Whether or not a belief-system is wrong and even of the anti-Christ is not the issue under discussion- it’s whether these people, here it’s Muslims, worship the true God.

Again, ***seeking *** to find the true God and ***worshiping ***the true God is not the same thing. Muslims may be seeking the rue God but they are not worshiping Him. The true God is worshiped through His Son.

 

[gerhardc]

Gerhard, with all due respect, I think you’re doing what is called pontificating- Insisting on your particular understanding of scripture as the one truth that if others fail to accept- they must suffer from unbelief/Heresy.*** Now I, as a Catholic, believe in*** the Magisterium’s authority to “pontificate” and accuse holders of divergent beliefs of heresy. But really this is something too close to hypocrisy for sola-scriptura believers who insist that each individual must read and understand the bible for themselves, without any other human authority!

At-least take the meaning that

• includes all the passages in which scripture speaks on an issue; and
• does not contradict other truths of the faiths.

That’s responsible exegesis.

Claims of “pontification” usually follows when a party cannot back-up their argument from Scripture. I do not receive such as claim. The points I make are made from Scripture, not someone else’s interpretation of Scripture. Based on His own understanding of teh Scriptures, Jesus’ response to the Devil was “It is written …”, “It is written …”, “It is written …”. So too did St. Peter and St. Paul, John, Matthew & the rest base their arguments on Scripture. Not on anything else. Why should I or you for that matter be different? Why should we base our arguments about issues pertaining to faith on the philosophies of mere men? In fact, St. Paul says this about getting clarity about you believe from Scripture:* “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.”* (Acts 17:11)

Otherwise, based on your own criteria, Catholics have a good case for accusing you of unbelief in Jesus’ plain words, that is*“Truly, Truly I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you.”* How do you pick and choose which parts of scripture are to be taken literally and which ones are metaphorical?

I believe you may be confusing the taking of the Bible *literally *with the believing of the Bible as it is written. The latter makes provision for metaphoric meaning within text but still requires absolute faith. The former does not make provision for absolute faith due to the obvious nature of verses given in a metaphoric sense. What we are required to do is to believe God’s word in faith whether it is given in a literal sense or a metaphoric sense.

• What if other sola-scriptura believers insist that those passages you quoted are only broad and symbolic and not literal like you read them- What basis/authority have you in saying they are wrong, but you are right? Wouldn’t you then be guilty of the** same crime** that Martin Luther accused the CC of? Besides, we don’t believe in scripture as the dictated speech of God, like Muslims, but inspiration. That’s why you have to read scripture as one whole, not parts.

Peace!

I am not going to defend or judge Martin Luther here. Nevertheless, your comments did prompt me to look up concerning the man. This is what Wikipedia has to say: "The false doctrine and scandalous conduct of the “pardoners” were an immediate occasion of the Protestant Reformation. In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his Ninety-Five Theses, condemning what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation. In Thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”. Again, I make no defense or prosecution regarding the man or the matter. It is interesting, however, that not all see Luther as a criminal simply because he pointed to error.

 

[Marybeloved]

Good Morning, Gerhard

Claims of “pontification” usually follows when a party cannot back-up their argument from Scripture. I do not receive such as claim. The points I make are made from Scripture, not someone else’s interpretation of Scripture. Based on His own understanding of teh Scriptures, Jesus’ response to the Devil was “It is written …”, “It is written …”, “It is written …”. So too did St. Peter and St. Paul, John, Matthew & the rest base their arguments on Scripture. Not on anything else. Why should I or you for that matter be different? Why should we base our arguments about issues pertaining to faith on the philosophies of mere men? In fact, St. Paul says this about getting clarity about you believe from Scripture:* “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness*, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

What do you mean, “cannot back up arguments from scripture?” I just showed that you were arguing against something that we are not debating here, and proved my own arguments on the relevant discussion (Whether Muslims worship the true God) from scripture! Or do you not count St. Paul’s discussion with the Greek pagans recorded in scripture as scripture?

I believe you may be confusing the taking of the Bible *literally *with the believing of the Bible as it is written. The latter makes provision for metaphoric meaning within text but still requires absolute faith. The former does not make provision for absolute faith due to the obvious nature of verses given in a metaphoric sense. What we are required to do is to believe God’s word in faith whether it is given in a literal sense or a metaphoric sense.

No, Gerhard, I believe you are the one confusing things here. Go back and read your previous posts. You’ve been repeating all along that unbelief is trying to argue away the plain text of scripture! Now, you’ve introduced a strange animal called: the difference between* taking the Bible literally* and believing the Bible as it is written.

I’d like you, if you don’t mind, to give me a criteria for deciding the verses fall under “the obvious nature of verses given in a metaphoric sense” These are fallacies of argument called: begging the question- It’s an attempt to pass of as fact what is just an opinion. And another, special pleading or double standards. You’re going to try and show me that “it’s obvious” that Jesus in John 6:51-58 was just speaking metaphorically- Obvious to whom? Not to all the Christians who have looked at those verses and for two millenia and took Jesus at his word- Not to the crowd that was clearly scandalized by the cannibalism he was preaching! Not to Jesus who did not bother explaining himself further either to the crowd or his loyal disciples but actually challenged them to leave over it if they would! It’s supposed to be obvious even when there’s absolutely no indication that it’s spoken metaphorically in the passage!- No, there’s nothing obvious there about any metaphor- This is an assumption on your part. Your mind already thinks that “Jesus could not possibly have meant what he said!- That we eat his flesh! Drink his blood!” What we see is Jesus insisting to a crowd that was clearly scandalized by his preaching of cannibalism. But this is "obviously metaphorical’ and the anti-christ passages are clearly literal- Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. You must give us a criteria found in scripture by which we are to judge which verses are meant to be taken literally and which ones are not.

I am not going to defend or judge Martin Luther here. Nevertheless, your comments did prompt me to look up concerning the man. This is what Wikipedia has to say: "The false doctrine and scandalous conduct of the “pardoners” were an immediate occasion of the Protestant Reformation. In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his Ninety-Five Theses, condemning what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation. In Thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”. Again, I make no defense or prosecution regarding the man or the matter. It is interesting, however, that not all see Luther as a criminal simply because he pointed to error.

You’re raising a red-herring- We are not arguing about Luther’s culpability. Are you denying that Luther taught the doctrine of “sola-scriptura”? That he accused the Catholic Church of assuming an authority she didn’t have, essentially “playing God” when she interpreted God’s word for the people? My point was that you are yourself, by your sola-scriptura beliefs, guilty of illegally assuming this authority you don’t have- Telling people, “Unless you take literally the verses I myself take literally, you’re guilty of unbelief!” This when you yourself refuse to take other verses literally on a fallacious argument that the verses that are not to be taken literally are just obvious to you- when they’re not obvious to others.

 

[Marcarios]

Mary the point im making with the differences with the scholastic understanding versus the patristic understanding of the nature of the sacraments and their effects is that they are not one and the same , because the patristic understanding the “teachings and mindset of the Fathers” rejected the explanations of the Greek Philosophers .
On the other hand the Scholastics embraced the explanations of Aristotle .
Thats why I quoted Tertullian in my last post who made the statement “What does Jeruslem have to do with Athens?” In otherwords what does the Church have to do with the Philosophies of Men who though tried to ascertain who God is nevertheless never came to that , because the fullness of revelation was given to the Church .

Of course I realize that the West was dealing with the heresy of the albegensians and other groups who denied the necessity of the sacraments… and of course the protestant reformers . Of course your correct that the East did not have to deal with the same set of heresies .

The reason why the scholastics in the west readily accepted the writings of the Philosophers was because thanks to the Dark Ages in the West , The teachings of the fathers had been pretty much forgotten as most of their writings were either in Greek or Syriac, just like in the East Latin had fallen into disuse.

However with that said what I fail to understand is why is it that the Roman Church for centuries insisted that the Church Fathers (Greek as well as Latin) were superceded by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas? When was this ever a “Tradition” of the Catholic and Orthodox Church? or a mere opinion of one man the Pope?

 

[Marybeloved]

You make a good point. However, it cannot be said that St. Paul acknowledged that the Athenians worshiped the true God. Otherwise he would have not tried to convince them of their error - an unselfish act of love for his neighbor. Instead, he spent considerable effort preaching in Athens’ synagogue, marketplace and Areopagus to turn people to the true God whom can only be worshiped following repentance and faith towards Him. In the words of St. Paul:** "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”** (Acts 17: 30-31).

Seeking the true God and worshiping the true God is not the same thing. The question here is whether or not Muslims worship the same God as true Christians - the answer remains no.

St. Paul was saying something like this:* “Well, if you want to send a letter to the President of the United States, which it seems as something you wish to do, then you need to address it to the White House, … currently you are addressing your letters to No. 10 Downing Street, London, which is not where the President lives. The Prime Minister (of the UK) lives there but not the President.”*

***Seeking ***the true God and ***worshiping ***the true God is not the same thing. Muslims may be seeking the true God but they are not worshiping Him.

Gerhard, this is what St. Paul says: "Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, him I proclaim to you.* “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.”

*Sorry, but there’s nothing there about “seeking” God- There’s only worshiping God- God whom St. Paul acknowledges is the very one that he proclaims.These pagans know very little about the true God, and st. Paul teaches them about him- But this is not in question! St. Paul first acknowledges that they worship him without knowing and then teaches them the truth.

Scripture - not I -says that those who worship Him must*** “worship Him in spirit and in truth”***. Look at what Jesus says to the woman at the well who claims to be worshiping the true God:

"You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.” (John 4:22-26). Note the use of the word “true” as in “true worshipers”. Moreover, Jesus is showing the woman that those who worship the Father will acknowledge Him as the Messiah. It follows that those who do not acknowledge Jesus as the Mesiah - such as the Muslims - do not worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

Again, ***seeking *** to find the true God and ***worshiping ***the true God is not the same thing. Muslims may be seeking the rue God but they are not worshiping Him. The true God is worshiped through His Son.

I wonder then, based on this criteria if you believe that Jews worship something other than YHWH, the true God- Jesus was obviously critiquing not just the Samaritans who worshiped in the mountain but also the Jews who worshiped in the temple, when he introduced the topic of this prayer of the spirit.

Not that alone, but how many Christians fail to worship God in spirit and truth? If this is the reason Muslims supposedly do not worship the true God, then most Christians who pray through the mediation of concepts, mental images, feelings and emotions- are not worshiping the true God, because they are not yet “worshiping God in Spirit and in truth” as can only come after a long time on the road of sanctity- You’re talking about the prayer of spirit, our spirit in its depth communing with God as he is (in truth) without all our emotional and mental garbage.

 

[MorningSong51]

Originally Posted by rain_bow

Hey buddy,what if I preach a new religion and many peoples follow me?And if i proclaim that I am the prophet of Abrahamic God, would you believe me?.

Sounds pretty Ludicrous. Huh! …in some respect if you said that you were God’s messengers, respectively, and were constantly full of awareness of living a life with God, being observant and improving & sanctifying God’s world - then by all means you could be a Malakh!

A Malakh- noting from scriptural text can be a human (a righteous person) or an Angel of the Lord - of the God of Hosts.The Hebrew word, “mal’akh,” like the Arabic “malak,” like the Greek term “anghelos” from which the English name “angel” is derived, signifies “a messenger,” one commissioned with a message or news **to deliver to some- body. **

:snowing: What say you!
lol…

 

[rain_bow]

Sounds pretty Ludicrous. Huh! …in some respect if you said that you were God’s messengers, respectively, and were constantly full of awareness of living a life with God, being observant and improving & sanctifying God’s world - then by all means you could be a Malakh!

A Malakh- noting from scriptural text can be a human (a righteous person) or an Angel of the Lord - of the God of Hosts.The Hebrew word, “mal’akh,” like the Arabic “malak,” like the Greek term “anghelos” from which the English name “angel” is derived, signifies “a messenger,” one commissioned with a message or news to deliver to some- body.

:snowing: What say you!
lol…

Lol yes. I also think that it sounds Ludicrous,when everybody proclaim himself the prophet of Abrahamic God .Well I am amazed, that why Mohammad did not proclaim himself as the incarnation of Abrahamic God Still he could refuse Christian trinity( as he did) and could preach a monotheist religion. But he is clever enough,because he needed the supports from some Christians & their king too i think( if you know his Hizrih),so he limited himself in prophet hood .

However What is the difference between an angel of the Lord and The Angel of the Lord? I think I read somewhere in OT that God is saying that I am the angel of the Lord, and your God, isn’t it? So can you make it clear? why God said so?

Just asking if you can make this clear.

 

[missouricitizen]

In my opinion the answer is both yes and no.

 

[gerhardc]

Peace!

Mary,
I was not the one who called Luther a “criminal”. This debate is not about Martin Luther. As for Sola Scripture, its not a term that I use frequently and I’m not sure exactly what it means to you, but if it means that, apart from the Holy Spirit, the Bible is the ultimate authority regarding issues pertaining to faith & Christianity, then you are right, I believe in it. But, like the question about Luther, I am not going to debate it here.

Yet, it appears as if our differences are based on this very issue (Sola Scriptura): you seemingly believe that the Church/Pope is infallible in its reading of Scripture and that it is the ultimate authority regarding issues pertaining to faith and Christianity, I don’t believe it is. I believe the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches us regarding the Bible and I base my conviction thereof on the following verse, for which I find it hard to see any other meaning but a literal understanding to be believed or not to be believed:*** “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.”*** (1 John 2:27).

Note that St. John is speaking about all Christians as is evidenced by the “Dear friends …”, “I am writing to you who are young in the faith …”, “I am writing to you who are mature in the faith …” in the preceding verses. Paul is saying that the Holy Spirit is God’s gift to mankind to help us interpret the Bible. This goes for both new and experienced Christians. Not just special men after they have been ordained.

I am following St. John’s version of the Gospel - to be led by the Holy Spirit as I need not be taught by anyone what is true and what is not. You might say that this is an arrogant statement to make. If so, are you saying that St. John is not speaking the truth? Can you show Scriptural reference for your conviction? Or, are you saying there is some other hidden meaning that no-one really knows?

What do you mean, “cannot back up arguments from scripture?” I just showed that you were arguing against something that we are not debating here, and proved my own arguments on the relevant discussion from scripture! Or do you not count St. Paul’s discussion with the Greek pagans recorded in scripture as scripture?

I gave you 4 verses that show that because Muslims deny Jesus as the Son of God they cannot possibly worship God the Father:

• “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)
• “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23)
• “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:12)
• “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30)

You did not respond to any of these directly despite them showing the the god of the Muslims and the God of the Christians is not the same person (because the god of the Muslims deny that He has a son). Accordingly, I noted that I believe your rejection of these verses show that you do not believe them to be true in a literal sense (if there is another meaning to these verse except a literal meaning, please can you let me have it?).

You went on to note St. Paul’s reference to the Athenian pagans of Acts 17 as worshiping an unknown God (which he ends up describing as the God of the Bible) as proof that Muslims also worship God the Father.

I again submit to you that if St. Paul was truly acknowledging that the Athenians were truly worshiping God the Father then he would have left them in peace. Instead, he went to great lengths to convince them of their error, urging them to repent and believe in Christ who has risen.

If your argument holds true that anyone, including the Muslims, who *intend *to or *claim *to be worshiping God actually do worship Him then why did the Apostles bother in bringing the Good News about the Kingdom of God? Why did anyone need to die while preaching the Gospel? Would they not have said, “we’ll just help pagans better worship because they are worshiping God anyway”? No, what they did was to warn people of their error despite their good intentions.

*Intending *to do something good is not the same as *doing *something good - "faith without works is dead".

Jesus gives us the qualifying criteria for those who wish to truly worship God: "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming”* (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”* (John 4:22-26)

If you ***intend ***to worship God - whether you are a pagan, Christian, Muslim, Jew or any other religion but you do not worship Him in the way **He **insists upon - that is, through honoring His Son in faith - then your intentions never become actual. They remain a pure intent. You never actually worship God.

You may *think *that you do because you intend to, but, in fact, you don’t worship Him because you don’t honor His Son. This is how it is with the Muslims - because they will not believe in Jesus as the Son they cannot worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:22-26).

 

[Marybeloved]

Lol yes. I also think that it sounds Ludicrous,when everybody proclaim himself the prophet of Abrahamic God .Well I am amazed, that why Mohammad did not proclaim himself as the incarnation of Abrahamic God Still he could refuse Christian trinity( as he did) and could preach a monotheist religion. But he is clever enough,because he needed the supports from some Christians & their king too i think( if you know his Hizrih),so he limited himself in prophet hood .

However What is the difference between an angel of the Lord and The Angel of the Lord? I think I read somewhere in OT that God is saying that I am the angel of the Lord, and your God, isn’t it? So can you make it clear? why God said so?

Just asking if you can make this clear.

Where exactly in OT? I’m sure whoever said that is an angel, and an angel could never call himself God. God always introduced himself in either “I am the Lord your God” or to Moses “YHWH”. Or “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. If you give a specific verse then we can see the context.

 

[Marybeloved]

Mary,
I was not the one who called Luther a “criminal”. This debate is not about Martin Luther. As for Sola Scripture, its not a term that I use frequently and I’m not sure exactly what it means to you, but if it means that, apart from the Holy Spirit, the Bible is the ultimate authority regarding issues pertaining to faith & Christianity, then you are right, I believe in it. But, like the question about Luther, I am not going to debate it here.

Yet, it appears as if our differences are based on this very issue (Sola Scriptura): you seemingly believe that the Church/Pope is infallible in its reading of Scripture and that it is the ultimate authority regarding issues pertaining to faith and Christianity, I don’t believe it is. I believe the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches us regarding the Bible and I base my conviction thereof on the following verse, for which I find it hard to see any other meaning but a literal understanding to be believed or not to be believed:*** “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.”*** (1 John 2:27).

Note that St. John is speaking about all Christians as is evidenced by the “Dear friends …”, “I am writing to you who are young in the faith …”, “I am writing to you who are mature in the faith …” in the preceding verses. Paul is saying that the Holy Spirit is God’s gift to mankind to help us interpret the Bible. This goes for both new and experienced Christians. Not just special men after they have been ordained.

I am following St. John’s version of the Gospel - to be led by the Holy Spirit as I need not be taught by anyone what is true and what is not. You might say that this is an arrogant statement to make. If so, are you saying that St. John is not speaking the truth? Can you show Scriptural reference for your conviction? Or, are you saying there is some other hidden meaning that no-one really knows?

I gave you 4 verses that show that because Muslims deny Jesus as the Son of God they cannot possibly worship God the Father:

• “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)
• “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23)
• “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:12)
• “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30)

You did not respond to any of these directly despite them showing the the god of the Muslims and the God of the Christians is not the same person (because the god of the Muslims deny that He has a son). Accordingly, I noted that I believe your rejection of these verses show that you do not believe them to be true in a literal sense (if there is another meaning to these verse except a literal meaning, please can you let me have it?).

You went on to note St. Paul’s reference to the Athenian pagans of Acts 17 as worshiping an unknown God (which he ends up describing as the God of the Bible) as proof that Muslims also worship God the Father.

I again submit to you that if St. Paul was truly acknowledging that the Athenians were truly worshiping God the Father then he would have left them in peace. Instead, he went to great lengths to convince them of their error, urging them to repent and believe in Christ who has risen.

If your argument holds true that anyone, including the Muslims, who *intend *to or *claim *to be worshiping God actually do worship Him then why did the Apostles bother in bringing the Good News about the Kingdom of God? Why did anyone need to die while preaching the Gospel? Would they not have said, “we’ll just help pagans better worship because they are worshiping God anyway”? No, what they did was to warn people of their error despite their good intentions.

*Intending *to do something good is not the same as *doing *something good - "faith without works is dead".

So was St. Paul lying, then?

 

[Marybeloved]

I gave you 4 verses that show that because Muslims deny Jesus as the Son of God they cannot possibly worship God the Father:

• “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)
• “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23)
• “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:12)
• “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30)

You did not respond to any of these directly despite them showing the the god of the Muslims and the God of the Christians is not the same person (because the god of the Muslims deny that He has a son). Accordingly, I noted that I believe your rejection of these verses show that you do not believe them to be true in a literal sense (if there is another meaning to these verse except a literal meaning, please can you let me have it?).

What do you mean I did not respond? I made my point about those verses that they are not relevant to the point of this discussion- We are not discussing whether the faith system of Islam is of the Anti-Christ, or whether Mohammed himself was used by the Devil:

- “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

We are not discussing about who is joined to Christ or not:

*- “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Luke 11:23)

• “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:12)
• “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30)*

We are talking about the identity of the entity that all Muslims turn to in their hearts, prayers and sentiments, when they worship. I’m, sorry, but those verses do not answer that question. St. Paul says of idolaters & Polytheists that “This God whom you worship without knowing, him I proclaim to you” And you don’t think that’s relevant to a discussion on whether or not Non- believers who are Muslims are worshiping God?

These particular non-believers, unlike the Greek pagans of st. Paul:
-Are not idolaters or polytheists
-Already believe in One Invisible God, eternal, omnipotent, benevolent, maker of all and judge of mankind on the last Day

Do you think that if St. Paul had preached to present day Muslims in Cairo, Istanbul, anywhere- Do you think he who would have had trouble saying to them “Men of Cairo, Muslims! Believers in one God- I come to proclaim to you today this God whom you already worship in your mosques as one”? I have trouble seeing him saying- “Islam is of God!” or “Mohammed is a prophet!” Certainly! But saying, the God whom you already worship, I’ve come to teach you the fullness of truth about him and what he has done for us?? No, not any trouble in the least.

 

[dawid]

Mary,
Yet, it appears as if our differences are based on this very issue (Sola Scriptura): you seemingly believe that the Church/Pope is infallible in its reading of Scripture and that it is the ultimate authority regarding issues pertaining to faith and Christianity, I don’t believe it is. I believe the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches us regarding the Bible and I base my conviction thereof on the following verse, for which I find it hard to see any other meaning but a literal understanding to be believed or not to be believed:*** “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.”*** (1 John 2:27).

Note that St. John is speaking about all Christians as is evidenced by the “Dear friends …”, “I am writing to you who are young in the faith …”, “I am writing to you who are mature in the faith …” in the preceding verses. Paul is saying that the Holy Spirit is God’s gift to mankind to help us interpret the Bible. This goes for both new and experienced Christians. Not just special men after they have been ordained.

I am following St. John’s version of the Gospel - to be led by the Holy Spirit as I need not be taught by anyone what is true and what is not. You might say that this is an arrogant statement to make. If so, are you saying that St. John is not speaking the truth? Can you show Scriptural reference for your conviction? Or, are you saying there is some other hidden meaning that no-one really knows?

If your hypothesis is true and each person’s interpretation of the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can there be 40,000 Protestant denominations?
Has the Holy Spirit contradicted Himself or is your hypothesis a little lacking?

 

[gerhardc]

So was St. Paul lying, then?

Lying about what?

 

[gerhardc]

What do you mean I did not respond? I made my point about** those verses that they are not relevant** to the point of this discussion- We are not discussing whether the faith system of Islam is of the Anti-Christ, or whether Mohammed himself was used by the Devil:

• “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30)

Let me see, whilst you acknowledge that Muslims deny that their god has a son and the above verse says that Jesus and the Father are one, you believe that it (John 10:30) is irrelevant to the discussion? I don’t think so.

I’m, sorry, but those verses do not answer that question.

Not? So, if Muslims deny that their god has a son and Christians affirm that their God has a Son, you still believe that they worship the same god?

Do you think that if St. Paul had preached to present day Muslims in Cairo, Istanbul, anywhere- Do you think he who would have had trouble saying to them “Men of Cairo, Muslims! Believers in one God- I come to proclaim to you today this God whom you already worship in your mosques as one”?

Yes, absolutely! Why? Because, unlike the Athenians in Acts 17 whom you reference as the center piece of your argument, Jesus has already been revealed to the Muslims as the Son of God. Thus, they are no longer ignorant. The only difference being that they prefer to not see Him that way. See in Acts 17:29-34 how St. Paul turns around and walks away after some Athenians mock him, some point out that they’d like to hear him again, and some actually believe (seemingly the vast minority).

Muslims are like the first group above saying* “Don’t be ridiculous, our god does not have a son”*. Muslim’s god does not have a son - get it? Their god does not have a Christ. Their god does not have a Redeemer. Their god has not suffered for the sins of people. Their god is not God. They themselves deny it by virtue of denying that their god has a son. Get it?!

But you insist: “Oh, no, you just don’t know your god - he really has a son. I know because I know your god better than you do!” Upon which they respond: “You are deluded. Our god definitely does not have a son”.

I have trouble seeing him saying- “Islam is of God!” or “Mohammed is a prophet!” Certainly! But saying, the God whom you already worship, I’ve come to teach you the fullness of truth about him and what he has done for us?? No, not any trouble in the least.

What you/re saying is that the Muslims would in actual fact really like to worship the Christian’s God. Their problem being that they get a small detail wrong, … that thing about the Son. This is like saying it’s quite okay for Muslims to dial 666 because they’ll still get through to 777. This is because, whilst they really meant to dial 666, Christians think they should have dialed 777, and that is why they’ll still get through to 777. Crazy argument. Why the need for Jesus then if mankind could enter the Kingdom of God without Him?

St. Paul takes it a step further. He emphasis the need for a full understanding of the Gospel (God’s grace through Jesus and His* judgement by Jesus***): "I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God." Acts 20:26-27)

This is how important it is to understand where Jesus fits into the Kingdom of God. St. Paul is saying, “if you guys miss out its not because you didn’t know any better - I told you the full truth”. The pagan people of Athens also had the full truth preached to them. And, Muslims today also have access to the full truth. Their choice, regrettably, is to not take up faith in the Christ.

If Paul had preached to a Muslim community today I suspect he would have said the same thing to them:* ‘I am innocent of the blood of all Muslims. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.’*

 

[gerhardc]

We are not discussing whether the faith system of Islam is of the Anti-Christ, or whether Mohammed himself was used by the Devil:

Mary, you might want to reply “I told you we are not talking about whether or not Islam is correct - we are talking about whether or not the Muslims worship the same Gos as Christians”.

See my previous post. Unless they worship Jesus, they cannot worship the Father because Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30). With respect, how much clearer can it be than that?

You’re saying that Muslims don’t know it but they really intend worshiping God and that is why the actually do worship Him.

You should know that*** intentions count for nothing***. Either you believe or you don’t. *Intending *to believe means nothing. Either you prove your salvation by good works or you don’t. *Intending *to do good works means nothing. Either you worship the Father through His Son or you don’t. Intending to worship the Father means nothing.

It is impossible to worship the Father without worshiping His Son because the Father and the Son are one.

Intentions and actions are not the same thing. Don’t try and make it the same thing because it fits into how things seem to work better for you.

 

[gerhardc]

If your hypothesis is true and each person’s interpretation of the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can there be 40,000 Protestant denominations?
Has the Holy Spirit contradicted Himself or is your hypothesis a little lacking?

I would not call St. John’s writings in 1 John 2:27 - that upon which I base my belief about teaching - a “hypothesis”. We have a choice to either believe that verse or disbelieve it. My choice is to believe it.

How then all the different churches, which question really is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I’ll share my perspective; I believe that number is even higher - some quote numbers up to 65,000. Supposedly, these ‘Christian’ churches are all led by the Holy Spirit yet exhibit different beliefs.

Your question is a good and necessary one -* ‘how do you tie up 1 John 2:27 with the vast differences between churches?’*, especially in the light of Ephesians 4:4-6: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all". Note that there is no reference to how people gather and how they are organized. Whether or not you call leaders “priest” or “pastors” is seemingly irrelevant. Whether or not they meet in school halls or cathedrals is seemingly irrelevant. Whether or not they have a choir or a band is seemingly irrelevant. Whether or not they read from the KJV or Douay-Rheims is seemingly irrelevant. Whether or not you were with or against the Reformers seemingly is irrelevant.

What seems relevant is to repent (Matthew 9:13), believe (Romans 10:9-10) and confess openly (Romans 10:9-10) and to then be*** “the prisoner of the Lord, … to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”*** (Ephesians 4:1-3). Whomever fits that description is the Church. There is only **one **of those.

It might be better to have a discussion around your view around this question at another forum. Hierdie is nie die plek om dit te debateer nie.

 

[Marybeloved]

Lying about what?

I was replying to a very long argument you had posted saying that the Greek pagans could not have been worshiping the true God, because if they did, St. Paul would not have preached the truth/gospel to them (Which is also faulty reasoning- the Jews knew YHWH and they also needed the gospel as much as anyone else)- Yet, St. Paul said exactly that- that the pagans did worship the true God, something you seem to have turned into “my argument” as if it’s not right there in Acts- Hence my Question. If we are to believe you, that the pagans could not have been worshiping the true God, we must disbelieve St. Paul! We must hold that he was either wrong or lying- I think I’ll believe St. Paul.

And it’s quite interesting how you blatantly contradict scripture here, by the way, when you have been labeling this very behavior “Unbelief” all along:shrug:

I again submit to you that if St. Paul was truly acknowledging that the Athenians were truly worshiping God the Father then he would have left them in peace. Instead, he went to great lengths to convince them of their error, urging them to repent and believe in Christ who has risen.

If your argument holds true that anyone, including the Muslims, who *intend *to or *claim *to be worshiping God actually do worship Him then why did the Apostles bother in bringing the Good News about the Kingdom of God? Why did anyone need to die while preaching the Gospel? Would they not have said, “we’ll just help pagans better worship because they are worshiping God anyway”? No, what they did was to warn people of their error despite their good intentions.

 

[Marybeloved]

Let me see, whilst you acknowledge that Muslims deny that their god has a son and the above verse says that Jesus and the Father are one, you believe that it (John 10:30) is irrelevant to the discussion? I don’t think so. Not? So, if Muslims deny that their god has a son and Christians affirm that their God has a Son, you still believe that they worship the same god? ’

Why did anyone need to die while preaching the Gospel? Would they not have said, “we’ll just help pagans better worship because they are worshiping God anyway”? No, what they did was to warn people of their error despite their good intentions.

Lets see, Gerhard, you believe that unless someone knows the full truth about God, they must be worshiping a different god; unless they know that he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they must be worshiping a different god-So tell us, Gerhard, what exactly were Moses and the ancient Jews worshiping for an entire millennium before Christ?

Yes, absolutely! Why? Because, unlike the Athenians in Acts 17 whom you reference as the center piece of your argument, Jesus has already been revealed to the Muslims as the Son of God. Thus, they are no longer ignorant. The only difference being that they prefer to not see Him that way. See in Acts 17:29-34 how St. Paul turns around and walks away after some Athenians mock him, some point out that they’d like to hear him again, and some actually believe (seemingly the vast minority).

What do you mean??? When, when was Jesus revealed to the Muslims as the son of God??? Please explain yourself.

Muslims are like the first group above saying* “Don’t be ridiculous, our god does not have a son”*. Muslim’s god does not have a son - get it? Their god does not have a Christ. Their god does not have a Redeemer. Their god has not suffered for the sins of people. Their god is not God. They themselves deny it by virtue of denying that their god has a son. Get it?!

No, Gerhard, you are the one who just isn’t getting it!!! Muslim beliefs about God are that he is not a Trinity nor has a son- These are errors in their beliefs about God (shared by the Jews, by the way). They do not create a different deity!

If you and I, with the benefit of education believe that the sun is a giant ball of gas around which the Earth rotates, and my grandmother here in our African village believes that it is a much smaller ball of yellow substance that travels the sky during the day and sets on the other end of our (very flat) Earth, does that give my granny a different sun and Earth of her own? According to your reasoning, Her Earth is flat, ours is round, her sun orbits the sky, but with us, it’s the earth that orbits a sun millions of times larger- Therefore we could not possibly be talking about the same Sun and Earth!!!

This is ridiculous of course. We have superior knowledge about the true nature of the solar system due to our education, which my granny does not- If I try and explain it to her, she dismisses it because it’s just very foreign to her thinking- She looks out and sees that the sun cannot be bigger than the earth, and the Earth could not possibly be round, and the stars are much much smaller than anything else in the sky! I know she has not just little knowledge but faulty beliefs about the cosmos- doesn’t mean she’s not believing in and discussing the exact same cosmos that I am!

Perhaps the difference between us is just a different world-view. For us, following the example of St. Paul, there’s some truth to be found amongst all people, some good common to all, but it’s mixed with error. Our approach in the apostolate (spreading the good news) is not to imagine we are carrying God in some kind of suitcase to lands where he has never been before, to give him out. You go knowing that God has already been working with these people, thousands of years before you were born, preparing them in many ways for the truth. You find what truth they already do hold, separate it from the error, and then you build on it until you have shared the fullness of truth that you’ve been privileged to find. That’s why, no matter how many times you repeat those verses, I will not see in them what you think is there, and I don’t!

I know the truth that Muslims already have, that God exists, he’s one, eternal, benevolent, limitless, He created everything that exists, He rewards good and punishes evil, He has intervened in History by sending messengers, He will judge all men on the last day, He will reward the just with Heaven and the Unjust with Hell, There’s an evil entity that deceives man to disobey God and his temptations should be resisted.

Similarly, I know what errors Muslims have- They have a mistaken idea of the Trinity and therefore reject it, they have false ideas about Jesus’ true nature (God and man) and what he did for us on the cross and his resurrection, they believe in a revelation after Christ, they believe that Christian and Jewish scriptures have suffered corruption, some moral ideas are wrong, like polygamy, divorce, child marriages etc. They have a faulty idea of God as vengeful rather than a God in real relationships with his people and a loving Father.

The difference between us is that I don’t think the errors that they have mixed in with the truths they have gives them a different God!!:shrug:To me they are errors and lack of knowledge of the truth, and with proper apostolate, Muslims have come to pick out the wheat from the chaff and followed it all the way to the fullness of truth found in the true faith.

 

[gerhardc]

St. Paul said exactly that- that the pagans did worship the true God, something you seem to have turned into “my argument” as if it’s not right there in Acts- Hence my Question. If we are to believe you, that the pagans could not have been worshiping the true God, we must disbelieve St. Paul! We must hold that he was either wrong or lying- I think I’ll believe St. Paul.

Mary, it is pretty simple, really. You reference the following text by St. Paul to say that even pagans worship the true God, and, on that basis, Muslims worship Him too:* “I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you”* (Acts 17:23).

I acknowledge that verse. I do not call St. Paul a liar because he wrote it, as you have suggested. And I don’t disbelieve that text as you have suggested. However, what I do believe is that the full text should be read, and this, regrettably, you have failed to see:* “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.”* (vv. 24-25). St. Paul is saying:* ‘If you want to truly worship the God that made heaven and earth, well, He does not live in temples nor is he worshiped in the way you guys go about it. No, He is not worshiped that way.’*

The text goes on:* "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.** Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained**. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”* (vv. 29-31)
.
St. Paul is repeating himself for the sake of emphasis. He is saying,* ‘if you want to truly worship the Divine Nature (God) then you must first repent and believe in the One whom He has raised from the dead (Jesus)’. Therefore, God “overlooked ignorance” about Christ * before He came"but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world".

The Islam religion followed Christ’s coming, death and resurrection. As such, the Mesaiah has been revealed to the world. Muslims know about Jesus and they know He is preached as the Son of the living God. Yet, they do not believe that people find righteousness by faith -*** “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness*, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”** (Romans 10:10) (and we know that* “faith without works is dead”*). Instead, they believe that righteousness is obtained by having good morals.

Since they do not worship the Son, they do not worship the Father either because** the Son and the Father are one** (John 10:30).

Mary, if you choose not to read the rest of the passage in Act 17 and wish to get stuck on the part that says* “whom you worship”* to prove somehow that Muslims worship God without recognizing Jesus as the Christ, then you are entitled to do so. As you have said, you have made up your mind about what certain Scriptures mean and you won’t change it. No point in debating the issue then.

All the best.

Gerhard