The plan of salvation includes Muslims? Is Allah the same God as Yaweah?

[InSearchofGrace]

…

… This is why I address my complaints as I do towards fellow Christians, because as a Christian I am concerned when I detect this attitude that says to each his own, your religion is good enough to be “first among us” even though you don’t worship Christ, etc. I really do believe this is a wrong attitude for a Christian to have.

Like you and many other Christians, I have issues with Islam and struggle with the meaning of this part in CC 841. It helped somewhat that I came across this CAF tract The Catechism on Islam by Jimmy Akin, with excerpts below, bolding mine. My apologies for the redundancy if it has already been raised somewhere in the foregoing thread. I have been intermittently following this thread and can’t say I read all posts.

"…Many find the quote perplexing: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.” To many this sounds like Muslims can be saved by adhering to Islam. That isn’t what it means, as shown by the original context.
…
The attentive reader will scarcely find it plausible that Lumen Gentium (LG) is going to present non-Christian religions as on a par with the Church, and it doesn’t.

LG 16 turns to the case of non-Christians, stating, “Finally, those who have not yet received the gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.” The section speaks of the Jewish people in the first place, for they are more closely related to the Church than any other non-Christian religion. It is only after this that the text states, “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.” Note that the subject under discussion is not everyone who is saved. The overarching theme of the passage is how various people are related to the Catholic Church, not how many paths to salvation there are. The Council has been describing people who are progressively more distant from the Church. The Council has already stated that the Church is necessary for salvation. And since it expressly places non-Jewish theists in a distant position from the Church, when we encounter the statement that “the plan of salvation also includes,” we should not understand it as saying that non-Jewish theists are saved.

It means that God desires their salvation and has made plans for their salvation—plans that include giving them graces that lead in the direction of salvation and the Church. But that doesn’t mean that they can be saved by being nothing more than non-Jewish theists.

Within the category of non-Jewish theists, Muslims today hold the first place in that they are the largest such group and have a number of commonalities with Judaism and Christianity, several of which the council goes on to note:

**(1) They “profess to hold the faith of Abraham.” The operative word here is “profess”—they claim to hold the faith of Abraham. In reality, their faith is an imperfect version of the faith that comes from Abraham, but they are trying to follow in the footsteps of Abraham, and the Council gives them credit for that.

(2) “Together with us they adore the one, merciful God.” For many, this statement is perplexing. However, as we saw in last issue’s “Brass Tacks” column, God is aware of and acknowledges all that is good and true in the worship offered to him, however imperfect an understanding of him a worshiper may have. While Muslims, like Jews, do not accept the Trinity, they do acknowledge that God is the only true God and that he is merciful. This means that they honor things that are true about God but have a limited understanding of him."**
…
What do you think of Mr. Akin’s elucidation?
.

 

[dzheremi]

I do not care for it. I would return to Gurney’s objection, which was why go through the trouble of giving Islam some special mention if we are also recognizing that it cannot save? (Ditto Judaism, if I am reading Mr. Akin correctly.)

At least Mr. Akin is forthright in admitting that Islam is presented as it is because of its numerical supremacy. I mean, I still find that troubling in the extreme, but at least he’s honest about it.

 

[jerome_ky]

You’re all going to hate me for bringing this up (sorry Gurney, Jerome, mods), but the bolded and underlined statement in #14 (“Whosoever…”) has also been dealt with here in the past, and it oddly also came to a sort of “what is this statement doing here?” draw, with I think me and CMatt25 on the “this is ridiculous nonsense” side and pretty much everybody else on the other side. Without remembering exactly the name of the thread (or else I’d just link it), I can’t imagine disagreeing with my statements from that time, having now re-read the passage.

Again: Why is this statement here? Who are all these people who believe that the Church has been made necessary by Christ and yet refuse to enter or remain in it? They don’t exist. I think the Vatican is once again either making a very weak point that it’d be better off not splitting hairs to make, or engaging in philosophizing for the pure joy of it (with no real point to be made). I really don’t mean to sound so disrespectful, but I honestly can’t see the wisdom in any of these statements. I don’t understand why phantom people and false religions need to be taking up any of the Church’s time.

I’m going to home in on a fine point here. As Catholics (and I am still a newbie, I admit that, so if I am wrong about something feel free to correct me) we believe that the Roman Catholic Church CANNOT err in matters of doctrine. That is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. This comes from the Church being founded by Jesus Christ on the Rock who was Saint Peter, etc. Now the Catechism teaches doctrine. Lumen Gentium may not be doctrine, someone will have to clarify that, but the Catechism contains the statement we are debating, “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).

So, either this is true, or the Church is in error. It pains me as much as anyone on here to give the slightest nod to Islam, (but this is not addressed to Islam, it is addressed to its adherents) but as someone who is obedient to the Church, and that is what we are, servants of the Church, I have to make a decision here. Do I follow Church teaching, which I personally don’t like, or do I assume she is wrong and I am right? If I assume that, then there are 450 Protestant churches in about a 5 mile radius I can drive to. Or I accept that the Church has the Spirit, and she is saying something here that I must wisely discern. My discernment at this time tells me that she is keeping the door open to evangelizing others by finding the best common ground she can. In this case, there is the conditional statement “these profess to hold the faith of Abraham…” and so I am hanging my hat on it.

Those who disagree, I admire your principle but I believe a finger wag is in order. Should you be obedient even in this? And yes, I’d like to know your answers.

 

[MusicforMovies]

The way I look at it is this:

1.) God wishes ALL to be saved.

2.) No man comes unto the Father, except through Jesus - period.

2b.) How that is accomplished can be a subject for theological discussion, but nonetheless point #2 holds.

3.) No matter what we are commanded to evangelize - period. Scripture, Tradition, and the Church command us to do so.

4.) From my own opinion insofar as the Koran, and Islamic Hadith support the Gospel then they are a preparation for the fullness of the Gospel - if anything contradicts it is from Satan.

5.) Above all - we do 3, and trust in God’s mercy - of which we all need - for the rest.

Peace in Christ,
Joel :harp:

 

[dzheremi]

I’m going to home in on a fine point here. As Catholics (and I am still a newbie, I admit that, so if I am wrong about something feel free to correct me) we believe that the Roman Catholic Church CANNOT err in matters of doctrine. That is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. This comes from the Church being founded by Jesus Christ on the Rock who was Saint Peter, etc. Now the Catechism teaches doctrine. Lumen Gentium may not be doctrine, someone will have to clarify that, but the Catechism contains the statement we are debating, “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).

So, either this is true, or the Church is in error. It pains me as much as anyone on here to give the slightest nod to Islam, (but this is not addressed to Islam, it is addressed to its adherents) but as someone who is obedient to the Church, and that is what we are, servants of the Church, I have to make a decision here. Do I follow Church teaching, which I personally don’t like, or do I assume she is wrong and I am right? If I assume that, then there are 450 Protestant churches in about a 5 mile radius I can drive to. Or I accept that the Church has the Spirit, and she is saying something here that I must wisely discern. My discernment at this time tells me that she is keeping the door open to evangelizing others by finding the best common ground she can. In this case, there is the conditional statement “these profess to hold the faith of Abraham…” and so I am hanging my hat on it.

Those who disagree, I admire your principle but I believe a finger wag is in order. Should you be obedient even in this? And yes, I’d like to know your answers.

Well, yes, I am aware of how those in the Roman Communion view their Church. I won’t disparage it, but at the same time I won’t agree with it. The Catechism and hence the Church has taught error here. The more ecumenically-minded among us might instead say they have taught “ambiguity” or something like that, but since I have prayed long and hard over the claims I was to submit to as a Catholic and now find myself well and truly away from them for the health of my eternal soul and in order to more completely follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and the orthodox faith they established, I can’t really dance around it anymore. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, finger wag or no finger wag. Pax.

 

[jerome_ky]

Well, yes, I am aware of how those in the Roman Communion view their Church. I won’t disparage it, but at the same time I won’t agree with it. The Catechism and hence the Church has taught error here. The more ecumenically-minded among us might instead say they have taught “ambiguity” or something like that, but since I have prayed long and hard over the claims I was to submit to as a Catholic and now find myself well and truly away from them for the health of my eternal soul and in order to more completely follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and the orthodox faith they established, I can’t really dance around it anymore. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, finger wag or no finger wag. Pax.

Well, of course if you’re not Catholic, my challenge doesn’t hold. As I said, if I thought the Church was in error, I’d drive to another. (This is America, after all.) What Church do you belong to?

 

[Alex_Yousif]

Here is a good article from Catholic Answers on Do Muslims worship the one True God?

 

[GaryTaylor]

841 I see as a attempt to pacify not clarify. The church at Mass is sending a clear message in the thinking of Islam. I heard a Homily Saturday I would love to have a copy of, not sure if its possible yet.

Anyway the Priest started with “There are many religions in the world today”

The Homily was to address the constant thought process promoted today that there are many paths to God.

He slowly worked his way up to Islam and Judaism at the end. Which he spent a bit of time on describing as a false path which doesn’t lead to Heaven. Thus the only path being through Christology.

I thought of this post immediately when listening. It also made me wonder how much this is being address in church teaching worldwide now? I don’t know if it was something he addressed on his own, or if it was instruction from higher up.

I’ll talk to him when I catch him though.

 

[jam070406]

(2) “Together with us they adore the one, merciful God.” For many, this statement is perplexing. However, as we saw in last issue’s “Brass Tacks” column, God is aware of and acknowledges all that is good and true in the worship offered to him, however imperfect an understanding of him a worshiper may have. While Muslims, like Jews, do not accept the Trinity, they do acknowledge that God is the only true God and that he is merciful. This means that they honor things that are true about God but have a limited understanding of him."

…[/INDENT]
What do you think of Mr. Akin’s elucidation?
.

Baltimore Catechism
Q. 1148. How do we offer God false worship?

A. We offer God false worship by rejecting the religion He has instituted and following one pleasing to ourselves, with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned.

“But through unbelief man is separated most from God: because he has no true knowledge of God. Nor can anyone in any way know God who holds a false opinion of Him” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II - II q. 10, Art. 3)

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I knew a oneness pastor as he was called by a a brother in the Lord…It’s not that they don’t “believe” in the Father/Son/Holy Spirit…It’s just the technicalities in the manifestation…So they don’t “see” it as a denial…I hope you can get what I mean…The guy loved the Lord and was very evangelistic. I heard him preach a few times and never heard anything weird on what he was preaching about…

Was that is Oneness Pentecostalism?
What the “Oneness Pentecostals” (or any other oneness denom.) preaches that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are just manifestations of the Godhead and not three Persons in One God is nothing new, there is a heresy like that goes back to the time of the Early Church.

 

[tomarin]

Unfortunately I no longer have access to a university library. Maybe in a couple of months, if it is the Lord’s will…

Well it is still in print (Oxford University Press) but it will cost you $38.17 at Amazon. A bit steep. Google Books doesn’t seem to carry it which would make sense since OUP still has the copyright. It seems like it was first published in 1956 but I think Evans-Pritchard may have done the fieldwork a few decades earlier, if memory serves. 1956 seems awfully late.