Christian-Muslim Relations. CCC 841;LG 16; NA3

[Leslie]

So you honestly think that the God of the Old Testament is the SAME God of the Quran?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

So you honestly think that the God of the Old Testament is the SAME God of the Quran?

I think the God of the O.T. is the same as the N.T., since the N.T. fulfills the O.T.. But in regards to a theology of the Quran with the theology of the O.T., yes. Judaism and Islam both teach the same in respects to there being only one God. I will say, other than that, the cultures are quite different and the stories in the Quran do contradict in detail... where Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac, the Quran places Ishmael instead... but the story of the sacrifice is still to the same monotheistic God.

Deuteronomy 6.4-6 states:

Listen (shema), Israel! Yahweh is our Elohim. Yahweh alone (ehad)! You shall love Yahweh with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength. Let these words I urge upon you today be written on your hearts.

The Quran states "He is the One God, God, the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of all being. He begets not, and neither is he begotten and there is nothing that could be compared to him." Quran surra 112.



The following website is an Islamic one by the Islamic Society of Colorado Springs, I think it useful to at least show some similiarities and differences as they see it.
http://www.isocs.org/I101C/9_similarities.htm

[Leslie]

Do you believe that the Zoroastrians worship the same god too?

Also, if I'm not mistaken Allah never required sacrifices for sin did he?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

Do you believe that the Zoroastrians worship the same god too?

Also, if I'm not mistaken Allah never required sacrifices for sin did he?

Based on what I read about it in wikipedia, there are certainly interesting comparisons. It is definitely a preChristian religion, which seems to have some influence in its cl***ic antiquity with Cyrus II releasing the Jews from captivity. Its following is certainly not a major religion and it is a complicated religion in various respects, so much of anything I say on it would be out of ignorance. For instance, I do not know if Zoroaster ever made a claim to descend from Abraham or to the Abrahamic faith in one God. It seems that in some respects Ahura Mazda is one God, but I cannot say for any certainty how this God is viewed in terms of an impersonal or personal God and its make up in relation to Jewish and Islamic theology of One God.

Besides, I think Zoroastrianism is off topic since it is not discussed in the Catechism, the LG, nor the NA quotes I have given.

But to answer your question, I would have to be consistent in the N.T. presentation of Romans 1 and 2; namely that nobody is without excuse knowing sin from cause-effect relations incurring the wrath of God and seeing God's nature through his creation and that they practice the things of the law unto themselves to be considered righteous by God. This is the main crux of the Catholic teaching here. You must refute Romans 1 and 2 to make me believe that salvation is not possible for those who do not know Christ and his Gospel... I say that Christ extends his salvation to these ignorant yet righteous group of individuals regardless of their ignorance so that both Romans 1 and 2 fulfills John's message that there is no salvation apart from Christ.

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Based on what I read about it in wikipedia, there are certainly interesting comparisons. It is definitely a preChristian religion, which seems to have some influence in its cl***ic antiquity with Cyrus II releasing the Jews from captivity. Its following is certainly not a major religion and it is a complicated religion in various respects, so much of anything I say on it would be out of ignorance. For instance, I do not know if Zoroaster ever made a claim to descend from Abraham or to the Abrahamic faith in one God. It seems that in some respects Ahura Mazda is one God, but I cannot say for any certainty how this God is viewed in terms of an impersonal or personal God and its make up in relation to Jewish and Islamic theology of One God.

Besides, I think Zoroastrianism is off topic since it is not discussed in the Catechism, the LG, nor the NA quotes I have given.

But to answer your question, I would have to be consistent in the N.T. presentation of Romans 1 and 2; namely that nobody is without excuse knowing sin from cause-effect relations incurring the wrath of God and seeing God's nature through his creation and that they practice the things of the law unto themselves to be considered righteous by God. This is the main crux of the Catholic teaching here. You must refute Romans 1 and 2 to make me believe that salvation is not possible for those who do not know Christ and his Gospel... I say that Christ extends his salvation to these ignorant yet righteous group of individuals regardless of their ignorance so that both Romans 1 and 2 fulfills John's message that there is no salvation apart from Christ.

So according to the Catholic Church, a person could worship a pagan god, like the muslims, and still go to heaven?


Also, what about this?

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

So according to the Catholic Church, a person could worship a pagan god, like the muslims, and still go to heaven?


Also, what about this?

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

According to Romans 1 and 2, and according to the scripture p***ages that is referenced in the quotes I have given a person meeting these requirements still have to go through Christ at the judgement where every knee shall bow and tongue confess that he is Lord. Go check it out. Sentence by sentence if we have to.

Outside the Church there is no salvation? Guess you should start a new thread. If I introduce any material related to it, we will eventually find ourselves off-topic. When we can check the context of which "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" in its own context, I think we can revisit how it relates to this discussion. Remind me to also point to John Paul II's encyclical "Ut unum sint." Also, we should be able to visit the CCEL site. Just for my own reference to a new post on the subject matter... wikipedia has mentioned Saint Cyprian of Carthage in the third century made that phrase. It is accepted by both the East and the West, so it is not just something made up by the Vatican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_E...am_nulla_salus

[Leslie]

I'm just confused, because what you're saying sounds like Universalism. Which means that you don't need Jesus to go to Heaven. Jesus said that he was the ONLY way to heaven. How can this be true in light of what you're saying?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

I'm just confused, because what you're saying sounds like Universalism. Which means that you don't need Jesus to go to Heaven. Jesus said that he was the ONLY way to heaven. How can this be true in light of what you're saying?

Have you read Romans 1 and 2? It should not be confusing. Are you to suggest to me that the nomads in the bush who haven't heard about Jesus are going to hell? Are you telling me that a muslim, who hasn't heard the Gospel undiluted is going to hell? It is retroactive, on the day of judgement, they also must go through Christ. It is not universalism, it is plain Pauline common sense.

[Leslie]

I'm sorry Councile, but I've read Romans 1 and 2 and I don't see it. Maybe I'm stupid I don't know, but could you point out what in the text you seem to be refering to please?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

I'm sorry Councile, but I've read Romans 1 and 2 and I don't see it. Maybe I'm stupid I don't know, but could you point out what in the text you seem to be refering to please?

Romans 1.18-20 NIV

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.


Romans 2. 5-16. NIV

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.



Verses 14-15 shows the exception, but verse 16 shows that even this exception must go through Jesus Christ. It is not universalism, but a person who is judged with the natural revelation or what divine revelation that they have obtained.

[Leslie]

That is not saying a person who worships a pagan god will go to heaven.....

He's saying that people can't make excuses for why they didn't come to God because he's self evident in nature. What you're trying to say is that if a person does good works, he will go to heaven, no matter if he worships Christ as God or demotes him to a mere prophet apparantly.

I wonder what one of the Popes of the middle ages would have said if you told him his Church now says they worship the same god as the Muslims. He'd probably call you a heretic and burn you at the stake.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

That is not saying a person who worships a pagan god will go to heaven.....

He's saying that people can't make excuses for why they didn't come to God because he's self evident in nature. What you're trying to say is that if a person does good works, he will go to heaven, no matter if he worships Christ as God or demotes him to a mere prophet apparantly.

I wonder what one of the Popes of the middle ages would have said if you told him his Church now says they worship the same god as the Muslims. He'd probably call you a heretic and burn you at the stake.

There are many heresys in all ages, perhaps you can find a quote for me. I am sure Islam's spread must have elicited some comments from the popes. Perhaps you can demonstrate. As is, all I can find suggests a consistency. What you are saying I am saying is, however, is false. If Christ is not present in the person's life, meaning he has never encountered Christ meaningfully, then he falls under the stipulations of the p***ages I have quoted. Muslims that are brought up believing Jesus is not God in the flesh have not encountered the Gospel meaningfully. They have a some error in their religious beliefs mixed in with some very truthful elements. But do not mistake the terms pagan with Islam, Islam is not paganism. It is not nature worship. They believe in one God just the same as Judaism. If Christ judges a person to be righteous at the end of the age, it is his perogative. As such, I think the p***ages I have given demonstrate a general application of that judgement.

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

There are many heresys in all ages, perhaps you can find a quote for me. I am sure Islam's spread must have elicited some comments from the popes. Perhaps you can demonstrate. As is, all I can find suggests a consistency. What you are saying I am saying is, however, is false. If Christ is not present in the person's life, meaning he has never encountered Christ meaningfully, then he falls under the stipulations of the p***ages I have quoted. Muslims that are brought up believing Jesus is not God in the flesh have not encountered the Gospel meaningfully. They have a some error in their religious beliefs mixed in with some very truthful elements. But do not mistake the terms pagan with Islam, Islam is not paganism. It is not nature worship. They believe in one God just the same as Judaism. If Christ judges a person to be righteous at the end of the age, it is his perogative. As such, I think the p***ages I have given demonstrate a general application of that judgement.

I thought a pagan was a person who worships a false god, which is what Allah is?

Islam isn't a heresy, it's a false religion that teaches that our Lord and Savior is nothing more than a mere prophet. It denies most of what we hold to be Sacred, and is purely a works-based system of beliefs. Christ will not judge them to be righteous because they have rejected him as their Lord and Creator.

The fact Catholicism is teaching this now is proof that it's becoming more and more liberal. Catholicism used to out right condemn Protestants and said we were going to burn in hell, one can only imagine what they had to say about the Muslims.

You've yet to prove that Allah is the same God we or even the Jews worship. The only thing in common they have is that it's one God and they claim it's Abraham's God.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

I thought a pagan was a person who worships a false god, which is what Allah is?

Islam isn't a heresy, it's a false religion that teaches that our Lord and Savior is nothing more than a mere prophet. It denies most of what we hold to be Sacred, and is purely a works-based system of beliefs. Christ will not judge them to be righteous because they have rejected him as their Lord and Creator.

The fact Catholicism is teaching this now is proof that it's becoming more and more liberal. Catholicism used to out right condemn Protestants and said we were going to burn in hell, one can only imagine what they had to say about the Muslims.

You've yet to prove that Allah is the same God we or even the Jews worship. The only thing in common they have is that it's one God and they claim it's Abraham's God.

It is one thing to blame the founders of new religions, who have the scriptures and use them in inappropriate ways to support their new doctrines or old gnostic/heresy doctrines with borrowed terminology. It is another thing to be brought up and raised in those religions that do not have the scriptures. Obviously, the Islamic prophet is rejected by Christianity for he obviously knew of the scriptural position of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches for him to adapt new ideas on the person of Christ and even retaining respect for the Virgin Mary. We can catagorically place Islam within the monotheistic religions, but would have to reject it more than Judaism since it does not respect the Scriptural base. However, to those that have not received a meaningful encounter with Jesus and his Gospel... including a lot of muslims due to the secular authorities laws to prevent Christian evangelism... those individuals have to base their knowledge of God from nature and in those p***ages of the Koran that are borrowed or adapted from the O.T.. You haven't really presented Islam here in what we have in common. In many respects, finding the commonality is the door for evangelism. If you fail to be a peacemaker, if you fail to be slow to speak and quick to listen as James instructs, you are going to be an ineffective presenter to the muslim in a meaningful engagement with the Gospel of our Lord.

You are in effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

It is one thing to blame the founders of new religions, who have the scriptures and use them in inappropriate ways to support their new doctrines or old gnostic/heresy doctrines with borrowed terminology. It is another thing to be brought up and raised in those religions that do not have the scriptures. Obviously, the Islamic prophet is rejected by Christianity for he obviously knew of the scriptural position of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches for him to adapt new ideas on the person of Christ and even retaining respect for the Virgin Mary. We can catagorically place Islam within the monotheistic religions, but would have to reject it more than Judaism since it does not respect the Scriptural base. However, to those that have not received a meaningful encounter with Jesus and his Gospel... including a lot of muslims due to the secular authorities laws to prevent Christian evangelism... those individuals have to base their knowledge of God from nature and in those p***ages of the Koran that are borrowed or adapted from the O.T.. You haven't really presented Islam here in what we have in common. In many respects, finding the commonality is the door for evangelism. If you fail to be a peacemaker, if you fail to be slow to speak and quick to listen as James instructs, you are going to be an ineffective presenter to the muslim in a meaningful engagement with the Gospel of our Lord.

You are in effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So by telling people that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, I am not doing the right thing?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

So by telling people that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, I am not doing the right thing?

Is that all you are telling them? Are you one of those hit and run evangelists? Don't expect to really care for their physical needs or their emotional needs, just throw out the presentation as though you have meaningfully engaged the muslim? Because if that is all, then you certainly are not applying what Sayso's has presented with Scripture in 1 Cor.. The fruits of the Spirit, mind you... love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, meekness, and self-control, if this is part of your presentation of the Gospel, then the power of the truth will follow it. But this is not how it often happens in presenting the Gospel to the Muslims, except for those effective ministers already with their nose to the grindstone inside Muslim governments.


I think you should go line by line with the quotes I have started off with. Apparently your reading of it is tainted by what you percieve before you encountered it. An effective sentence by sentence exegete should clear it up.

[Trinity]

People who were living without any clue about christianity or judaism will be judged and saved by their level of revelation. It is inconceivable that some people were created to finish in hell just because those people had never seen a missionary during their days. This is cruel and immoral.

Trinity

[Leslie]

So they'll be saved by good works right?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

So they'll be saved by good works right?

YOu are sounding like a broken record. Your question would depend on the individual's level of revelation, both natural and divinely revealed. I cannot answer either a resounding yes or no, simply because it is up to God to determine. I see no works oriented application in the Romans 1 & 2 p***ages, but generally speaking works are a good indicator of a soul with some good moral backbone. I think there will probably be some level of social respect to that individual who does good works, but I doubt you will see anyone really love Scrooge, Grinch, or even Mr. Potter of "Its a wonderful life" until they express honest good will. As Jesus says that a good tree produces good fruit, I seriously doubt we can attribute in general a righteousness based on an untried faith in the preChristian individuals. I should like to think people like Sparticus made it into heaven. I cannot name anybody after Christ in the bushs of Africa to point to anyone famous there who might or might not on the day of judgement receive the kingdom through Christ. You would have to give me a case by case scenerio where I could ask general questions concerning an individual's character to ascertain whether Christ is working in him, despite not having been divinely revealed to him by a missionary or fellow Christian.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Leslie

So they'll be saved by good works right?

Not really. Some will be saved because they acknowledge (faith) the existence of a supreme creator, the creator of everything, and they serve him with very highest moral standards. They received their revelation by the laws of the creation.

Romans 2:14-16 Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong. They demonstrate that God's law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right. The day will surely come when God, by Jesus Christ, will judge everyone's secret life. This is my message.

The Spirit of God can find them like he had found Abraham. Abraham who was an idols worshipper in the Chaldean land.

Romans 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Trinity

[Leslie]

Where does it say that Abraham worshipped idols?

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Leslie

Where does it say that Abraham worshipped idols?

In the Jewish traditions. His father according to the story was an idols salesman.

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...Early-Life.htm

Trinity

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by Trinity

In the Jewish traditions. His father according to the story was an idols salesman.

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...Early-Life.htm

Trinity

Now where does it say that HE worshipped idols in the Bible? I'm not interested right now in Jewish stories and fables.

BTw, I'm not against the idea of God reaching a person via supernatural means. What I dispute is the notion that once he has he won't lead them to the knowledge of Christ via some way, wither it be an angel or a missionary etc.

[Columcille]

What exactly do you mean by the following quote?

BTw, I'm not against the idea of God reaching a person via supernatural means. What I dispute is the notion that once he has he won't lead them to the knowledge of Christ via some way, wither it be an angel or a missionary etc.

Are a Mormon? Do you believe Christ came to the Native Americans and preached too? Balderdash. If such a supernatural event occured in any particular group, don't you think a tale of such events would have been handed down? As is, most cases do not show any evidence of a leading to Christ; although I am sure you are going to find miraculous events in almost any culture... even stories related to the Buddah for instance. If God were to show himself supernaturally, the people who saw it can still fall away or ignore the message. Judas is a prime example of a person who knew Jesus, saw supernatural events and heard him speak about himself as the Christ, yet he fell away. For the most part, I think it speculation to make the ***umption that your notion is a correct one. I see no evidence to suggest it in any culture.

[sayso]

Originally Posted by Columcille

It is one thing to blame the founders of new religions, who have the scriptures and use them in inappropriate ways to support their new doctrines or old gnostic/heresy doctrines with borrowed terminology. It is another thing to be brought up and raised in those religions that do not have the scriptures. Obviously, the Islamic prophet is rejected by Christianity for he obviously knew of the scriptural position of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches for him to adapt new ideas on the person of Christ and even retaining respect for the Virgin Mary. We can catagorically place Islam within the monotheistic religions, but would have to reject it more than Judaism since it does not respect the Scriptural base. However, to those that have not received a meaningful encounter with Jesus and his Gospel... including a lot of muslims due to the secular authorities laws to prevent Christian evangelism... those individuals have to base their knowledge of God from nature and in those p***ages of the Koran that are borrowed or adapted from the O.T.. You haven't really presented Islam here in what we have in common. In many respects, finding the commonality is the door for evangelism. If you fail to be a peacemaker, if you fail to be slow to speak and quick to listen as James instructs, you are going to be an ineffective presenter to the muslim in a meaningful engagement with the Gospel of our Lord.

You are in effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

1 Corinthians 2:3-5

3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,

4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.


So for the Muslims we must present a different gospel then what Paul preached?

The Gospel of Jesus is often offensive to those who are perishing.

Romans 9:33
just as it is written," BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."