Is the God of Christianity and Islam the Same?

[Circle_Master]

I will reply later. All I can say for the moment is I'm going to avoid dealing with religious pluralism for the moment as that is an entire debate in itself and one worthy of my full attention, not a sideline.

[Theoketos]

[quote]Islam and Judaism have accepted false special revelation and so pursue a different God than Christianity pursues. In my opinion.[/quote]

I would agree with the qualification or addition of the word when.

When Islam and Judaism (espcially Judaism) accept false special revelation and so pursue a different God than Christianity pursues. In my opinion.

...But when they hold to those trues which they share with Christianity they are indeed praying to God.

[Circle_Master]

Besides the contradiction between JeffCR07's post about substance and then Era Might using natural revelation synonymously with how Myles used substance, I will make a final statement. Last one for me because I get weary of the arguing. You'll just have to find another protestant to pick on in this thread .

What it seems to be coming down to is there is no consensus among Catholicism on this issue, but there is a 'hedge' that must not be crossed. Since Catholicism (post Vatican II) has accepted a form of religious pluralism that allows for those who don't know special revelation to receive the grace of God, it creates a hedge. The hedge is that if these people who do not believe special revelation are worshipping a different god, then they can not receive salvation. If they are just 'mis-informed' it allows Catholic theology to grant them grace. In this logic ignorance is an excuse.

As you may have gathered from my posts I can not agree with that. Romans 1 is clear that the invisible attributes of God can be seen, and passages such as the Ethiopian Eunuch, and the entire missionary emphasis of the OT show the necessity of spreading the Word of God. Jesus Himself has stated that He is the way the truth and the life, 1 Corinthians 15 also confirms that it is our shame that not all men know the gospel, and Romans 10:13-15 goes on and on about how people cannot be saved without hearing the gospel and how the gospel cannot be spread unless we preach it. What I see in 'similar' religions is not encouragement, but subtle deception. "For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14)" and "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9)". Jesus even tells us that "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction" and it leaves me with little doubt that "many died through one man's trespass (Rom. 5:15)" and many more will. In my logic ignorance is never an excuse. It is our responsibility to preach the good news. We are the image bearers, and it is us who will someday have responsibility of judging (1 Cor. 6).

Final answer: I speak with an islamic friend, and he tells me his god is one. I remember monophysitism was condemned as heretical (which is a somewhat similar belief), and I must conclude, that the god he worships is not the God of Abraham Isaac Israel and the Apostles, but a veiled Satan disguised as an angel of light.

[Era Might]

[quote]Era Might using natural revelation synonymously with how Myles used substance[/quote]

Not sure what you mean here. Substance is the essence of who we are. Reason is a path to understand substance (in this case, God's substantial nature).

[quote]What it seems to be coming down to is there is no consensus among Catholicism on this issue[/quote]

There is not necessarily a consensus in this thread. But we do not speak for the Church, and our consensus, or lack thereof, is not indicative of what the Church actually teaches. I have cited Pope John Paul II. He did speak for Catholicism, and so his words are directly relevant.

[quote]Since Catholicism (post Vatican II) has accepted a form of religious pluralism that allows for those who don't know special revelation to receive the grace of God, it creates a hedge.[/quote]

Well, this is a bit unclear. All men receive the grace of God. Life itself is a grace. He causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust alike. The grace in question is salvific grace; how he bestows the grace merited by Christ in his paschal mystery.

The Church's nuance on this question well precedes the Council. Pope Pius IX relates in an Encyclical Letter of 1863:

[quote]There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

--Quanto Conficiamur Moerore[/quote]

[quote]The hedge is that if these people who do not believe special revelation are worshipping a different god, then they can not receive salvation.  If they are just 'mis-informed' it allows Catholic theology to grant them grace.  In this logic ignorance is an excuse.[/quote]

Not quite.

This is all a matter of personal conscience. What we are culpable for believing, or not believing, is not something any man can judge. God alone judges the heart. It is true, as Pope Pius IX says, that God does not hold us guilty unless our sins, or errors, are deliberate. Again, only he can judge our hearts, which is why the Church does not say only so-and-so can be saved. The Church announces the ordinary means of salvation (faith in Christ and incorporation into his Mystical Body, the Church). Outside the ordinary means given by Christ, she leaves it to God to do what he will, knowing that God looks at the honesty of the heart.

[quote]entire missionary emphasis of the OT show the necessity of spreading the Word of God.[/quote]

Of course. We agree completely. Pope John Paul II devoted an entire Encyclical letter on the mission Ad Gentes, entitled "Redemptoris Missio". He also emphasized the duty to evangelize at World Youth Day '93:

[quote]Do not be afraid to go out on the streets and into public places, like the first Apostles who preached Christ and the Good News of salvation in the squares of cities, towns and villages. This is no time to be ashamed of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:16). It is the time to preach it from the rooftops (cf. Mt 10:27). Do not be afraid to break out of comfortable and routine modes of living, in order to take up the challenge of making Christ known in the modern ``metropolis''. It is you who must ``go out into the byroads'' (Mt 22:9) and invite everyone you meet to the banquet which God has prepared for his people. The Gospel must not be kept hidden because of fear or indifference. It was never meant to be hidden away in private. It has to be put on a stand so that people may see its light and give praise to our heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5:15-16). [/quote]

[quote]In my logic ignorance is never an excuse.  It is our responsibility to preach the good news.  We are the image bearers, and it is us who will someday have responsibility of judging (1 Cor. 6).[/quote]

There is more to conversion than simply hearing the Gospel. Conversion is a supernatural confirmation of Truth, that goes beyond mere reason. Of course, we must do our best to present this Truth. But it is always done with respect for the conscience of each individual, and the designs of Providence. Evangelization must be a dialogue, and not a monologue.

[quote]Final answer: I speak with an islamic friend, and he tells me his god is one.  I remember monophysitism was condemned as heretical (which is a somewhat similar belief), and I must conclude, that the god he worships is not the God of Abraham Isaac Israel and the Apostles, but a veiled Satan disguised as an angel of light.[/quote]

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. The nuance of Catholic theology, and the essential role played by conscience, reason, and natural law, leads us to different conclusions.

As always, we will respectfully agree to disagree.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

Era, substance is [i]not[/i] the essence of who we are. Substance and Essence are two completely, totally different things.

Without intending offense to anyone, this is one of the reasons that I am extremely skeptical of this kind of discussion. It seems that almost no one here actually understands the philosophical and theological terms that are relevant to the discussion, let alone the terms as used and intended by the Nicean Fathers.

C_M if you are really interested in the topic, I invite you to read the Catholic Encyclopedia or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on "Substance" as well as the teaching of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea. If it is still unclear to you how the persons of the Trinity do not alter the substantial existence of God, then please PM me.

But I would ask that until then, this discussion come to a halt, since clearly no one understands Trinitary theology enough to make a point that is worth discussing. I am not trying to sound rude, I just don't want people to think that some of the things being said here are actually correct.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 18 2006, 10:54 AM']Era, substance is [i]not[/i] the essence of who we are. Substance and Essence are two completely, totally different things.[right][snapback]859702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I wasn't giving a formal definition, I was using the word in a common sense, just to clarify that we were not talking about the same thing (ie, between substance and reason). Substance is the opposite of accidents, between what is essential to a being and not essential (eg, the color white is not essential to the Eucharist). You are correct that Essence has its own formal definition, but I was not using the word in that sense. A poor choice of words on my part, perhaps, but my argument was not philosophical. I was simply responding to Circle_Master's post, which was lumping everyone's arguments into one.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

I understand that, but this is exactly my point. The issue is a subtle one, needing precise philosophical and theological distinctions to be made. I totally understand where you are coming from, but C_M clearly was not able to make the distinction between your common usage and the actual technical meaning of the term. All I'm saying is that multiple people using the same terms in different ways extremely complicates the matter.

I am confident that, if he reads those articles, the council of Nicea, and talks to me, he will understand why the Trinitarian dogma cannot result in the Muslims and Jews worshipping a different God. But until he does that, talking about substance in anything less than its absolutely, fully, entirely correct meaning is harming his ability to understand the issue.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff