Thanks, Dan, for the comment. I don’t mean to be crass or mean spirited, but you apparently know little or nothing about other religions. Christians themselves, have characterized all other religions as self help based in contrast to Christianity which is grace based. Self help indicates that religious adherents must find acceptance with God through a life pleasing to him. That involves turning from sinful ways and following righteousness. I also suggested that David of the Old Testament was a deist who was considered a “man after God’s own heart.” Nearly every religion has a code of conduct, or moral standards, most very similar to the ten commandments. So I don’t know, Dan, where you are getting your information about other religions, but it is obviously misguided.
As to those rejecting the Christian gospel benefiting from the peace and tranquility the gospel brings. Hmm. I think of the peace and tranquility of apartheid in South Africa which was led, for the most part, by Reformed Christians and their churches. If you were to turn your statement around, I think you could say that Christians benefit greatly by the advances of secular culture - science, medicine, health care, technology, government and more.
Well, Dan, I think you miss the point of other religions, again. Other religions don’t have a grading scale as to earning God’s favor. Muslims, for instance, believe in the perfection of God, like Christianity. Works don’t measure anyone’s righteousness and therefore acceptance with God. Good works merely demonstrate a commitment to God. No one is perfect. After all we are human beings, not Gods. Even the Bible admits there is none righteous, no not one. If we had been created as Gods, then God might expect perfection. But we are human and come into the world with a natural inclination to sin. So God isn’t looking for perfection, just commitment, even though that commitment often falls short. God is a forgiving God, so perfection isn’t the goal. He sees the heart.
Deism is the believe in the existence of God based on the evidence of reason and nature only. David, of the Old Testament, could be a good example of deism, one who saw God’s glory and wonder in the created world. Many of his Psalms glory in the God of creation. And even though he sinned, sometimes grievously, God forgave him and referred to him as a man after his own heart. All this without ever having heard of Jesus or having believed in him for salvation. David’s life was lived in the knowledge of and love for the God he saw in creation. So, Dan, I think your criticism of other religions and even deism misses the mark. And by the way, Dan, deism is not a man made religion. The only revelation deists believe is the created order, or nature. That’s God’s revelation of himself, especially when reason is applied to it. As you say, all other religions (and so called supernatural revelations) are man made which would include the Bible. Blessings to you.
Thanks, Eric, for your response. I think you may be right about victim blaming. It will do little to remedy an abusive situation or relationship. Instead, we each should ask of ourselves, how have I contributed to this situation and how can I contribute to the solution. What am I willing to do to restore a bad situation. Instead of casting blame, let’s take the proactive approach toward resolution. Thanks again, Eric.
Thanks, Joshua, for your thoughts concerning the different worlds of the churched and unchurched and how the churched (Christians) can bridge the gap between. Of course there is a fundamental difference between those two worlds (Christ or not), and some would say that difference is reflected in a difference of world and life views as well as life styles. Beneath your words, your bridge seems more of a bridge for the unchurched to see the value of the Christian world, and not so much for Christians to see the value of their world. Christians (you) want to bring them fully into the Christian world without fully becoming part of their world, an unfair exchange. For the most part, non Christians are perfectly happy living in their own world according to their values and world view. In fact, most would see the Christian world (the church) as a bogus world that depends on a make believe reality that is artificial. So although the funeral pastor thought he may be bridging a gap, by appealing to their music, I doubt that the hope he offered (his ulterior motive) really made a connection. Non Christians aren’t that gullible or naive, at least in our culture.
Thank you, “name withheld,” for your insightful article in contrasting the differences between the Muslim and Christian perspectives on God. You gave a nice (short) description of how the Islamic would describe the heart of the Islamic religion and his/her perspective on God (or Allah).
In contrast, the Christian would be compelled to say that God is a three person entity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of which all three are fully and completely God, separate and yet one. The second person of this entity, at a point in history, came down to earth from heaven and took on the form as a human baby (person). He is embodied as a fully human person and yet retains his fully divine nature (as God). Fully human and fully God. He lived his earthly existence sinlessly from the time of his birth (baby Jesus) in thought word and deed. He performed many miracles. He was crucified at the hands of those who didn’t believe who he claimed to be. After three days in the grave he was raised to life, walked again on earth, then ascended into heaven, where he presently reigns over heaven and earth. Someday (soon) he will return to earth to establish his final and eternal kingdom, at which time all people will be judged for their lives on earth, and be found wanting.
You suggest that Christian theologians can find some philosophical problems with the Islamic doctrine of God. Do you really think that Muslim scholars can find no problems with the Christian concept of God? Put the two concepts of God side by side, and which makes more sense? Which stacks up to reason? And by the way, I’m not putting in a plug for the Islamic religion or concept of God. It just seems unlikely that Christianity is more reasonable than other religions.
Thanks, “name withheld,” for your efforts to explain some of the differences between Islamic and Christian theology and world views. Whether they are allies or cobelligerents makes little difference to the secularist. Backing away from commitment to either religion (a secularist viewpoint), perhaps gives a more objective perspective.
Recognize that both religions claim a complete trustworthiness for their own religion and for their inspired writings, whether the Bible or the Koran. Both religions are mutually exclusive of the other’s religious tenets. So Christians claim only the Bible is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. And Muslims claim only the Koran (and related Scriptures) is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. Are both true, or only one, or is neither true?
Consider the divine story line of each as to reasonableness for the Bible and the Koran. The Bible (or Christianity) claims that God is a three person entity. The second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, came down to earth from heaven, as a human baby, lived a sinless life (what a good boy he was), performed many miracles, was rejected by the Jews, was crucified, and after three days rose to life from the grave. After a short period of time he ascended back into heaven to the Father’s right hand where he presently reigns over earth and the church. Eventually, he will return to earth to assume his reign from earth and heaven over all of creation (with the Father and the Holy Spirit), as the Triune God.
The Muslim or the Koran teaches that Jesus was a great prophet appointed by God (a single entity) but that he (Jesus) was fully human and not God. Nor was Jesus physically raised from the dead after his death.
Both stories claim an infallibility and trustworthiness for their accounts. As much as the Christian may claim a more reasonable and thoughtful perspective of salvation, the Islamic view as to historical accounting makes much more (common) sense about the person of Jesus. And of course, it is the historical narrative that supports the theologic position of either view of salvation. Both religions and their Scriptures claim many miracles which makes little sense today. Both religions, to the secularist, are archaic and mythical views of religion and God.
So to the secularist, neither religion fits a logical scheme of reality. Both sound foolish in their arguments of agreement or disagreement or cooperation. Thanks, though, for your efforts.
I’m glad, Eric, that those verses are convincing to you, To the secularist those verses sound like a ploy or strategy to convince Christians that they’re not stupid for believing such an unreasonable message, even though God given reason and logic say wake up to reality. Those verse are like a young child telling his parents that they have a mental block that keeps them from believing in the reality of Santa Claus. Only children know that Santa is real.
I have no disdain for God’s word. Nor doI have no problem with a knowledge and trust in God. But which word or revelation are you talking about? The Jewish scriptures, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures, Buddhism or the Bible? They all make the same claim (truthfulness) for their Scriptures as do Christians. Or are you talking about creation, the natural revelation of God? Thanks for your concern. I have the same hope for you.
Good going, Dan. You obviously hit on a topic that has drawn a lot of responses, and obviously some diversity as to the meaning of justice. I’ve been away from my computer for a while and just picked up on your interesting article. It spurred my thinking, like it has many others. I liked the analogy of using your children to make your point.
Your definition (short definition) of justice is: “Justice is people getting what they deserve, whether good or bad, and whether we personally like the outcome or not.” To bring that home to your six year old son, you used the example of the policeman who stopped a person who broke the “stop sign” law. Obviously guilty of wrong doing but the policeman let it go for his own reasons (liked his looks). Your son said, and you agreed, that such action would be wrong. It’s not just.
But that is exactly what God does. He gives a set of laws that everyone must meet. All have failed to meet the standard of God’s justice. And yet he chooses (elects) to forgive some but not others. It’s like the policeman giving a break to some but not to others. And it definitely doesn’t fit the definition that you have given of justice. As God’s image bearers, is that the pattern you and I should follow in dealing with people, act justly toward some but not all?
I think you miss the point. You said, Dan, “justice is people getting what they deserve...” The point I’m making is that the elect don’t get what they deserve. They escape justice. Your definition fails. Because someone else pays a debt doesn’t mean justice is served. If Joe Bloe says I’ll pay the debt for Adolf Hitler’s crimes, justice is not met. Adolf Hitler has to pay for his own crimes. Otherwise justice is not met.
To Erik, the police officer could say to the offender, “I’ll forgive your crime. Go and try not to do this again. Forgiveness does not require a payment, whether by an offender or someone else in his place. Another thing, Erik, you said, “God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son.” He may have punished the “law breaking” but he didn’t punish the law breaker. Therefore justice was not met.
So then, Dan, you want your son to understand justice, equality, forgiveness and mercy from God’s perspective in a way that makes sense to him.
Here’s a simple story that a child should be able to understand. A father takes his four sons fishing. They are close in age (two sets of twins - 5 and 6 years old). He tells them to be careful, not to rock the boat, as that could be dangerous to their safety. After an hour the boys get bored and start to horse around and start rocking the boat. Lo and behold the boat tips over and all end up in the water. The water is not that deep but is still over the heads of the boys. Its an easy task for the father to rescue all four boys. He’s an excellent swimmer and has life saving experience. But he decides to save only one and leave the others to drown. Afterward when confronted he says, the boys all misbehaved and received the due consequence of their misbehavior. That he saved one shows his kindness.
Now ask your son what he thought of the father. Was he just in allowing the three to drown when he could have easily saved all four, was he truly merciful or forgiving in allowing the three to drown? How do you think the courts of justice would treat such a father?
Of course this is how God chooses out of a sinful humanity the few elect. Although Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, the actual payment is limited to only the elect, the chosen, The majority of humanity never even hear a valid presentation of the gospel and are bound for an eternity in hell as sinners. Is this the kind of justice and mercy that we should emulate as image bearers of God? Is this the kind of justice that you are happy to emulate and prescribe to your children? How do you understand Biblical election differently than what’s explained above, since, as you say, we have completely different understandings of Scripture?
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Thanks, Dan, for the comment. I don’t mean to be crass or mean spirited, but you apparently know little or nothing about other religions. Christians themselves, have characterized all other religions as self help based in contrast to Christianity which is grace based. Self help indicates that religious adherents must find acceptance with God through a life pleasing to him. That involves turning from sinful ways and following righteousness. I also suggested that David of the Old Testament was a deist who was considered a “man after God’s own heart.” Nearly every religion has a code of conduct, or moral standards, most very similar to the ten commandments. So I don’t know, Dan, where you are getting your information about other religions, but it is obviously misguided.
As to those rejecting the Christian gospel benefiting from the peace and tranquility the gospel brings. Hmm. I think of the peace and tranquility of apartheid in South Africa which was led, for the most part, by Reformed Christians and their churches. If you were to turn your statement around, I think you could say that Christians benefit greatly by the advances of secular culture - science, medicine, health care, technology, government and more.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Well, Dan, I think you miss the point of other religions, again. Other religions don’t have a grading scale as to earning God’s favor. Muslims, for instance, believe in the perfection of God, like Christianity. Works don’t measure anyone’s righteousness and therefore acceptance with God. Good works merely demonstrate a commitment to God. No one is perfect. After all we are human beings, not Gods. Even the Bible admits there is none righteous, no not one. If we had been created as Gods, then God might expect perfection. But we are human and come into the world with a natural inclination to sin. So God isn’t looking for perfection, just commitment, even though that commitment often falls short. God is a forgiving God, so perfection isn’t the goal. He sees the heart.
Deism is the believe in the existence of God based on the evidence of reason and nature only. David, of the Old Testament, could be a good example of deism, one who saw God’s glory and wonder in the created world. Many of his Psalms glory in the God of creation. And even though he sinned, sometimes grievously, God forgave him and referred to him as a man after his own heart. All this without ever having heard of Jesus or having believed in him for salvation. David’s life was lived in the knowledge of and love for the God he saw in creation. So, Dan, I think your criticism of other religions and even deism misses the mark. And by the way, Dan, deism is not a man made religion. The only revelation deists believe is the created order, or nature. That’s God’s revelation of himself, especially when reason is applied to it. As you say, all other religions (and so called supernatural revelations) are man made which would include the Bible. Blessings to you.
Posted in: Violence against Women – It’s a Men’s Issue
Thanks, Eric, for your response. I think you may be right about victim blaming. It will do little to remedy an abusive situation or relationship. Instead, we each should ask of ourselves, how have I contributed to this situation and how can I contribute to the solution. What am I willing to do to restore a bad situation. Instead of casting blame, let’s take the proactive approach toward resolution. Thanks again, Eric.
Posted in: Bridging the Gap
Thanks, Joshua, for your thoughts concerning the different worlds of the churched and unchurched and how the churched (Christians) can bridge the gap between. Of course there is a fundamental difference between those two worlds (Christ or not), and some would say that difference is reflected in a difference of world and life views as well as life styles. Beneath your words, your bridge seems more of a bridge for the unchurched to see the value of the Christian world, and not so much for Christians to see the value of their world. Christians (you) want to bring them fully into the Christian world without fully becoming part of their world, an unfair exchange. For the most part, non Christians are perfectly happy living in their own world according to their values and world view. In fact, most would see the Christian world (the church) as a bogus world that depends on a make believe reality that is artificial. So although the funeral pastor thought he may be bridging a gap, by appealing to their music, I doubt that the hope he offered (his ulterior motive) really made a connection. Non Christians aren’t that gullible or naive, at least in our culture.
Posted in: Trinity or Tawhid? The difference between Christianity and Islam to a 'T'
Thank you, “name withheld,” for your insightful article in contrasting the differences between the Muslim and Christian perspectives on God. You gave a nice (short) description of how the Islamic would describe the heart of the Islamic religion and his/her perspective on God (or Allah).
In contrast, the Christian would be compelled to say that God is a three person entity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of which all three are fully and completely God, separate and yet one. The second person of this entity, at a point in history, came down to earth from heaven and took on the form as a human baby (person). He is embodied as a fully human person and yet retains his fully divine nature (as God). Fully human and fully God. He lived his earthly existence sinlessly from the time of his birth (baby Jesus) in thought word and deed. He performed many miracles. He was crucified at the hands of those who didn’t believe who he claimed to be. After three days in the grave he was raised to life, walked again on earth, then ascended into heaven, where he presently reigns over heaven and earth. Someday (soon) he will return to earth to establish his final and eternal kingdom, at which time all people will be judged for their lives on earth, and be found wanting.
You suggest that Christian theologians can find some philosophical problems with the Islamic doctrine of God. Do you really think that Muslim scholars can find no problems with the Christian concept of God? Put the two concepts of God side by side, and which makes more sense? Which stacks up to reason? And by the way, I’m not putting in a plug for the Islamic religion or concept of God. It just seems unlikely that Christianity is more reasonable than other religions.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
Thanks, “name withheld,” for your efforts to explain some of the differences between Islamic and Christian theology and world views. Whether they are allies or cobelligerents makes little difference to the secularist. Backing away from commitment to either religion (a secularist viewpoint), perhaps gives a more objective perspective.
Recognize that both religions claim a complete trustworthiness for their own religion and for their inspired writings, whether the Bible or the Koran. Both religions are mutually exclusive of the other’s religious tenets. So Christians claim only the Bible is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. And Muslims claim only the Koran (and related Scriptures) is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. Are both true, or only one, or is neither true?
Consider the divine story line of each as to reasonableness for the Bible and the Koran. The Bible (or Christianity) claims that God is a three person entity. The second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, came down to earth from heaven, as a human baby, lived a sinless life (what a good boy he was), performed many miracles, was rejected by the Jews, was crucified, and after three days rose to life from the grave. After a short period of time he ascended back into heaven to the Father’s right hand where he presently reigns over earth and the church. Eventually, he will return to earth to assume his reign from earth and heaven over all of creation (with the Father and the Holy Spirit), as the Triune God.
The Muslim or the Koran teaches that Jesus was a great prophet appointed by God (a single entity) but that he (Jesus) was fully human and not God. Nor was Jesus physically raised from the dead after his death.
Both stories claim an infallibility and trustworthiness for their accounts. As much as the Christian may claim a more reasonable and thoughtful perspective of salvation, the Islamic view as to historical accounting makes much more (common) sense about the person of Jesus. And of course, it is the historical narrative that supports the theologic position of either view of salvation. Both religions and their Scriptures claim many miracles which makes little sense today. Both religions, to the secularist, are archaic and mythical views of religion and God.
So to the secularist, neither religion fits a logical scheme of reality. Both sound foolish in their arguments of agreement or disagreement or cooperation. Thanks, though, for your efforts.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
Thanks
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
I’m glad, Eric, that those verses are convincing to you, To the secularist those verses sound like a ploy or strategy to convince Christians that they’re not stupid for believing such an unreasonable message, even though God given reason and logic say wake up to reality. Those verse are like a young child telling his parents that they have a mental block that keeps them from believing in the reality of Santa Claus. Only children know that Santa is real.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
I have no disdain for God’s word. Nor doI have no problem with a knowledge and trust in God. But which word or revelation are you talking about? The Jewish scriptures, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures, Buddhism or the Bible? They all make the same claim (truthfulness) for their Scriptures as do Christians. Or are you talking about creation, the natural revelation of God? Thanks for your concern. I have the same hope for you.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Good going, Dan. You obviously hit on a topic that has drawn a lot of responses, and obviously some diversity as to the meaning of justice. I’ve been away from my computer for a while and just picked up on your interesting article. It spurred my thinking, like it has many others. I liked the analogy of using your children to make your point.
Your definition (short definition) of justice is: “Justice is people getting what they deserve, whether good or bad, and whether we personally like the outcome or not.” To bring that home to your six year old son, you used the example of the policeman who stopped a person who broke the “stop sign” law. Obviously guilty of wrong doing but the policeman let it go for his own reasons (liked his looks). Your son said, and you agreed, that such action would be wrong. It’s not just.
But that is exactly what God does. He gives a set of laws that everyone must meet. All have failed to meet the standard of God’s justice. And yet he chooses (elects) to forgive some but not others. It’s like the policeman giving a break to some but not to others. And it definitely doesn’t fit the definition that you have given of justice. As God’s image bearers, is that the pattern you and I should follow in dealing with people, act justly toward some but not all?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I think you miss the point. You said, Dan, “justice is people getting what they deserve...” The point I’m making is that the elect don’t get what they deserve. They escape justice. Your definition fails. Because someone else pays a debt doesn’t mean justice is served. If Joe Bloe says I’ll pay the debt for Adolf Hitler’s crimes, justice is not met. Adolf Hitler has to pay for his own crimes. Otherwise justice is not met.
To Erik, the police officer could say to the offender, “I’ll forgive your crime. Go and try not to do this again. Forgiveness does not require a payment, whether by an offender or someone else in his place. Another thing, Erik, you said, “God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son.” He may have punished the “law breaking” but he didn’t punish the law breaker. Therefore justice was not met.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
So then, Dan, you want your son to understand justice, equality, forgiveness and mercy from God’s perspective in a way that makes sense to him.
Here’s a simple story that a child should be able to understand. A father takes his four sons fishing. They are close in age (two sets of twins - 5 and 6 years old). He tells them to be careful, not to rock the boat, as that could be dangerous to their safety. After an hour the boys get bored and start to horse around and start rocking the boat. Lo and behold the boat tips over and all end up in the water. The water is not that deep but is still over the heads of the boys. Its an easy task for the father to rescue all four boys. He’s an excellent swimmer and has life saving experience. But he decides to save only one and leave the others to drown. Afterward when confronted he says, the boys all misbehaved and received the due consequence of their misbehavior. That he saved one shows his kindness.
Now ask your son what he thought of the father. Was he just in allowing the three to drown when he could have easily saved all four, was he truly merciful or forgiving in allowing the three to drown? How do you think the courts of justice would treat such a father?
Of course this is how God chooses out of a sinful humanity the few elect. Although Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, the actual payment is limited to only the elect, the chosen, The majority of humanity never even hear a valid presentation of the gospel and are bound for an eternity in hell as sinners. Is this the kind of justice and mercy that we should emulate as image bearers of God? Is this the kind of justice that you are happy to emulate and prescribe to your children? How do you understand Biblical election differently than what’s explained above, since, as you say, we have completely different understandings of Scripture?