Thursday, November 13, 2008

What Has Rome to Do With Mecca?

Occasionally, I point out that one of the biggest reasons to reject the doctrines of Rome, is that Vatican II dogmatically taught that God and Allah are the same: that Muslims worship the one true God. As well, Vatican II teaches the Jews worship the one true God. This doctrine is false. Those who reject the Son of God reject God, and both religious Jews and Muslims do reject the Son of God.

I get a variety of reactions from those who are part of the Roman church when I point this out. Sometimes the reaction is disbelief that Vatican 2 actually taught that. Other times the reaction is an argument suggesting that Vatican 2 actually taught something else, such as that the Muslims are right to be monotheists. A few agree and try to come up with some way in which Muslims worship God by worshiping the fictional conception of Allah (an interesting squirm, but not particularly availing). Finally, a few acknowledge that it is what Vatican II taught, and accept it.

Below, I will point evidence supporting my contention that the Roman church teaches the God and Allah are one and the same - and that Muslims and Jews worship the same God as Rome does. I hope that this will give those readers of mine who identify themselves with the church of Benedict XVI some pause. I hope they will consider the fact that this is not a true doctrine: that it is contrary to Scripture.

The following is my evidence from the mouth of your two most recent popes, John Paul II (JP2) and Benedict XVI (Ben16).

"As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham."

JP2 1985 (source")

Nevertheless, neither religious Jews nor Muslims have the faith of Abraham, for they reject the Son of Abraham.

"We are all children of the same God, members of the great family of man. And our religions have a special role to fulfil in curbing these evils and in forging bonds of trust and fellowship. God’s will is that those who worship him, even if not united in the same worship, would nevertheless be united in brotherhood and in common service for the good of all."

JP2 1985 (source")

Notice that JP2 acknowledges that the worship itself is different, but asserts that it is worship of the same God.

"In the final analysis, prayer is the best means by which all humanity can be united. It disposes people to accept God’s will for them. It also affects the relationship of those who pray together, for by coming together before God in prayer people can no longer ignore or hate others. Those who pray together discover that they are pilgrims and seekers of the same goal, brothers and sisters who share responsibility for the same human family, children of the same God and Father. It is my ardent hope that the Day of Prayer for Peace to be held in Assisi, at which Christians of all Communions and believers from all the great religions have been invited to participate, will be a beginning and an incentive for all believers in God to come often before him united in prayer."

JP2 1986 (source")

Nevertheless, those who have not received adoption are not the children of the Father. Likewise, Muslims and Christians have different and competing goals - not the same goal.

"I thank you for your visit, all representatives, leaders, of the Muslim community here in Uganda. Archbishop Wamala said that you are cooperating and that in doing so, you are also accomplishing the will of God, our Creator, our Father. God has created all of us, men and women, the whole human race, to cooperate–to cooperate in order to improve the world. He, our God, committed us, the world, to being inhabited, to being used, not abused, not abused, used, and to serving the human being, human existence. It is necessary to cooperate all together, for the riches of the world are sometimes in danger and the human community is many times is in danger. It requires the cooperation of all of us who believe in the same God, the one God of Abraham, the Father who gave us his son Jesus Christ. Thank you very much for your visit."

JP2 1993 (source")

Nevertheless, the Muslims do not believe in the same God, for they do not even know God.

"We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497)."

JP2 1999 (source")

What joy is there in the fact that there are those on the road to hell who happen to acknowledge some parts of the truth? This truth partially known will not save - it will only increase the condemnation of those who, like the Muslims, reject the one true God.

"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham."

Ben16 2005 (source")

But James said:

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

I'm not suggesting that we cannot be kind to Muslims. We can, should, and must. Nevertheless, we need to distinguish between being kind and respectful to them as people and endorsing or esteeming their religion. Islam is a path to judgment, part of the broad road that leads to destruction. Friendship with Islam as such is an unkindness not a kindness to the members of that religion. Those siding with Islam are siding against Christianity.

To parody an old saw, we must love the Muslim not Islam: the man not his religion.

Hopefully, this settles the matter of what Rome teaches, as well as illustrating some reasons why what Rome teaches is wrong. You will notice that in each case, the quotation is taken from the English translation provided at the Vatican's official web site. These are not my own translations. Now, I call on those of you in the Roman communion to consider whether Scripture teaches that one can both be one who worships God and who rejects the Son of God. If you see that the Scriptures do not teach that, I urge you to come out from the Roman communion and into fellowship with an Evangelical body that maintains not only the historic but Scriptural distinction between the followers of Christ and all other religions, including the religions of Mecca and modern Jerusalem.

-TurretinFan

13 comments:

kellyjwilson said...

Hello person whose blog I have been reading since you chose to engage with a post of mine... :)

I really do want to extend the presumption of good will to you, and let me just say that I do appreciate the overall tone you present here, but after reading everything you have to say about Catholicism, I wonder why you do not seek to ground your comments in some sort of context. Frankly, you don't know much about Catholicism, and yet you have my email, and the place where I blog at, and I would happily take the time to respond to any questions you are wondering about. Why not before writing a post, send me a message saying 'I was just reading this. Is my understand that this is what your Church teaches in fact correct? How does that jive with this view of mine...?"

Your credibility would be bolstered, but when everything you say about Catholicism has about 100 different ways in which it could be picked to pieces, I wonder what your interest is. Frankly, youre not convincing anyone who actually knows what the Church teaches.

My blogs do not comment on matters of Reformed theology, because although I have some interest in it, I am not and could not be an accurate representative of it. Your views on Catholicism consistently are off the mark, and do not even show evidence of the framework within which we Catholics operate. Until they do, any assessment is bound to miss the mark.

Please understand I am not disputing your right to disagree with the Church. But I am expecting your presentation to be accurate, and for you to have the knowledge of the framework we operate in. Only then will your assessment be worth listening to, and only then will you find yourself limitting your comments a little more.

Turretinfan said...

Dear Mr Wilson,

With all due respect, this blog is not about me and whether I am more familiar with Catholicism than you are. I back up my posts with evidence. In point of fact, this post itself is chock full of evidence.

The idea that the comments provided are not grounded in context is absurd. I have provided links to the immediate context for all of the quotations I've provided. What's more, I've read those original contexts to make sure that I'm not misquoting my sources.

I'm aware of and I interact with the framework within which Romanists operate. Not all - in fact, not many - of my critiques are internal critiques of Catholicism, though.

Very often, and this is an example, the critiques are external (or mostly external) critiques. Your apparent belief that the only permissible way to critique Catholicism is internally is just wrong.

I appreciate your offer to provide clarification. If you'd like, you could take these blog posts of mine as questions to you to clarify this or that relevant point of Catholicism. I'd be delighted to receive your comments and instructions on my mistakes, if you believe I'm making mistakes.

One word of advice: don't assume that because someone disagrees with your church it is because they don't understand it.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Incidentally, I don't normally make it a habit to publish comments that are simply unsupported assertions that I am wrong, that I don't know what I am talking about, or that I cannot find my belt with both hands.

Most of your post, Mr. Wilson, falls into that category. It's telling to me that though you think my posts can be torn apart 100 ways, in this case you haven't even found one way that you cared to share.

-TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

This sounds very much like the modernist notion that the real purpose of the gospel is merely to make us care about the poor and fight for social change (even for social-ism).

Turretinfan said...

Anonymous:

It does sound a bit like that ... though I think both JP2 and Ben16 would deny holding such a view.

-TurretinFan

kellyjwilson said...

Hey there.

I have posted three times at my blog about your posts, attempting to clarify your thoughts for you. My desire to see you understand the framework in which Catholics promote their views, comes because I recoginze so many flaws in what you attribute to us. If you are wondering, since you seem to forget how I have engaged with various thoughts you promte here, drop by the blog and see

-priestly celibacy (just posted today so I understand that you haven't seen this)
-Benedict's actions in Pompeii (under the title Communion of Saints)
-my response to your response to my critique of supposing that the Matthean infancy narrative is intereted in the perpetual virginity of Mary

These are examples where I have engaged with your thoughts and offered to you the opportunity to understand where we come from. Such posts remain unanswered, although I recognize that your blog does not exist so as to engage with mine.

Finally please see the ignorance I attritube to you as more positive than the alternative, that you are malicious, because based on your attitude, I don't think anything negative about you. But I do think your credibility would be bolstered by understanding what your critiquing. That's all. It's not personal.

natamllc said...

TF, with articles like this, it's a wonder you do not have a really big X marks the spot on your front and back? :)

The Pope: "As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham."

Let me surreptiously add, having been well indoctrinated into the RCC, and now, thanks to the Truth, freed from the false gospel way, acknowledge that that in fact is a factual statement of Pope John Paul.

Which of you, especially Mr. Wilson, would knowingly partake of poisons for the affect, having obtained surreptiously an antidote in advance of taking the poison, so that, for and from appearance, the posions have no "immediate" affect on you but effect the total depravity of those partaking it with you either immediately or over a period of time?

Yet, Mr. Wilson, I am addressing your remarks hereon, after reading them, I find you guilty of something, my guess is, you are not aware of?

Let me underscore what remains this way:::>

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

I assume all good Roman Catholics of that religious group are very aware of this verse?

Here is the definition of the word in the verse, "serpent":

נחשׁ
nâchâsh
naw-khawsh'
From H5172; a snake (from its hiss): - serpent.

Here is the definition of the word in the verse, "more crafty":

ערוּם
‛ârûm
aw-room'
Passive participle of H6191; cunning (usually in a bad sense): - crafty, prudent, subtil.

Again, as I said, when I read your remarks to TurrentinFan I came away with the sense that you are "hissing" in a bad sense, "craftily, prudently and subtly" "words" you have no idea what the destructive nature is of them?

Here's a Bible quote I encourage you take to heart before unleashing such as you have hereon thanks to TF's allowing you the opportunity to do so:::>

Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.

Oh, yes, and let me add, those words of the Pope that I referred too, I whole heartedly agree with as the "truth". The "Truth" has completely convinced me of that. That is what is so sad about the article today posted on this Blog! I would only point to the "flesh" of Abram, Abraham. Remember his waywardness with the advice and consent of Sarah, Hagar? Yes, even Abraham is delivered from the "truth" by the "Truth". The world, the flesh and the devil stand ready to kill, steal and destroy us all!

All of them, the Jews, the Muslims, the Catholics and those of any other strand and substance are worshipping their "god" and "father". You, sadly, will be burned, as I was if you continue in this everpresent temporal error.

Here is, though, some "hope" for your wrecked soul:::>

Psa 65:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. A Song. Praise is due to you, O God, in Zion, and to you shall vows be performed.
Psa 65:2 O you who hear prayer, to you shall all flesh come.
Psa 65:3 When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions.
Psa 65:4 Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple!


Today, I proclaim those "words" that come from Him who claimed and still it is being claimed to be of Him that He is "the Way", "the Truth" and "the Life" and no man comes to the Father but by Him!

Rom 15:10 And again it is said, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."
Rom 15:11 And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him."
Rom 15:12 And again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope."
Rom 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

I finally add, He will fill you with hope, just ask Him to do so!

Ben Douglass said...

Dear Francis,

Not all worship whose object is the true God is necessarily pleasing to Him. Cf. Lev 10:1-2; Isa 1:11; Jer 6:20; Amos 5:21; Mal 1:10. It is possible to grant that Muslims are enemies of God while nevertheless maintaining that God is the object of their worship.

Turretinfan said...

Dear Ben,

You wrote: "Not all worship whose object is the true God is necessarily pleasing to Him. Cf. Lev 10:1-2; Isa 1:11; Jer 6:20; Amos 5:21; Mal 1:10."

Agreed. In fact, the worship of God by images - or any other way not appointed in His word - is displeasing to Him.

You wrote: "It is possible to grant that Muslims are enemies of God while nevertheless maintaining that God is the object of their worship."

a) Those two concepts may not be logically incompatible, nevertheless:

b) They do not know God, as evidenced by their rejection of the Son of God; and

c) I would be happily proven wrong, but I cannot recall either JP2 or Ben16 ever described Muslims as "enemies of God" or Islam as being at emnity with God. While I do not pretend to have an exhaustive knowledge of either's writings, the documents from which I quoted above don't seem to have any clues pointing that direction.

-TurretinFan

Ben Douglass said...

I would be happily proven wrong, but I cannot recall either JP2 or Ben16 ever described Muslims as "enemies of God" or Islam as being at emnity with God.

Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI would probably agree with the following statement: Muslims are at enmity with God if they are in unrepentant mortal sin. It is, nevertheless, possible for a Muslim to be in a state of grace and hence a friend of God if he has implicit faith in Christ and is inculpable for his lack of explicit faith in Christ.

I believe this statement is false, but not heretical.

Turretinfan said...

Dear Ben,

Thanks for your comment. Sometimes it is hard to discern between mere error and heresy.

From my perspective (note to Mr. Wilson, this is an external, not an internal, critique), such a statement is both wrong and heretical, because it denies the Gospel of repentence and faith in Christ alone for salvation.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Dozie,

Your comment has been seen and will be responded to via a new post, currently scheduled for tomorrow.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Wilson,

A couple quick remarks:

You wrote: "Such posts remain unanswered, although I recognize that your blog does not exist so as to engage with mine."

I think at least the first one has been answered. A response to at least one of the other two is in draft form. I'm responding as I find time for response.

You wrote: "Finally please see the ignorance I [attribute] to you as more positive than the alternative, that you are malicious, because based on your attitude, I don't think anything negative about you. But I do think your credibility would be bolstered by understanding what your critiquing. That's all. It's not personal."

There is a third alternative, namely that I'm right. Try not to forget about that one.

-TurretinFan