*****************************************
Rome: “Catholics adore the one God, Allah”
A QUICK LITTLE ARGUMENT SHOWING HOW, ON ROME’S OWN TERMS, CATHOLICS BELIEVE THAT GOD’S SECRET IDENTITY IS ALLAH.
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.
So says the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 3, Sub-paragraph 841, if I understand the organization of the catechism correctly—it seems rather long and complicated considering it’s such an important document).
Let’s make an argument!
- Muslims and Catholics together adore the one God
- Muslims adore Allah
- Therefore, Allah is the one God
- Therefore, Catholics adore Allah
Yeap, it holds water
I’ve seen Catholics respond to this by saying that the argument doesn’t follow, because Muslims deny certain truths about God, like that he is manifest in Jesus. So, to draw an analogy, you might adore Batman and yet believe that he is not Bruce Wayne; so you can adore God and yet believe that he is not Jesus. But there’s an obvious problem with that comeback, because neither my argument nor the catechism is couched in terms of denial, but rather of affirmation. So we can construct a valid parallel argument from the perspective of Selina Kyle, who knows Batman’s secret identity, in regards to Vicki Vale, who does not:
- Vicki and Selina together adore Batman (because…)
- Vicki adores Bruce
- And Bruce is Batman
- So of course Selina also adores Bruce
You’ll notice the argument isn’t trying to prove anything new—rather, it’s retracing the steps of reasoning used to get to Rome’s conclusion (premise [1]) in the first place. My conclusion, premise [4], is simply an entailment of Rome’s original line of reasoning.
The premises follow exactly because the argument is framed from the perspective of someone claiming greater knowledge than the parties whom the arguments are about. Catholics say Muslims adore God—and Selina says Vicki adores Batman—not because the epistemically impoverished Muslims believe that Allah is God—or the epistemically impoverished Vicki believes that Bruce is Batman—but because the epistemically gifted Catholics (and Selina) claim to know it.
But if Allah is God like Bruce Wayne is Batman, then Catholics, who adore God and know about his “secret identity”, automatically adore Allah too. Just like someone who adores Batman, and knows his secret identity as Bruce Wayne, must adore Bruce too. They adore them both because they know they’re one and the same person.
The upshot
Well, it’s obvious enough, innit? Catholics explicitly identify Allah with God. Since Christians explicitly deny that Allah is God—he is just another false idol—it follows that Catholics are not Christians, but rather some kind of “enlightened Muslims”. It’s nice to have it confirmed by Rome that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian denomination, but rather a sect of Islam.
"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. So says the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to read what Dr. Francis Beckwith, Dr. Peter Kreeft, the Called to Communion crowd, Dave Armstrong, Matthew Bellisario, Jimmy Akin, Scott Windsor, et al have to say about this part of the Catechism and the substantive contents and arguments of this post.
"Since Christians explicitly deny that Allah is God—he is just another false idol—it follows that Catholics are not Christians..."
ReplyDeleteI've heard it said that Arabic speaking Christians (who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity) sometimes refer to God as "Allah" because the word "Allah" is the generic word for "God/supreme being/the Deity". I've even heard it said that Arabic speaking Christians have been referring to God as "Allah" before Mohammed was ever born (circa 570 A.D.) or claimed to be a prophet (circa 610 A.D.). That even Arabic translation(s) of Scripture (whether partial or whole)which ante-date Islam also refer to the Christian God as "Allah". 1. Is there any truth to the above? 2. How does this affect DBN's argument?
TUAD -
ReplyDeleteI debated that issue with Dave Armstrong in his com-boxes years ago.
The RCC Catechism is definitely wrong. And surprisingly sloppy, since it uses the word "adore", which they admit, they do not give worship or "adoration" or "latrea" to Mary.
see what I wrote in the com box below this one.
The doctrine of Allah in Islam is a false god. (since they deny the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, etc.)
But the Arabic word, "Allah" الله
is still the best word for Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT.
What the RCC Catechism is attempting to say is that Muslims claim to worship the one true God, and that they are monotheists, a kind of OT idea (without the revelation of the NT).
However, even the god of Islam is a little different than the true God of the OT (if all one had was the OT to go by).
In missions, there is bad contextualization (anthropology over Bible/emerging/emergent church/seeker friendly/ C-5 / insider movements/ common ground methods) but there is good and valid contextualization, which does not change the meaning of the message, but seeks to accurately communicate the gospel in another language.
Annoyed Pinoy -
ReplyDeleteYes, that is right.
That is what I was getting at.
It is a difference between doctrine and language/linguistics.
The doctrine of Allah in Islam is wrong.
The word "allah" is a valid translation for God.
It is also what linguists call the difference between the
Denotation of a word and the connotation of a word.
I just realized that my comment was basically addressed in the previous blog by others. Nevermind.... ;-)
ReplyDeleteOkay Ken :)
ReplyDeletethe main problem with the RCC Catechism is the phrase "and together with us they adore the one, merciful God"
ReplyDeleteThis is part of Vatican 2's problem of having a real change in doctrine, even though they deny it.
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, . . . "
ReplyDeleteThis part of the RCC Catechism is also ambiguous.
What do they mean by "the plan of salvation?
Evangelistically, God offers salvation to those who have yet to repent (like Muslims), but they do not possess salvation until they repent and trust Christ alone as Savior and Lord.
James 2:19 "the demons also believe that God is one, and tremble "
Again, it appears that Vatican 2 was trying to be soft and nice and rehabilitate its reputation; but it really failed big time doctrinally; and also it shows that they are NOT infallible and therefore the whole RCC claim of being the one true church that Christ started is false and their claim that they are infallible is false.
one mistake and the whole edifice and claim crashes.
The 16th century Reformers often interpreted Islam and Papacy as "the two horns of Antichrist" that had arisen simultaneously after 600 AD, with the idea that one of them was an aggressive external enemy and another a deceitful internal enemy.
ReplyDelete(Prophetic detail: Muhammad died almost exactly 600 years after Christ, and six is a Biblically sinister figure...)
Some examples of this notion from Luther's Table Talk:
OF THE ANTICHRIST
"Antichrist is the pope and the Turk together; a beast full of life must have a body and soul; the spirit or soul of antichrist is the pope, his flesh or body the Turk. The latter wastes and assails and persecutes God's church corporally; the former spiritually and corporally too, with hanging, burning, murdering, etc."
"However, it may hit both pope and Turk. Both begin to reign almost at one time, under the emperor Phocas, who murdered his own master, the emperor Maurice, with his empress and young princes, well nigh nine hundred years since. The pope began to govern the church spiritually at the same time that Mohammed founded his power; the pope's temporal kingdom stood scarce three hundred years, for he plagued and harassed kings and emperors."
Let's remind ourselves what the Catholic Church has OFFICIALLY stated in times past before Vatican II...
ReplyDeleteThere is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council).
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino).
Hey AP, yeap, that's also something I've pointed out on my blog in the past. Rome says originally that Jews and other schismatics cannot be saved. Now it says that Muslims can. Presumably Muslims would be classed as "more" schismatic than Jews, so presumably Jews can now be saved also. I mean, if Muslims worship the one true God, then surely Jews do as well. That just seems unavoidable.
ReplyDeleteSo you've got this very obvious contradiction, as you point out.
(My site is fixed, now, btw.)
Consider that the Crusades were (in part) a call to rescue the Holy Land from "...a race utterly alienated from God.." according to Robert the Monk's account of Urban's speech at the Council of Clermont.
ReplyDeleteTurns out those same Muslims worshiped the same God after all. Whoopsie!
Some years ago, a well-known Catholic blogger quoted a Muslim convert who had become a Christian and immediately narrowed his choices to Catholic vs Orthodox - summarily rejecting Protestantism on the ground that it does not recognise Mary as perpetually sinless.
ReplyDeleteI found this rather odd reasoning - rather as if, say, a former Jehovah's Witness left the Watchtower's fold but nonetheless opted for Orthodox against Catholic/ Protestant on the ground that at least the EOs don't fall for the "error" of thinking the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father.
Annoyed Pinoy,
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right. Allah is the word Arab Christians use for God, not just "sometimes," but all the time (except when using epithets, etc.).
I'm not aware of Arabic translations of the Bible before the 8th or 9th century. Some old Arabic inscriptions exist, but the Qur'an is really the earliest piece of Islamic literature. As far as I know, Arab Christians before the rise of Islam would have used Syriac or some other form of Aramaic in their liturgical celebrations. The Syriac word for God is "Alaha."
As to Ken's distinction between doctrine and linguistics, it is true that the doctrinal similarity is not as plain as the linguistic similarity. But the theological overlap comes from Islam's strict monotheism, with which we agree, and their identification of the one God as the God of Abraham, with which we also agree.
Catholics differ from Calvinists (but not from all Protestants) in their belief that God judges individuals based on the degree to which they are able to respond to what they know about God. Muslims, like all peoples, will be familiar with Christian revelation to varying degrees, and are exposed to religious indoctrination in a non-Christian tradition probably to a greater extent than most. Thus on a "scale" of familiarity with what can be known about God by nature (cf. Romans 1), the Muslims are closer than any other people group. They believe in "what may be known about God...[His] invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - [which] have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." This is, I think, all that the Catechism is trying to say about Muslims. To the extent that they are not culpable for their ignorance, they are not responsible for being ignorant of doctrines specific to Revelation like the Trinity and redemption through Jesus. Their fidelity to what can be known by God through nature situates them to fit Paul's category for the Gentiles of his time in Romans 1-2.
The teaching on Islam has to be understood in light of the Church's understanding of culpable and inculpable ignorance [of Christian revelation]. I understand this is a major disagreement between Catholics and Calvinists, but I think it's the more fundamental locus of the disagreement.
David,
ReplyDeleteYou left out the next phrase of Romans 1:20
". . . so that they are without excuse"
General revelation that there is only one God condemns them more. They are without excuse.
It does not gives them a "maybe" just in case they never hear of Christ in a meaningful way. [the wider mercy view] That view cuts a vital chord in evangelism.
John 3:18 "they are condemned already"
If they are not lost, then why evangelize?
If they have a "maybe" God will have mercy on them based on monotheism; then we better not evangelize, for then they for sure will be accountable. That is why that "wider mercy view" is death to the urgency and necessity of evangelism and missions.
Furthermore, it was the unbiblical things about Mary that began around the 4th and 5th Century - prayers to Mary, icons, statues, perpetual virginity, "mother of God" beyond the original meaning about Jesus; etc. that caused Islam to mis-understand the Trinity. Qur'an Surah 5:116; 5:73; 6:101
DAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete“But the theological overlap comes from Islam's strict monotheism, with which we agree…”
No, we don’t agree. That’s fatally equivocal. There’s no overlap between worshipping the one true God and worshipping one false god.
Monotheistic idolatry is no better than polytheistic idolatry.
“…and their identification of the one God as the God of Abraham, with which we also agree.”
They don’t worship Yahweh. They don’t worship the God of Abraham.
God didn’t reveal himself in the Koran. The Koran is not a self-revelation of the one true God. Muhammad was a false prophet. Therefore, the Koranic god doesn’t map onto the OT God. Rather, the Koranic god is just a literary construct–like the Homeric gods.
“They believe in ‘what may be known about God...[His] invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - [which] have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.’”
Islamic theism falsifies the natural knowledge of God. It superimposes an idolatrous reinterpretation onto natural revelation.
“To the extent that they are not culpable for their ignorance, they are not responsible for being ignorant of doctrines specific to Revelation like the Trinity and redemption through Jesus.”
If we grant your tendentious premise, which begs the question.
“Their fidelity to what can be known by God through nature situates them to fit Paul's category for the Gentiles of his time in Romans 1-2.”
Islam is a Christian heresy. Muhammed viewed himself as a religious reformer. In his mind he was purifying and restoring the true religion. Islam is not on a trajectory towards Christianity, but on a trajectory away from Christianity. It stands in conscious opposition to Christian theology. A deliberate repudiation of the Christian faith.
That’s hardly equivalent to pre-Christian gentiles in Rom 1-2. Rather, that’s post-Christian and anti-Christian.
“The teaching on Islam has to be understood in light of the Church's understanding of culpable and inculpable ignorance [of Christian revelation]. I understand this is a major disagreement between Catholics and Calvinists, but I think it's the more fundamental locus of the disagreement.”
It also has to be understand in terms of Rome attempting to paper over internal tensions in her disparate theological traditions–as well as subsequent Rahnerian influences.
ANNOYED PINOY SAID:
ReplyDeleteI've heard it said that Arabic speaking Christians (who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity) sometimes refer to God as "Allah" because the word "Allah" is the generic word for "God/supreme being/the Deity". I've even heard it said that Arabic speaking Christians have been referring to God as "Allah" before Mohammed was ever born (circa 570 A.D.) or claimed to be a prophet (circa 610 A.D.). That even Arabic translation(s) of Scripture (whether partial or whole)which ante-date Islam also refer to the Christian God as "Allah". 1. Is there any truth to the above? 2. How does this affect DBN's argument?
i) “Allah” can be used as a synonym for Yahweh, Elohim, or theos (in the NT).
ii) “Jacob” can be used as a synonym for “James.” One could use the same name(s) to denote the same individual. But, of course, every man designated by “James” or “Jacob” is not the same individual!
iii) “Allah” in the Koran doesn’t share the same referent as “Allah” in Arabic translations of the Bible. In one case it denotes the Koranic deity, in the other case the Biblical deity.
iv) We need to distinguish between “Allah” as a common noun for the deity, and “Allah” as a proper noun for the Islamic deity in particular.
As a common noun, the usage is neutral. And Arabic translations of the Bible use “Allah” as a common noun.
v) Since the context of Bnonn’s post was Islamic usage, I don’t think the usage of Christian Arabs is germane to his argument.
"Monotheistic idolatry is no better than polytheistic idolatry."
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Westerners are not generally aware how deeply Muslim masses around the world are sunk in idolatrous superstitions. They have saint-cults that could rival anything seen in Roman Catholicism.
For example, Muslims do not have anything like the Protestant taboo against praying to dead people. Even though rejecting the one great true Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), popular Islam relies on myriads of inferior mediators.
Quoting Samuel Zwemer:
ISLAM AND ANIMISM
"Five times daily the Moslem muezzin calls out from the Mosque: "There is no god but Allah." The people repeat this and reiterate it far more than a hundred times during the day in their quarrels, feasts, fasts, rejoicings, and common conversation. But in my daily observations — and I have lived among them for more than twenty-five years — I find they have fetishes and superstitious customs which amount to as many gods as the heathen who bow down to wood and stone.2"
"The essence of heathenism seems to be not the denial of God, but complete estrangement from Him. The existence of God is everywhere known, and a certain veneration given Him. But He is far away, and is therefore all but ruled out of the religious life. His place is taken by demons, who are feared and worshiped."4 Even in Arabia the stern monotheism of the Wahabi Reformers was unable to eradicate the pagan superstitions of Islam because they are imbedded in the Koran and were not altogether rejected by Mohammed himself,— much less by his companions."
DAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete"This is, I think, all that the Catechism is trying to say about Muslims."
If (a la Vatican II) Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, then, by converse logic, Catholics worship the same God as Muslims. Hence, Catholics are Muslims.
I think that's Bnonn's basic argument, and it's a pretty straightforward argument.
According to R.L. Dabney, Islam has its own version of purgatory as well:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/popery.htm
"Mohammed extends the same hope to all his sinful followers. For those who entirely reject Islam there is nothing but hell; but for all who profess "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet," there is a purgatory after death, and its pains are shortened by his intercession."
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3315&CATE=91
"There IS a notion of purgatory in Islam, namely, hellfire for any Muslim that enters it - which we pray Allah spare us - since the firm belief of Ahl al-Sunna is that no Muslim shall abide in Hellfire forever but only so they be cleansed of their faults. And Allah knows best."
Bnonn,
ReplyDeleteHave you seen TurretinFan's post: Proof that Rome is a Sect of Islam.
I hadn't; thanks TUAD.
ReplyDeleteIf you were to actually attempt to read the text, you would find that the claim that is actually being made is that qua certain attributes, muslims and christians worship the same God. These attributes are 1. unity, 2. mercy, 3. acting as judge on the last day. To then argue that catholics and muslims adore the same god therefore catholics are muslims is to ignore the qualification of these three attributes and to commit the fallacy of secundum quid ad simpliciter. I honestly not sure why this should be so controversial, other than to give Rome a black eye. All the CCC is doing is acknowledging that islam can make some true statements about God, and then specifying the statements. That Islam can make true statements should not be so surprising, for do not protestants think that catholicism mixes truth and error? Why not say this also of Islam (as, in fact catholics do think). This doesn't require one to then believe with the muslims that when Christ returns he will convert to islam and then kill all the jews and pigs in the world.
ReplyDeleteLee, is this the kind of weaseling Catholics must do to avoid the obvious?
ReplyDeleteThe CCC says, "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."
It does not say, "together with us they adore a merciful God who is one, and mankind's judge on the last day."
That definite article draws a line of identity between the god that Muslims worship and the god that Catholics worship. It also seems evident that it stands in qualification to "one"; ie, "the only true God". So "one" is not referring to his unity, as you claim, but to his exclusivity.
This is further corroborated by the fact that Catholics and Muslims disagree on the issue of unity. Muslims, as Steve has mentioned, are defiantly unitarian. So it's not as if when a Muslim says "God is one" he means the same thing as a Catholic who says "God is one." It hardly bears explaning that Muslims can't be worshiping the same God qua the attribute of unity.
Moreover, it's incoherent in the first place to speak of Muslims worshiping God qua certain attributes, as if when they worship him for having mercy they worship the true God, but when they worship him for being a Jew-hating prick they worship the false god Allah.
Overall, your "explanation" of Rome's obvious error only serves to further illustrate the lie that one must have a teaching magisterium in order to understand the Bible correctly. Given your comment, it's clear that even understanding the teaching magisterium correctly is difficult enough.
The RC Catechism also says:
ReplyDelete"Moslems "prize the moral life, and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting" (Nostra Aetate 3)."
True Christians would not even concede that Muslims "give worship to God", implying that they worship true God. They worship false god Allah.