Taking ecumenism a little too far

Doorman-Priest calls himself a "Lutheran," but he promotes a false gospel by claiming that a person who does not believe in Christ but is sincere and "good enough" will be saved.

In this respect, he aligns himself with Roman Catholic doctrine (and others) and contradicts the Word of God (which he dismisses as meaningless, so I doubt he'll feel any consternation about this).

An interesting little tidbit to add to the "good enough gospel," from here:

Another reason that it would be correct to say the Catholic church teaches salvation by works is that it teaches that non-Christians can be saved by works without faith in Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation (Paragraph 847)).

If accurate translation is impossible, how is it that foreigners are able to speak English well enough to accommodate ignorant Americans?

Jesus read the Scripture in Hebrew in synagogue and spoke Aramaic (and must have spoken also Latin and Greek). When He was murdered, the Roman governor had placed above His head the charge against Him (and confession of Him) in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament was in common use in Jesus' day. At Pentecost, the Apostles spoke to their hearers in their own languages.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the New in everyday -- not classical -- Greek. Was Hebrew suddenly inadequate? Or does God speak to people in a way they'll understand?

What does God think of translation?

More from You-Know-Where.

renzmqt,

“in this country we have an appalling track record of teaching our citizens to be bilingual.”

Perhaps that is because Americans have been too busy creating the most powerful nation on Earth and have not needed previously to accommodate superior foreign economies.

Once President Hussein bankrupts the nation and surrenders to Islam, you'll have your wish of a bilingual America: We'll all be speaking Arabic.

(Some of us will learn Caribou when we go hide in the tundra.)

You know, your comments really sound like an ugly stereotype born of ignorance and hate. How many Americans do you REALLY KNOW? Doorman-Priest finds most often that people who speak of others that way have little or no experience with such individuals.

So, do YOU have any American friends? I have a co-worker who's an American. She speaks two languages. She's in tears right now, but I can't understand what she's saying because it isn't in English.

(Who says I haven't learned anything visiting here?)

"Americans" are notorious for traveling the globe and demanding that people speak English.”

Right. Americans can't even get Americans to speak English.

You should have seen me when I was in Italy, demanding English everywhere I went. Even when I yelled, people just stared.

“As such Americans are notoriously ignorant at thinking about the difficulties of translation”

Didn’t you really want to stop at “ignorant”? And aren't your comments proof of the civilizational self-loathing multiculturalist indoctrination produces?

“how often it is not possible to come up with a word that truly defines and captures the essence of a foreign expression or term.”

If it's true that it is often impossible to translate from one language to another, how is it that foreigners are able to speak English well enough to accommodate ignorant Americans?

“I believe you can see this at it's worst in the Biblical literalists who like to rattle off "sound bites" of scripture, often taken out of context”

If it's impossible to translate adequately the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical texts, how can you know that anything in them is being taken "out-of-context"?

If it's impossible to translate accurately, how can anyone know that a translation is inaccurate?

“from a flawed American modernization of the King James Bible which is a flawed translation of a Latin Bible”

No translation can transfer perfectly the meaning of every word from one language to another. That doesn’t mean it is impossible to have reliable, accurate renderings or to understand to a high degree of certainty what an author intends. One of the things I like about the New International Version (though that is not my main translation) is that the translators note in the texts when the original meaning of a particular word, phrase, or number is unclear or there are discrepancies between manuscripts.

The King James Bible was not translated from a “Latin Bible." Its New Testament was based on the Textus Receptus, which was the best available Greek text at the time (Erasmus did have to resort to the Vulgate to translate from the Latin back into Greek for a few passages).

In the centuries since the first publication of the KJV, more ancient and reliable manuscripts have been discovered and our knowledge has improved, allowing much more accurate English translations than previously possible.

Just to show the competence and integrity of its translators, the original King James Version contained over six thousand marginal notes in the Old Testament alone, mostly on variant readings.

"which is a flawed translation of archaic Greek and Hebrew texts - many of which were flawed copies of copies of copies or oral traditions finally put to papyrus."

That there are flaws in the thousands of manuscripts we possess is true, but those flaws do not mean that we are unable to determine to a high degree of certainty what the documents' original authors intended.

The flaws are natural errors in copying, the accidental incorporation of a scribe's commentary into the text during copying, or occasional editing. The good news about this is that the thousands of texts belong to several different families of manuscripts from around the Mediterranean. By using the oldest and most reliable manuscripts from these different sources and comparing differences between them, it is largely possible to see what errors were introduced where.

Whether difficulties in translation or copying and editing errors, the worst that happens is that we're unsure of a particular number of soldiers in a battle, or we don't know what a musical term means. No doctrine, significant historical fact, or truth claims are compromised.

In other words, we can be confident that we have reliable renderings of the Word of God.

"Individuals who are educated enough to be multi-lingual have a much better grasp of the challenges and pitfalls of relying on literal translation. I think it would be rare to hear someone with that background, parrot snippets of a translated text as the sole basis for their argument."

Jesus quoted the Word of God as the sole basis for His arguments. The Bible in common use in His day and used by the Apostles (and it appears He quoted from it or the Hebrew text on which it was based) was the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament.

I think you'd call that "parroting snippets of a translated text."

Misguided priorities

A playful little bit from here in response to a defense of Doorman-Priest, who admits in another post at his site:

"I have been thinking a lot about this topic over the last few days since contributing to another blog dicussion. Now I know I shouldn't do this. I shouldn't comment on a blog where the original post and the content of the subsequent string is clearly entrenched beyond the point of hearing an alternative perspective. It isn't just that I enjoy being the voice of dissent . . . ."

And in the "About Me":

I am a Candidate-Pastor within the Lutheran Church, and have oscillated between evangelicalism and radical liberalism. A radical liberal with Lutheran, Anglican and evangelical tendencies? I know. It is something of a niche market. Many Christians I meet seriously irritate me and I sometimes think I am a misanthrope.

Obviously someone for whom Truth is paramount.

In response to that defense:

Erika,

The greatest commandment can only be fulfilled if we are telling the truth about God.

Yes, we should give others the benefit of the doubt (which you'd see I did if you read my first reply to Doorman-Priest over at Steve's site), but what do you do when experience, common sense, and the author's own words tell you that seeks not to edify but to cause trouble?

As for the meaning of "lie," here are two definitions: "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood," and, "To convey a false image or impression."

How is, “There is only one God . . . Allah, YHWH, God the Father, Waheguru . . . I doubt she gives a stuff,” not blasphemy?

And again, is it "rude" to point out error? Is it "rude" to point out persistent error forcefully?

You wrote recently about Christ using a whip to chase out thieves. Was He "rude" too?

And I've not yet called anyone a "viper."

Regarding Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple . . .

"And then he lays into the worshippers and tips over the tables.... you know, someone like that would get an ASBO these days.
He might be tried for inciting hatred, for GBH."

He might even be called "rude."

And after referring to me as a "street urchin," without knowing anything about my motivations . . .

So, is "street urchin" "rude"?

Isn't it our first duty to "accept the integrity of those we disagree with"?

Apparently, one can blaspheme the Living God and that's okay, but woe to the one who points out the blasphemy!

Sincerity saves, civil discourse, and xenophobic Islamophobes

More from here:

Doorman-Priest,

I. Civil discourse

I assure you that I never intended to harm or offend you with my earlier comments.

I did intend to prick your pride (Luther calls it “sharp mercy,” I think), because you entered the discussion at Steve’s with “There is only one God . . . Allah, YHWH, God the Father, Waheguru . . . I doubt she gives a stuff.” Couple that with claiming that all “moral” people worship the same god and that sincerity saves, and I recognized someone putting a stumbling block before others.

You might notice my first reply to you there began with, “On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . . ,” because what you wrote was not something that would be welcomed by anyone who believes Christ’s Word is true. What you posted subsequently did not indicate a desire for dialogue either. All of that is more appropriate to a place like belief.net.

Would you admit my “Doorman-Priest (Saddam Hussein? Walt Disney? Diana Ross? What does it matter? There is only one Man, and she doesn’t care what we call it, does he?)” was funny?

II. All gods are the same god

You’ll have to forgive me if I thought you meant all gods were the same god, since you wrote: “There is only one God . . . that God is Allah, YHWH . . . Waheguru and so on.”

There are several problems with saying that all religions worship the same God, however imperfectly:

1) YHWH doesn’t say that. Can you show us where He does?

2) YHWH speaks of many false gods, describing them as “demons.” Is it rude of God to call others’ sincere, if flawed, efforts at knowing Him, “demons”?

3) Saying that, “all who do the best they can, God will accept,” is contrary to Scripture, and leads to people’s destruction, for salvation is in Christ alone.

4) If people can be saved by the sincerity of their effort, then Christ died for nothing.

Unbelievers need to hear (just as we believers do) that their sin is great and leads to Hell (Law), but God has forgiven their sins in Christ (Gospel).

(By the way, have you noticed your supporters arguing for NOT trusting the Word of Christ? Do you support that?)

III. Freedom of speech

As to free speech, its only limitation should be where truth ends (and even then, you have to be careful). Freedom of Speech is one of the first unalienable, God-given rights to be curtailed and then extinguished by tyrants (along with the Right to Bear Arms). If you don’t have the freedom to say something that offends someone, then you don’t have freedom of speech at all.

I agree that we should not “incite hatred.” That phrase, though, raises a red flag, for I hear it used most often by Muslims and their Useful Idiots to silence criticism of those aspects of Islam that promote the enslavement or slaughter of all non-Muslims, the abuse and degrading of women, the violation of children, and the denial of freedom of speech and conscience to all.

So, is it “hatred” to point out error that leads to Hell? Is it “hatred” to warn others that an ideology which has warred against non-Muslims for 1400 years is coming to town (or, in the case of Europe, is now mayor)? Is it “hatred” to expose the fact that Islam’s god and founder require or endorse genocide, murder, rape, slavery, pedophilia, theft, and deceit against non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls?

Wouldn’t it be “hatred” toward God and Man to remain silent in the face of all this?

IV. Christ is Allah?

You’ll have to forgive me for thinking that you said Christ is Allah. It might have something to do with your writing, “God is Allah, YHWH . . . .”

V. Interpreting Scripture

Being a Lutheran, you understand the Analogy of Scripture. We use Scripture to interpret Scripture as its authors (and Author) intended. In this, we use our God-given Reason and our knowledge of language, culture, history, etc.

It would be misinterpreting the Word of God to take literally a excerpt intended as symbolic. It would be wrong to understand poetry as history (though there may be historical content within it). It would be heresy to take a portion of the Old Covenant and apply it to those under the New.

(And since you are a teacher and minister, you must be familiar with my understanding of Revelation, for what’s in a name?)

I would make one more point about the Old Testament: Jesus said that all of it testifies of Him.

VI. Xenophobic Islamophobes

You write that I “generalise and give the impression that all Muslims are fundamentalists who act as one.” I disagree strongly.

I have quoted Allah. I have noted Mohammed’s words and deeds according to Islam’s own authoritative documents, those very texts on which Islam is founded.

The fact that citing Qur’an and Sunnah sounds to you like demonizing all Muslims says more about those texts and your reaction to them than it does about my words.

I would ask again, where have I erred? These documents are easily available to the Infidel with an ISP. And I wouldn’t rely on Muslim friends. Just like Christians, there is much variability among Muslims in terms of their knowledge, zeal, and veracity.

Because it is unfair to paint with a broad brush, I do not attack all Muslims; I do expose their prophet from Hell and his Allah.

I’m curious. You repeat many of the propaganda points jihadists and their apologists use to deceive non-Muslims (not intentionally, I believe; President Bush did this all the time). Have you never investigated these texts for yourself?

As to your friend, I will not accuse her of taqiyya (did you look that up yet?). It is notable that she uses several of the same “arguments” that jihad’s apologists do. I’d like to share with you what she didn’t say . . .

“Jihad” is Arabic for “struggle.” It is true that one use of jihad refers to the struggle against sin, unbelief, etc. What those Muslims Who Know (I’m not saying your friend is one of these) never tell non-Muslims is that this particular teaching is based on one hadith of questionable authority and that “jihad” is used usually to describe warfare against non-Muslims using any means necessary, including “qital” (combat) to establish the rule of Allah.

Are you aware that no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects warfare against non-Muslims?

As for “Christian fundamentalists,” what do they have to do with jihad? A Christian who thinks dancing is a sin is a far cry from a Muslim who carries out his Allah-given duty to separate your head from your body. Neither is a “Christian fundamentalist” who interprets literally even the symbolic parts of the Apocalypse going around blowing people up for Christ.

I notice also that you’re using (I don’t think intentionally) a common ad hominem attack used by Muslims to try to demonize those exposing their god and prophet: I must not know any Muslims.

This is a variant of the: “I’m not a racist because I have a [insert non-Caucasian ethnicity here] friend.” Who I know makes no difference to the truth of what I write, since I am not talking about people I don’t know, I’m talking about texts and history and current events that are available for study to all with the courage to examine them honestly.

And no, it isn’t pretty.

Again, I ask, where have I erred? Please show me from Qur’an, any of the ahadith collections considered most reliable by mainstream Islam, or Sirat Rasul Allah (I have a copy here in my bookcase; do you?).

A "good enough" gospel just isn't good enough

All gods are not the same god.

Christ is not Allah, for how can the One Who taught and practiced, "Love your enemies," be the same demon which commanded, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"?

God does not accept us on the basis of an imagined piety or reverence, but on the basis of the blood of Christ.

How can a faithful Christian contradict the Word and mislead those in need of salvation into thinking they're going to make it into Heaven because they're "reverent" and "pious"?

From here:

Doorman-Priest,

"You accuse me of multiculturalism. Thank you."

No, I speculated that the motivation for your “all gods are the same god” was “multiculturalist intellectual cowardice.”

If I am wrong, I apologize.

If I am right, will you admit it?

“According to my (albeit ENGLISH) English language dictionary”

In America, "multiculturalism" is often used to refer to the elevation of foreign cultures (in whole or in part) over traditional American culture whether or not they merit it.

Truth is sacrificed out of fear of offending others, and that fear is used by special interests for political advantage.

“the word you were so fruitlessly groping for in that context was PLURALISM as I suspect you felt I was arguing that in some way all religious roads lead equally to God.”

No, you were saying all gods are the same god. That is irrational on its face and contrary to Scripture.

When you say “Christ is Allah,” that is blasphemy.

“I am perfectly clear on the issue of repentance/confession and atonement following the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus who is Christ and Messiah and God’s guarantee of salvation. I am very sorry if you have misunderstood my position.”

I can only judge by what you write.

When you say everyone worships the same god (“Christ is Allah”) what interpretation can one reasonably make but that you believe all gods are the same god?

“I think where your confusion has arisen is over the universality of that salvation – not as a key doctrine itself but as a current reality or as an unrealised potential.”

Salvation is not universal, atonement is. Christ has paid for the sins of the whole world, but many reject this gift through unbelief.

“I have been able to accept Christ’s saving substitutionary sacrifice.”

Then why do you contradict Him?

“My Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic and I suspect some Atheist friends (I know no Hindus) have certainly not understood and probably not properly heard. The odds are also stacked against those of a non-Christian background for a variety of reasons: not the least language, culture, family attitudes and religious upbringing. As someone who is an out and proud Christian and who works closely with people from a number of faith backgrounds I know how unlikely it is that they will truly hear or understand the gospel, although I do not seek to set limits on the working of the Spirit.”

First, I commend you for helping others.

Second, I would point out something that deserves your attention: You say that you have non-Christian friends and work closely with people “from a number of faith backgrounds” who are highly “unlikely” to hear the Gospel.

You are an “out and proud Christian,” teacher, and minister. How then can you have any friends who will never hear the Gospel proclaimed?

It is your duty to speak the truth (Law and Gospel) so that they might come to faith, even if some (or all) of those friends are offended, even if your co-workers start calling you names, even if your devoted fans at your site suddenly find you “intolerant.”

Jesus said that if we love anyone more than Him, we are not worthy of Him.

“I am wondering Amillennialist, if your concept of God’s justice requires him to judge people by the same standards.”

My concept?

Here we approach the essential conflict: Instead of speaking the Word of God as He has revealed it to us, you offer instead your own opinions.

What does God say about that? In Deuteronomy 29:29 Moses writes, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Where's the room for speculation?

In Revelation 22:18 the Apostle John warns: “if anyone adds to them [the words of this book], God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

That should cause every man to be cautious in how he treats Divine Revelation, especially teachers, who will be judged more harshly (James 3:1).

“My understanding of scripture suggests that God does apply his standard consistently, but that he accepts a variety of pleas.”

Where does He say that?

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

“1 Cor 15.22, 2 Cor 5.19, Col 1.20, 1Tim 2.6, 1Tim 4.10, Heb 2.9,1 Jn 2.2, Rom 11.32, Rom 3.23/24, Rom 5.18, Jn 1.9, Jn 1.29, Jn 12.32 and Jn 12.47 . . . the weight of which suggests that there is a universal salvation.”

No. In their entirety the declare the mercy that God has had on all people. Christ paid for the sins of the whole world.

(Great passages, by the way.)

That many through unbelief reject this gift is a fact stated by Christ Himself. In Matthew 23:37 He laments, “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” In Chapter 22:14 He states, “many are called, but few are chosen."

“scripture is not clear cut here and . . . It won’t change the fact that scripture seems to suggest something which some Conservative Evangelicals are not comfortable with.”

Scripture is clear cut: Christ has reconciled the whole world to His Father, but through unbelief many reject that gift. In those cases, the only payment left for sin is the one a person must make himself, and that isn't pretty.

“Now, remember that I am not arguing that all spiritual roads lead to salvation. Some will clearly NOT be saved. However, as I have said before it is not for me to put limits on God’s grace.”

None of us should. But it is for you to say what He says, no more, no less.

“There ARE those who earnestly search for God who will never hear or fully understand the gospel through no fault of their own.”

What does Christ say? “Whoever believes in him [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18). In Romans 10: “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for 'Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.'"

“Regardless of the mad and evil things some others may do in the name of the same religion – and they are probably not saved – we must not forget the many good, honest, decent, pious folk who seek to live with compassion and integrity and at peace with their neighbours. There are, after all, universal moral laws.”

Which we all violate.

We all do “mad and evil things.” No one is “good, honest, decent, or pious” in the sight of God, for He declares:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.", "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:10-18).

You're promoting a “good enough” gospel, but that's not good enough. You remember what the Apostle Paul said about those who preach a false message of salvation (Galatians 1:8), right?

“if I were a Muslim, I would not find my way to the gospel via your particular witness. Your comments on Islam offended me and I am not a Muslim: they showed a crass prejudice and a simplistic desire to demonise others while failing to see the faults in front of our faces.”

Speaking of “simplistic prejudice”!

Your words here are an example of suicidal ignorance in service to multiculturalism, for what did I write that was untrue?

Have you studied Qur'an? Ahadith? Sira?

What did I say here about your Muslim friends? Or all Muslims?

According to Islam's own “sacred” texts, Allah and his apostle require the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse to convert:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

That Muslims slaughter non-Muslims to shouts of “allahu akbar” is a common occurrence. Are you really unaware of Indonesian Muslims beheading Christian schoolgirls on their way to school? These are not random psychotic or sociopathic episodes; these acts are committed in obedience to Allah and in accord with Mohammed's example.

As for his raping little Aisha, that fact is amply attested to by numerous ahadith. Here's one:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

The reason Mohammed's example is such a problem for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls is because Allah says of him: "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

What does that imply for the faithful Muslim?

Instead of being offended at my telling the truth, why are you not offended at Islam's “divinely”-sanctioned barbarism and depravity?

“My Muslim friends say “Not in my name” to the lunatic fringe”

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. If you'd like to know if your friends are truly not “lunatic,” share with them the passages I've posted here. A decent person can only be horrified at such filth.

Based on my experience, odds are their heads will explode, or you'll get a good dose of taqiyya (look it up).

“just as I do to the historic Crusaders”

Every atrocity committed by Crusaders should be condemned. At the same time, it should be remembered that the original call was made in response to desperate pleas for help from eastern Christians enduring centuries of jihad.

“quisling clergy in Nazi occupied Europe”

And every act of un-Christian cowardice should be condemned.

You might also want to recall that many Christians – including Lutherans – risked and gave their lives to save their fellow human beings.

And it wasn't “Hitler's pope,” it was, “Hitler's mufti.”

“the IRA and on to the Topeka Baptists, all who have done untold evil in the name of Christ. There is no monopoly on evil.”

That is true.

Taken individually, the crimes commanded by Allah and committed by Mohammed – and therefore mandatory for faithful Muslims – are not unusual. What makes Mohammed's “religion” especially vile is that he took all of the worst of Man's impulses, made them “divine,” indulged them, and required others to do the same.

“In my personal experience unless someone has made it clear to me by word or deed, that he is my enemy, he remains my friend.”

That is commendable.

“If someone earnestly seeks God in the only way they know how, and have no chance of hearing with understanding the saving works of Christ, Does God condemn them?”

What does God say?

The soul that sins is the one who will die (Ezekiel 18).
No one seeks God (Romans 3).
Christ is the only way to the Father (John 14).
We are saved through faith alone (Ephesians 2).
Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10).
Whoever does not believe in Christ is condemned already (John 3).

“If you believe he does, I must ask you: Is that the God of Christianity or the God of Right Wing Republican Evangelicalism, given that the two may not be the same?”

What did Jesus say? “Whoever believes in [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).

You've implied that I'm a “Conservative Evangelical” and a “Republican.” Neither are true in the sense that you intend.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but here I sense again the antagonism toward Christianity that led me in my first reply to you at Steve's to say, “On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . . .”

“Unless someone has shown in word or deed that he is God’s enemy is not God right to ascribe righteousness to him as a friend as he did to Abraham?”

But we are by nature God's enemies (Romans 5:10).

And as for Abraham, what does God say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3).

“Of course Christ is the benchmark and standard of our salvation”

That sounds like something we do, in which case it is again a false gospel.

Christ is neither a “benchmark” nor “standard,” He is Our Salvation.

“but the Biblical passages above reveal to me that while God indeed judges us on our discipleship of Christ it is possible to be an unknowing or anonymous disciple.”

God judges us either on the basis of Christ's payment for sin, in which case we are declared “just,” or He judges us on the basis of our own sin, in which case we are doomed.

Your option is contrary to Scripture.

“I leave the last word to the theologian and writer C.S. Lewis and his Narnia stories:”

I like and admire C.S. Lewis.

He is not Christ.

“Lewis is suggesting that God’s grace is, indeed, extended beyond the limits we might expect. But that is down to God’s grace and not our judgement. God may well choose to act towards others in ways which surprise us and it is not for us to question God’s grace. We do not know the mind of God.”

Yes. That is another reason you should say only what God has said, and not contradict His clear word.

Making things up to suit your sensibilities is not faith.

“those who we reject because they don’t fit into our self imposed pigeonholes of who God accepts.”

Whom have I rejected? Pointing out error is not limiting God; He calls us to that. Both Law and Gospel must be preached.

What was Christ's message? “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

“we approach God by the name we have been taught and if that isn't the "correct" or given name, God doesn't care providing we approach in reverence and penitence.”

But God says, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1), and:

“what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he” (1 Corinthians 10:20-22)?

A last encouragement to say only and all of what God has said:

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, 'It shall be well with you'; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No disaster shall come upon you.'" For who among them has stood in the council of the LORD to see and to hear his word, or who has paid attention to his word and listened? Behold, the storm of the LORD! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked” (Jeremiah 23:16-19).

Peace be with you.

What's in a name? When looking for clarity about God, everything

My first comment here in response to the person below was offered with the thought that perhaps he was well-intentioned but confused. From his response, it seemed necessary to demonstrate to him his error a little more emphatically.

His basic argument consists of three parts: 1) Since every religion calls its deity "god," then all gods must be the same being; 2) Since so many contradictory religious opinions exist, it must be that no one really knows who God is; and 3) Since so many contradictory religious opinions exist, every religious opinion is as good as every other (except of course, the one that says they aren't).

The essential answer comes in my last comment:

“Only one of those is his given name but he answers to them all.”

You’re confusing multiple names for one person to mean that one name for many persons makes them all the same person.

My first reply:

Doorman-Priest,

On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . .

If your wife were to indulge her marital urge with Bob or Kevin or Derek, would that be a problem? Would her defense of, “They’re all men” satisfy you?

You are confusing the use of the common noun “god” for all deities being the same one.

Christ is not Vishnu is not Allah is not Abaangui.

And later . . .

Doorman-Priest (Saddam Hussein? Walt Disney? Diana Ross? What does it matter? There is only one Man, and she doesn’t care what we call it, does he?),

That’s quite a few errors for so brief a post. I’ll address each one:

“There is only one God”

According to you, but as you admit, you don’t really know, so why should we listen, right?

YHWH says there are many gods. And none of them shall you have before Him.

Only one god is true, and He has revealed Himself to us. His name is I AM That I AM.

His Son, Jesus, claimed that name for Himself also.

“therefore whatever name we call him/her”

As I just noted, He told us His name. At least have the decency to respect what Someone wants to call Himself.

“whatever we perceive that God to be”

Here, as later, you imply that everyone’s opinions of god(s) are equally true. Even if our knowledge of God came only from Nature and Conscience, that would be false.

Since YHWH has revealed Himself to Humanity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you’ve gone past natural, human ignorance and self-deception and into outright blasphemy.

You call YHWH a liar.

So, you claim that Christ ordains genocidal prophets marry their best friend’s daughters when they’re six-years-old and begin raping them when they’re nine.

You’re a liar.

“and however inadequate that revelation”

YHWH’s revelation is sufficient. The only inadequacy is your willingness or ability to tell the truth about it.

“(or perhaps more to the point in this context however inadequate we believe that revelation to others to be), it can only be the same God.”

Equating a god commanding the slaughter of all who refuse to submit to its rule with the Christ Who taught, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” is not “inadequate revelation,” it is [a] lie straight from the pit of Hell.

“Why do we think God cares what we call him”

Something along the lines of, “You shall not take the name of [the LORD your God] YHWH in vain,” perhaps?

“when people are trying to have communion with him”

So, monsters ripping Christian schoolgirls’ heads from their bodies to shouts of “allahu akbar!” is “communion” with the one, true god?

You’re sick.

“and are approaching in reverence and faith?”

So, was Mohammed approaching the one, true god in “reverence and faith” when he began raping little nine-year-old Aisha? He said he was: “If this is from Allah, then it must happen.”

“We may not believe “others” have got it quite right”

What does Christ say?

“it’s a good job God isn’t bound by our prejudices and shortsightedness”

Isn’t denying the clear word of Christ, isn’t denying the truth, “prejudiced and shortsighted”?

“and can apply his grace wherever he chooses. I am not going to put limits on the grace of God.”

Your lies limit the grace of God by denying it to billions.

True humility would say what Christ says. It would definitely *not* blaspheme YHWH by equating Him with deities from Hell.

True humility, true religion, would say what Christ says, not multiculturalist, intellectual cowardice.

“You have made God in your own image when his enemies are exactly the same as yours.”

The faithful Christian makes Christ’s enemies — the devil, all his works, and all his ways — his own. The devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. And sons of hell bar Heaven to those who want to enter it.