Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

http://rzim.org/global-blog/do-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

With this desire for love in mind, I turn now to the question: Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Like all good questions, the answer is more complex than most want, but I am confident of my position: Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God, but given the complexity of the matter we all ought to stop demonizing those who disagree with us.

I should start by saying this: for years after leaving Islam and accepting Jesus as Lord, I believed that Muslims worshiped the same God as Christians but that they were simply wrong about what He is like and what He has done. After all, I had been taught as a young Muslim to worship the God who created Adam and Eve, who rescued Noah from the flood, who promised Abraham a vast progeny, who helped Moses escape Egypt, who made the Virgin Mary great with child, who sent Jesus into the world, who helped the disciples overcome, and who is still sovereign today. Is that not the God of the Bible?

For that matter, the Quran asserts that the Torah and the Gospel are inspired scripture and that Jews and Christians are people of the Book. The Quran tells Muslims to say to them, “our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender” (29.46). If the Quran asserts that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, does that not settle the matter?

For years I thought it did, but I no longer do. Now I believe that the phrase “Muslims and Christians worship the same God” is only true in a fairly uncontroversial sense: There is one Creator whom Muslims and Christians both attempt to worship. Apart from this banal observation, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. I do not condemn those that think they do, but the deeper I delve into the Christian faith, the more I realize that this assertion is not only untrue but also subverts Christian orthodoxy in favor of Islamic assertions.

Let’s start with the obvious: Christians believe Jesus is God, but the Quran is so opposed to this belief that it condemns Jesus worshipers to Hell (5.72). For Christians, Jesus is certainly God, and for Muslims Jesus is certainly not God. How can it be said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God? This fact alone is enough to settle the matter, but at the very least, no one should argue as Volf has that “there isn’t any theological justification” for believing Christians and Muslims worship different Gods. There certainly is, and it is the obvious position when we consider the person of Jesus.

Another difference between the Islamic God and the Christian God that is quite personal to me is His Fatherhood. According to Jesus, God is our Father, yet the Quran very specifically denies that Allah is a father (112.1-4). In fact, in 5.18, the Quran tells Muslims to rebuke Jews and Christians for calling God their loving Father because humans are just things that God has created.

The same is the case when we consider the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam roundly condemns worship of the Trinity (5.73), establishing in contrast its own core principle:Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God. Tawhid specifically denies the Trinity, so much so that it is safe to say the doctrine of God in Christianity is antithetical to the doctrine of God in Islam. Not just different but completely opposed to one another.

There is much more to be said about the differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God, but this much can already be said with confidence: the Christian God, both in terms of what He is (Triune) and who He is (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not just different from the Muslim God; He is fundamentally incompatible. According to Islam, worshiping the Christian God is not just wrong; it sends you to Hell. They are not the same God.

Why Do People Say Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

So how can people argue that Muslims and Christians worship the same God? By unduly giving priority to the Islamic assertion that this is the same God. The Quran says that Allah is the God of the Bible, so He must be. The Quran says that Allah is the God of the Biblical prophets, so He must be. The Quran says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, so it must be the same God. Ultimately, this is the reasoning of those who believe, as I once did, that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and it is flawed.

The similarities between the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are fairly superficial, and at times simply semantic. Though Islam claims that the Muslim God has done some of the same things as the Christian God and sent some of the same people, that is not enough to say that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. These minor overlaps are far less essential to the reality of who God is than the fundamental differences of His nature and persons. What God has done or whom He has sent is far less of a defining characteristic than what He is and who He is; though Islam and Christianity overlap at points on the former, they differ fundamentally on the latter.

Volf’s challenge in response is that Christians believe they worship the same God as the Jews though the Jews do not worship the Trinity. How can Christians accuse Muslims of worshiping a different God without also indicting the Jews of doing the same? That would be inconsistent or hypocritical.

The response should be obvious to those who have studied the three Abrahamic faiths: the Trinity is an elaboration of Jewish theology, not a rejection. By contrast, Tawhid is a categorical rejection of the Trinity, Jesus’ deity, and the Fatherhood of God, doctrines that are grounded in the pages of the New Testament and firmly established centuries before the advent of Islam. Most of the earliest Christians were Jews, incorporating their encounter with Jesus into their Jewish theology. Nothing of the sort is true of Muhammad, who was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Islam did not elaborate on the Trinity but rejected and replaced it.

Additionally, Volf’s assumption that Jews did not worship something like the Trinity is unsubstantiated. Many Jews held their monotheism in tension with a belief in multiple divine persons. Though the term “Trinity” was coined in the second century, the underlying principles of this doctrine were hammered out on the anvil of pre-Christian Jewish belief. It was not until later, when Jews and Christians parted ways, that Jews insisted on a monadic God. The charge of Christian hypocrisy is anachronistic.

Conclusion

The question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is complex. Wheaton made a respectable decision in giving Hawkins time off to consider the implications of her statement: she is allowing Islamic assertions to subvert the importance of essential doctrine. That said, one ought not fault her harshly for the mistake, as these issues are murky. What is dangerous is the path of Volf, accusing people of bigotry to shut down valid conversations. One can both love Muslims and insist that the God they worship is not the same as the Christian God.

Christians worship a Triune God: a Father who loves unconditionally, an incarnate Son who is willing to die for us so that we may be forgiven, and an immanent Holy Spirit who lives in us. This is not what the Muslim God is; it is not who the Muslim God is; and it is not what the Muslim God does. Truly, the Trinity is antithetical to Tawhid, fundamentally incompatible and only similar superficially and semantically. Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.

Nabeel Qureshi is the New York Times best-selling author of Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.

What? A man is pregnant?

• 

  Man Expecting Baby in Transgender Couple

About That Father Who Is a Mother Married to a Mother Who Is the Father

...As for the child of this couple in Ecuador, can anyone say to me with a straight face that having your mother be your father and your father be your mother is in the best interest of the child? That there will no confusion or emotional scars for this child as he or she grows up and understands biological and social realities? Does anyone really believe that this is some kind of social "advance" and that we should be celebrating it rather than mourning it?...

It used to be pretty simple.

A man marries a woman.

They have a baby together.

The man is the father and woman is the mother.

Well it's not so simple anymore.

Today, you have to figure out if the man who is marrying the woman is actually a man and if the woman who is marrying the man is actually a woman.

Then you have to figure out if the man is the father or the mother and if the woman is the mother or the father.

Is this starting to make your head spin?

If so, this headline will not help. It reads: "Male partner pregnant with baby of transgender couple in Ecuador."

What? A man is pregnant? And he's part of a transgender couple? How does this work?

According to the story published by Fox Latino News, "A couple in Ecuador is making history with a unique pregnancy. The father-to-be is carrying the baby of his transgender partner."

The couple in question goes by the names Fernando Machado and Diane Rodríguez, but Fernando was born María while Diane was born Luis.

This means that the pregnant "male" is a biological female who is now the man of the house (albeit a pregnant man) while his female partner is a biological male who is now the lady of the house. Although they take hormones to change their bodies to conform to their gender perceptions, they have not had sex-change surgery, otherwise, they would not have been able produce a baby together.

That means that Diane, who has male private parts, impregnated Fernando, who has female private parts.
That also means that even though Diane fathered the baby and Fernando will carry the baby in his womb (are you getting all this?), Diane, the biological male who supplied the sperm, will be the mother and Fernando, who provided the egg, will be the father.

As Rodríguez, who is a leading LGBT activist in Ecuador, told the Associated Press, "We're trying to break the myths about transsexuality."

It looks to me like they're creating a whole new set of myths.

Rodríguez also said that, "The [Catholic] church is always criticizing gays and homosexuals for adopting children, so it would be a contradiction to criticize us for giving birth naturally."

Naturally?

I would say that is putting a whole new spin on the meaning of the word.

What is "natural" is for a man to father a baby and for a woman to conceive, carry, and deliver that baby, just as happens around the world every hour of the day, and just as has happened billions of times before.

Sadly, this is not the first such case of a unique transgender pregnancy.

Some months ago, I saw a TV show that told a similar story of an American couple (they were convinced that their child would have no problem understanding one day that the mother was really the father and the father was really the mother).

And we all heard about the "pregnant man" a few years back. (Note to earth: There is no such thing as a pregnant man.)

More than a decade ago, I read about a couple where both the husband and the wife decided they were actually transgender, with the husband becoming the wife and the wife becoming the husband.

Apparently all this is "natural" too.

To be sure, it is tragic to read of the many murders of trans-identified individuals in Latin America (the article about "Fernando" and "Diane" closes with those very stats), and as I always state when writing about these issues, I can't imagine what kinds of emotional and social trauma these individuals have endured.

It's also possible that this couple claims to be happy and well-adjusted, and they might be very committed to the child they are bringing into the world.

But none of this minimizes the madness of the situation nor does it contradict what I have repeated over and over again: This cannot possibly be the best case scenario for these individuals, and this "unique" pregnancy only highlights the need to get to the root causes of transgender confusion so that we can help them find true wholeness.

As for the child of this couple in Ecuador, can anyone say to me with a straight face that having your mother be your father and your father be your mother is in the best interest of the child? That there will no confusion or emotional scars for this child as he or she grows up and understands biological and social realities? Does anyone really believe that this is some kind of social "advance" and that we should be celebrating it rather than mourning it?

May God help this couple find their real identity, and may it happen speedily for the good of their offspring.
Otherwise, we'll have to start carrying a scorecard to sort out the members of a family.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/gender-transgender-lgbt-father-who-is-a-mother-married-a-mother-who-is-father-153759/#hWUYwSrP7x3Vgg6O.99

It used to be pretty simple.

A man marries a woman.

They have a baby together.

The man is the father and woman is the mother.

Well it's not so simple anymore.

Today, you have to figure out if the man who is marrying the woman is actually a man and if the woman who is marrying the man is actually a woman.

Then you have to figure out if the man is the father or the mother and if the woman is the mother or the father.

Is this starting to make your head spin?

If so, this headline will not help. It reads: "Male partner pregnant with baby of transgender couple in Ecuador."

What? A man is pregnant? And he's part of a transgender couple? How does this work?

According to the story published by Fox Latino News, "A couple in Ecuador is making history with a unique pregnancy. The father-to-be is carrying the baby of his transgender partner."

The couple in question goes by the names Fernando Machado and Diane Rodríguez, but Fernando was born María while Diane was born Luis.

This means that the pregnant "male" is a biological female who is now the man of the house (albeit a pregnant man) while his female partner is a biological male who is now the lady of the house. Although they take hormones to change their bodies to conform to their gender perceptions, they have not had sex-change surgery, otherwise, they would not have been able produce a baby together.

That means that Diane, who has male private parts, impregnated Fernando, who has female private parts.
That also means that even though Diane fathered the baby and Fernando will carry the baby in his womb (are you getting all this?), Diane, the biological male who supplied the sperm, will be the mother and Fernando, who provided the egg, will be the father.

As Rodríguez, who is a leading LGBT activist in Ecuador, told the Associated Press, "We're trying to break the myths about transsexuality."

It looks to me like they're creating a whole new set of myths.

Rodríguez also said that, "The [Catholic] church is always criticizing gays and homosexuals for adopting children, so it would be a contradiction to criticize us for giving birth naturally."

Naturally?

I would say that is putting a whole new spin on the meaning of the word.

What is "natural" is for a man to father a baby and for a woman to conceive, carry, and deliver that baby, just as happens around the world every hour of the day, and just as has happened billions of times before.

Sadly, this is not the first such case of a unique transgender pregnancy.

Some months ago, I saw a TV show that told a similar story of an American couple (they were convinced that their child would have no problem understanding one day that the mother was really the father and the father was really the mother).

And we all heard about the "pregnant man" a few years back. (Note to earth: There is no such thing as a pregnant man.)

More than a decade ago, I read about a couple where both the husband and the wife decided they were actually transgender, with the husband becoming the wife and the wife becoming the husband.

Apparently all this is "natural" too.

To be sure, it is tragic to read of the many murders of trans-identified individuals in Latin America (the article about "Fernando" and "Diane" closes with those very stats), and as I always state when writing about these issues, I can't imagine what kinds of emotional and social trauma these individuals have endured.

It's also possible that this couple claims to be happy and well-adjusted, and they might be very committed to the child they are bringing into the world.

But none of this minimizes the madness of the situation nor does it contradict what I have repeated over and over again: This cannot possibly be the best case scenario for these individuals, and this "unique" pregnancy only highlights the need to get to the root causes of transgender confusion so that we can help them find true wholeness.

As for the child of this couple in Ecuador, can anyone say to me with a straight face that having your mother be your father and your father be your mother is in the best interest of the child? That there will no confusion or emotional scars for this child as he or she grows up and understands biological and social realities? Does anyone really believe that this is some kind of social "advance" and that we should be celebrating it rather than mourning it?

May God help this couple find their real identity, and may it happen speedily for the good of their offspring.
Otherwise, we'll have to start carrying a scorecard to sort out the members of a family.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/gender-transgender-lgbt-father-who-is-a-mother-married-a-mother-who-is-father-153759/#a7Le45xPgjghiM1h.99

'Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Interview: Former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi on 'Is Islam a Religion of Peace?' (Part 2)

BY JULIE ROYS

In part one of my interview with former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi, he explains the theological problems with asserting that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. In part two, the itinerant speaker with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries discusses Islam's link to violence. He also discusses why Muslims today are especially open to the Gospel.

Julie Roys: Let's talk a little bit about terrorism and its link to Islam. On one hand, we hear President Obama saying that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic extremism represents only a tiny fraction of Muslims. On the other hand, I read a Pew poll that found that 63 million Muslims in 11 countries support ISIS. And, if you take into account all of those who are undecided about ISIS, the number grows to about 224 million. So, is Islam a religion of peace — or does it in fact promote violence?

(Photo: McClure/Muntsinger)Nabeel Qureshi is the author of the new book "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus."

Nabeel Qureshi: That is a question that requires defining our terms. How do we define Islam? . . . Do we define Islam how Muslims, people who self-proclaim as Muslims, how they practice Islam. ...? Is that what Islam is? Or, is Islam that which Muḥammad, the prophet of Islam, left before he died — that religion, that sociopolitical-religio system that Muhammad left? Is that Islam historically?

Now, people from more Protestant backgrounds tend to go back to the original. That's what we do with our faith. We want to go to the New Testament. We want to see what Jesus said and what the disciples say in the New Testament. . . . Perhaps because I'm a Protestant — I think Islam should be defined as that religion which Muhammad left . . . That is what Islam is.

If we understand that to be Islam, then there's no question that Islam has violence in its original form. Muhammad used violence to accomplish his ends. Now, I don't want to sound like this is Nabeel Qureshi making a judgment call. We can just quote the words of Muhammad. If we go to Sahih Bukhari, for example, this is the volume of Muhammad's traditions that is understood to be the most trustworthy . . . What (Muhammad) says is, "I have come to fight those who do not say, 'La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah.'" In other words, "I have come to fight those who do not proclaim Islam, and if they do not say this, their persons and their property are not safe from me."

Very clearly, in the most trustworthy collection of traditions, he has come to fight non-Muslims. Until they become Muslim, their persons and their property are not safe from him. In Sahih Muslim, the next most trustworthy book, this is hadith number 30, he says, "I will expel all the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims." . . .

If Muhammad is, according to these traditions, using violence to accomplish his ends, I simply cannot see how we can call it a religion of peace. . . .

Julie Roys: How many Muslims around the world practice and actually believe Islam in the way you just described, in its original form as Muhammad passed it down?

Nabeel Qureshi: A very astute question, Julie. When I was a Muslim, I didn't know any of this. I had been taught that Muhammad was the most peaceful man who ever lived. I had been taught that he would only defend the community. If he ever took to arms, it was just for self-defense — never offensively.

It wasn't until 9/11 happened that I was forced to deal with a whole group of Muslims who disagree, and I had to see why. It was when I started looking into the sources that I realized what the evidence said. I think in the West at least, the vast majority of Muslims do understand Islam to be religion of peace. When they say, "Islam is a religion of peace," they are simply saying what they've been taught, what they've understood, how they've known their religion from birth. And, so they believe it, just like I did.

I'm not sure that's the case for Muslims in the rest of the world. Honestly, when I've talked to people from Saudi, when I've talked to people from the Levant, I've asked them how they've understood Islam. Generally speaking, Muslims from those countries are okay with violence. They don't have the same issues that Westerners do, and they've understood that Islam has used violence.

We have to nuance our understanding of Muslims because they do range from California all the way to Indonesia. Muslims have different sorts of different understandings. In the West, I think they think Islam is peaceful. In the rest of the world, I think they know better.

When Muhammad first started preaching, he was preaching a message of peace. He had no battles, no wars for 13 years of his 23-year ministry. Once that 13th year hit, he fought battles every single year. The battles only increased, and so it starts peaceful and becomes violent. . . .

The final marching orders of Islam, chapter nine of the Quran, is the most violent chapter of the Quran. When you see, "Slay the infidel where you find them, lay siege to them and take them captive," that's chapter nine verse five. . . .

The most violent passages in the Quran are in the last chapter of the Quran. What does that tell you? That tells you that Islam went from peaceful to violent during the time of Muhammad. The last marching orders he gave his people were to spread Islam by the sword . . .

Listen to the full interview with Nabeel Qureshi in Episode One of the podcast, Seeking Truth with Julie Roys.

On Saturday, January 16, Nabeel Qureshi will debate Miroslav Volf, a key proponent of the view that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. The debate will air on Up For Debate, a live program on Moody Radio featuring host Julie Roys.

Don't You Want Everlasting Life?

Everlasting Life Under the Christmas Tree

Man is on a quest, and it goes far beyond the fictional fantasy of "Star Wars." I am talking about something real and eternal. And everybody wants it.

Tech billionaires are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in their pursuit to extend life. This includes Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, Facebook CEO Mark Zukerberg, and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel. The ultimate goal of their expensive research is to find the holy grail of life extension, namely, immortality.

It makes sense. After all, everyone wants to live forever, right? There is something inside each of us that longs for everlasting life. Ecclesiastes 3:11 explains why we have this longing: "God has set eternity in the human heart."

No wonder we crave immortality. As oxygen is to the body, eternal life is to the soul.

And while certain billionaires attempt to discover the secret of life extension, God's Word connects the dots. It's all right there in Scripture. And so Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 4:9)

This is no joke. Nor is it "pie in the sky" daydreaming. It's reality. And if it wasn't for the blinding nature of sin in man's heart, everyone would see it. Sin is a terrible thing. It corrupts man's motives, and even worse, it blinds man from seeing how to obtain everlasting life in paradise.

How bad is this blindness you ask? Well, think of it this way.

Imagine yourself roaming around blindfolded out in the desert. Needless to say, your thirst would be extreme. Imagine there being a spring of water located 5 miles away, and a tall tree standing right next to the spring. Your obvious challenge would be to find the spring.

So how does this relate to Christmas? It's simple. Just connect the dots.

Man's sin had left him without spiritual water. Jesus was born into a world of thirsty human beings, and a fountain sprang up right there in Bethlehem. When Christ died on the cross, a tree was created at the spring. And ever since the Holy Spirit came into the world at Pentecost, streams of living water have been gushing forth continuously under the tree.

Meanwhile, man remains thirsty today. All of us entered this world with a blindfold covering the eyes of our soul. Man simply doesn't see why Jesus and Bethlehem and Christmas are that big of a deal. And yet he pursues whatever he thinks will satisfy him.

A famous rock star once said, "I've got everything a man could want — a beautiful home, a beautiful girlfriend, wonderful children, and money to enjoy life, and yet there's something missing."

Obviously, those things couldn't satisfy his spiritual thirst.

Thankfully, God provided a healing stream which soothes the soul and calms the spirit. It quenches man's deepest thirst, and it's right there under the tree. This is the exact spot where man accepts Christ into his life to be his Lord and Savior.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) There is only one oasis where man can be forgiven and quench his thirst for truth, meaning, and life everlasting.

The moment a sinner drinks from God's spring, eternal life is granted. God's living water is truly miraculous. Make no mistake about it. Christmas delivers an everlasting gift which God gave to the world. And like all gifts, it only benefits the one who opens it.

Follow the clues, just like the wise men followed the star. Follow the prophecies about the Messiah. Follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. And allow the grace of God to fill your soul and quench your spiritual thirst as you trust Jesus to deliver your soul from sin and death.

Drink up. It doesn't get any better than this.

You really can live forever. And you don't have to be a billionaire to discover the secret. In fact, you won't discover it through expensive research. You will only understand it and believe it when the blindfold is off and your eyes see Bethlehem, the tree, and the spring.

Will this be your Christmas to finally grasp what the celebration is all about?

Jesus told a Samaritan woman at the well, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked Him and He would have given you living water." (John 4:10)

Jesus went on to tell her, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (John 4:13,14)

So be bold in your response to Christ's claim. Either believe it with all of your heart, or reject it with all of your heart. But just remember. You won't find another spring in this desert that can give you everlasting life. That's because no other spring exists.

So much for "Star Wars." Movies can give you a temporary emotional buzz, but paradise in heaven is the gift that keeps on giving.

It really boils down to whether or not you want to live forever in paradise. If so, then go to Bethlehem. Trust in the cross. Believe in the Lord's empty tomb(* and His Resurrection). 

Connect the dots, and receive the gift of everlasting life.

It has your name on it, and it's under the Christmas tree right now. Simply open it up through faith.
Go ahead. Take off the blindfold. Do you see your Christmas gift from God, or are you still walking in spiritual darkness?

Where Is the Philosopher of This Age?

Dear friends:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

A few emails have been posted below by the permission of the writers.
It is a partial email dialogue between our outstanding philosopher friend Martin and a couple of us,
 Dio & BH

You are very welcome to join our dialogue. God bless! BH
Also for further thinking, click the following links.

•      If All Religions are True then God is Cruel

•      Faith as "The Emperor's New Clothes" ?

Hi Martin,

So, your new favorite "theology" is the Postmodern kind.

In tolerating all religions, the postmodernist denies the uniqueness of every religion.

In being all-inclusive, the postmodernist discredits all thoughts other than his own.

In claiming "There is no absolute objective truth", he claims that alone is the absolute truth.

In acknowledging God's existence, the postmodernist proceeds to fashion God in his own image.

In embracing Postmodernism, the postmodernist embraces none but himself.

Is it less disturbing for me to study theology? I did my due diligence in studying Christian theologies of various schools. (But I don't claim to be a scholar in theology) I enjoy very much thinking through them and find myself greatly edified by them. I just don't waste my time with empty gibberish... and I make sure I spend more time with the Bible itself than with books about it. That way, I have a standard to measure what I'm reading.

You keep saying that the Bible is filled with myths, and yet you refuse to examine any historical and literary evidences to the contrary. I wonder why? Is it less disturbing for you if the Bible is only a collection of myths instead of truth statements of God? Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" But he never had the ear to hear Him nor the eyes to see Him who was the Truth Himself.

Yes, the blind can only touch parts of the elephant, and therefore do not have the full view of it. This parable makes sense to us because there is such an object called an elephant.  The Postmodernist says you can make the elephant any shape you want it to be and he thinks his fingers are more observant than someone else's eyes. Thank God that the Creator of the elephant is in the business of open the eyes of the blind.

You say, "Just to be immersed in the Biblical stories is salvation by itself." ???

The Word of God says, " For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." (Rom 10:10)

Beware of the man who analyses the restaurant menu but never eats the food there!

Dio

Dear Martin,

I'm glad you have taken our dialogues and checked them with others with views similar and different from your own. Please understand that my goal of carrying on these dialogues with you is not to win an argument ( because I am no match to a learned scholar like you), but to help you understand that while Christianity has historically tested and intellectually upheld doctrines and theology, it is the eternal life in Jesus that matters at the end.

We, your old Christian classmates, have this one common prayer of salvation for you. I think Marian expressed it best for all of us in her emails.

If there is one thing clear in the Bible, that would be that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind. There really is no room for the mindset of "whatever God means".

Dio

Dear Martin:

You said in your email:"...But by being dogmatic, exclusive and

absolutist you have missed out much of what God creates (whatever God means)."

So we have missed out much of what God creates? And you can't even define what "God" you are talking about?

Can God be " whatever God means"? Or to put it down to earth, can "you" be whatever our email pals and former college friends define?

I agree with Dio, there is no room of calling our Creator God undefined as  "whatever God means".

Being growing up in a Presbyterian background, I do know quite a few relatives, friends who used to be enthusiastic Christians going to seminary in order to serve God better and to spread the Gospel; however, at the end of their seminary studies, unfortunately, they lost their faith and enthusiasm to spread the Gospel, or they spread another secular or more liberated gospel. That surely is a great pity! 

All those scholars, theologians, liberals who were lost in the theological and philosophical thickets, should ask themselves, are they better off after they were supposedly liberated from their original faith with a loving God who sent His Son to die for our sins. They could find they are actually enslaved with a new worldly or cultural ...god, whatever that god means to them. ( or they may not even be aware of their current conditions.)

Dear Martin, your Christian friends are not burying their heads in the sand like an Ostrich. We are just not counting on the spirit of the world, nor the wisdom of the world alone.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,…1 Corinthians 2:12
What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

Dear Martin, Please be aware that human wisdom may prevent you from seeing the Kingdom of God, let alone getting into God's kingdom.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.(insight) (ESV)( Proverb 9:10)

The Bereans Search the Scriptures( Acts 17)( this is also what Dio said that he examines various theologies by scriptures. )

10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas off to Berea. On arrival, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 The people here were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Consequently, many of them believed, including a number of the prominent Greek women as well as men.

BH

Why Don't More Jews Believe in Jesus?

Dear friends:

There are at least 5 of this series of General Objections. This one is the 2nd one in the series I have just watched and listened to. Give it a try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojOjFE2Lrw
Click the link above then click the other 4 in the series for more understanding..Also you may move on to historical objections and other Jewish objections series.

Did Moses See God Face to Face？

l 

Question: "If Moses met face to face with God, why, later, was he not allowed to see God’s face?"

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-Moses-face-to-face.htm

Answer: Before the official tabernacle was built, “Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the ‘tent of meeting.’ Anyone inquiring of the Lord would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp” (Exodus 33:7). As Moses visited this tent of meeting to intercede for the people of Israel, “the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses” (verse 9). Moses’ position of favor with God is evident in the fact that “the Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (verse 11).

However, later in the same chapter, Moses requests to see God’s glory, and God replies, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. . . . But . . . you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:19–20). To protect Moses, God put him “in a cleft in the rock” and covered him with His hand as He passed by (verse 22). “Then,” God promised, “I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen” (verse 23).

This passage prompts several questions. Does God really have a “hand,” “face,” and “back”? Why could Moses speak to God “face to face” in verse 11 but could not see God’s “face” in verse 23? What is fatal about seeing God’s “face”?

We know from Scripture (e.g., John 4:24) that God is spirit. Spirits do not possess physical attributes. So, when Moses spoke “face to face” with God in Exodus 33:11, there are only two possible ways to understand it: either Moses was speaking to the pre-incarnate Son of God (a Christophany); or the passage is using a figure of speech called anthropomorphism, in which human qualities are applied to God. While a Christophany is certainly possible, it is probably better to view the chapter as using figures of speech. The terms face, hand, and back in Exodus 33should not be taken literally, and face to face, being idiomatic, is also metaphorical.

In verse 11 the idiom face to face can be simply understood to mean “intimately.” Moses spoke with God familiarly, as a man speaks to a friend. In verses 20 and 23, face and back are in reference to God’s “glory” and “goodness” (verses 18–19). Since God is spirit, and since glory and goodness are both intangibles, we can take face and backto signify varying “degrees” of glory. God’s hand (verse 22) is an obvious reference to God’s “protection.”

In the Bible, God often communicates using terms easily understood in the human experience. God’s use of anthropomorphism(擬人化 )in Exodus 33 was a perfect way to describe what was happening. As humans, we know the importance of one’s face. To readily identify someone, we study his or her face. It is also the face of a person that reveals the most information about his or her character, mood, and personality. However, if all we catch is a glimpse of a person from behind, we are left without a lot of valuable information. It is difficult to identify a person from behind; we know very little about a person if all we can see is a back view.
When God told Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20), He was saying that truly seeing God as He is, in the fullness of His glory, is more than mortal man can tolerate (cf. Isaiah 6:5). Therefore, to protect Moses, God was only going to reveal that portion of His majesty and power that was humanly possible to absorb. God communicated this plan to Moses in a way we can all understand: “You cannot look Me full in the face [it is impossible for you to know everything about Me], but I will allow you to see my back [I will reveal to you a small portion of My nature so as not to overwhelm you].”

All of this makes Jesus’ words to Philip all the more amazing: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). When Jesus walked this earth, His glory veiled, we could look Him in the face. “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). On one brief occasion, Jesus’ glory was revealed in this world, at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:2). Interestingly, Moses was there, speaking to the glorified Lord, face to face (Matthew 17:3).Recommended Resources: Knowing God by J.I. Packer and Logos Bible Software.

See also the link below:
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/has-anyone-seen-god-or-not

Has anyone seen God or not?

...It is evident above that God was seen. But, considering the "can't-see-God" verses, some would understandably argue that there would be a contradiction. One explanation offered is that the people were seeing visions, or dreams, or the Angel of the LORD (Num. 22:22-26, Judges 13:1-21) and not really God Himself. But the problem is that the verses cited above do not say vision, dream, or Angel of the LORD. They say that people saw God (Exodus 24:9-11), God was seen and that He appeared as God Almighty (Exodus 6:2-3).

At first, this is difficult to understand. God Almighty was seen (Exodus 6:2-3), which means it was not the Angel of the Lord, for an angel is not God Almighty. And at least Moses saw God and not in a vision or dream--as the LORD Himself attests in Num. 12:6-8. If these verses mean what they say, then we naturally assume we have a contradiction. Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding--not in the Bible, which is always the case with alleged Biblical contradictions.

The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus.

If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem either because in John, chapter one, John writes about the Word (Jesus) and God (the Father). In verse 14, it says that the Word became flesh. In verse 18, it says that no one has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God, then, refers to the Father. This is typically how John writes of God: as a reference to the Father. We see this verified in Jesus' own words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty God was seen but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation. There is more than one person in the Godhead, and the doctrine of the Trinity must be true.

---