tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post1400232745711099295..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Muslim-led Interfaith Service UnwelcomeJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81810745035718276712007-11-27T13:21:00.000-05:002007-11-27T13:21:00.000-05:00So the Scriptures are not Trinitarian. OK, David, ...So the Scriptures are not Trinitarian. OK, David, thanks for that.<BR/><BR/>Nice talking to you.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18640918359844413582007-11-27T11:45:00.000-05:002007-11-27T11:45:00.000-05:00Hello again Rhology,You posted:R:>>Why do we then ...Hello again Rhology,<BR/><BR/>You posted:<BR/><BR/>R:>>Why do we then take our faith from the Scriptures rather than from ECFs? QED. Thank you sir.>><BR/><BR/>Me: The Scriptures must be interpreted. IMHO, it is folly to ignore the great Christian ‘giants’ who have come before us. Perhaps you are convinced that consulting such Christian works is fruitless, that commentaries are a waste of time, that all which is needed is a Bible (pick one) and ones private interpretation, but I am not.<BR/><BR/>R:>>The Scr are plainly Trinitarian. Do you disagree?>><BR/><BR/>Me: Yes, I strongly disagree; and on this important point, history is on my side; as well as such respected exegetes as Dr. Raymond Brown.<BR/><BR/>R:>>I'm in the middle of reading Ignatius and have recently read 1st Clement and following, there are tons of Jesus = God statements in there.>><BR/><BR/>Me: IMHO “tons” is a bit of an exaggeration for you will be hard pressed to find more than a dozen such references in the above sources. And further, what you will not find in ANY pre-Nicene CF is a reference to Jesus as being “the one God”; this title is reserved for God the Father alone. But then, yes, Jesus is certainly called “God”; however, so are God’s adopted Sons. <BR/><BR/>R:>>that's relevant, actually. We believe Jesus is God. That is a foundational part of our faith and the identity of God. Muslims believe Jesus is NOT God.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Agreed, and yet interestingly enough, Paul in his speech in Acts which are currently discussing does not call Jesus “God”…<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34464590401600216892007-11-26T14:35:00.000-05:002007-11-26T14:35:00.000-05:00Why do we then take our faith from the Scriptures ...Why do we then take our faith from the Scriptures rather than from ECFs? QED. Thank you sir.<BR/><BR/>The Scr are plainly Trinitarian. Do you disagree?<BR/><BR/>I'm in the middle of reading Ignatius and have recently read 1st Clement and following, there are tons of Jesus = God statements in there. <BR/><BR/>that's relevant, actually. We believe Jesus is God. That is a foundational part of our faith and the identity of God. Muslims believe Jesus is NOT God. <BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Is that not terribly important?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51296912069350179742007-11-26T14:27:00.000-05:002007-11-26T14:27:00.000-05:00Hello Rhology,Thanks for responding (hope you had ...Hello Rhology,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding (hope you had a nice Thanksgiving day, and weekend). You posted:<BR/><BR/>R:>>Isn't there a difference between believing in the God Who is Trinitarian and knowing explicitly (due to progressive revelation's not having yet progressed that far) that God is a Trinity?<BR/>Of course.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Agreed. But, with that said, I can state with great confidence that the Jews and Gentiles whom Paul was speaking to were not Trinitarian; as for Paul, note my following comments to this:<BR/><BR/>R:>>And the *Christians* of the earliest church were Trinitarians.>><BR/><BR/>Me: I disagree. Trinitarianism is clearly a post-apostolic construct. Every patristic scholar of the last 50 plus years (and many much older), I have read acknowledge the clear subordinationism of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers. John Henry Newman had this to say:<BR/><BR/><B>“If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian...Tertullian is heterodox on the Lord’s divinity...Origen is, at the very least suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.”</B> (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 6th edition 1989, p. 17.)<BR/><BR/>And perhaps the greatest patristic scholar of the late-20th century stated:<BR/><BR/><B>“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” </B> (RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989, p. 153.)<BR/><BR/>Fact is, the NT and early Church Fathers reserved the title “the one God” for God the Father alone. Once again, some thoughts from Newman:<BR/><BR/><B>“No subject was more constantly and directly before the Christian intellect in the first centuries of the Church than the doctrine of the Monarchia. That there was but one First Principle of all things was a fundamental doctrine of all Catholics, orthodox and heterodox alike; and it was the starting-point of heterodox as well as of orthodox speculation… It was for the same reason that the Father was called God absolutely, while the Second and Third Persons were designated by Their personal names of ‘the Son,’ or ‘the Word,’ and ‘the Holy Ghost;’ viz. because they are to be regarded, not as separated from, but as inherent in the Father. In this enunciation of the august Mystery they were supported by the usage of Scripture, and by the nature of the case; since the very notion of a Father carries with it a claim to priority and precedence in the order of our ideas, even when in no other respect he has any superiority over those on whom he has this claim. There is One God then, they would say, ‘not only because the Three Persons are in one usia, or substance (though this reason is good too), but because the Second and Third stand to the First in the relation of derivation, and therefore are included in their Origin as soon as named; so that, in confessing One Father or Origin, we are not omitting, but including, those Persons whom the very name of the One Father or Origin necessarily implies.’” </B> (John Henry Newman, Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, pp. 167-169.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>R:>>And why is it relevant to this conversation? Muslims are responsible to believe in God's revelation as it is revealed NOW. there's a big diff between ignorance and wanton rejection, as you'd have to agree given RCC's doctrines of baptism of ignorance, etc.>><BR/><BR/><BR/>Me: It is precisely the “big diff between ignorance and wanton rejection” of revealed and developed truth wherein my argument rests. Very few Muslims have had the opportunity to read the NT in an environment that would allow objectivity—as such, I would argue that faithful Muslims are akin to the God-fearing gentiles that Paul referred; in other words, they truly believe in the one creator God of the OT; the one, creator God revealed in nature (i.e. natural revelation); the one, creator God known to us Christians as “God the Father.” IMHO, no amount of sophistry will spin the God professed by faithful Muslims into a “false” God. I shall leave the matter in the hands of God the Father as to whether or not ‘invincible ignorance’ is applicable, along with the corollary doctrine of ‘baptism of desire’.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67949669134958607462007-11-25T21:20:00.000-05:002007-11-25T21:20:00.000-05:00David,Isn't there a difference between believing i...David,<BR/><BR/>Isn't there a difference between believing in the God Who is Trinitarian and knowing explicitly (due to progressive revelation's not having yet progressed that far) that God is a Trinity?<BR/>Of course.<BR/><BR/>And the *Christians* of the earliest church were Trinitarians.<BR/><BR/>And why is it relevant to this conversation? Muslims are responsible to believe in God's revelation as it is revealed NOW. there's a big diff between ignorance and wanton rejection, as you'd have to agree given RCC's doctrines of baptism of ignorance, etc.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21957152826230603492007-11-25T04:45:00.000-05:002007-11-25T04:45:00.000-05:00Hello Rhology,Thanks for responding to my post; yo...Hello Rhology,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding to my post; you wrote:<BR/><BR/>>>Oops, sorry David.<BR/>Guess I was thinking of someone else. OTOH, you're saying exactly what was said there... <BR/><BR/>what God was Paul referring in his reference to “those among you who fear God”, etc?<BR/><BR/>The Trinitarian God of the Bible, YHWH.<BR/>The Muslim Allah is explicitly NOT Trinitarian. Explicitly NOT Jesus.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Hmmm, so the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in circa 35-45 AD were Trinitarians…my-oh-my…a doctrine that took over 300 years for Christians to develop and define was already known by Jews and Gentiles in the mid-1st century!!!<BR/><BR/><BR/>I am at a loss for words…David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32978055189838372562007-11-25T04:39:00.000-05:002007-11-25T04:39:00.000-05:00Hello Carrie,You posted the following:>>Why don't ...Hello Carrie,<BR/><BR/>You posted the following:<BR/><BR/>>>Why don't you do some reading AND THEN come back and make your critiques.>><BR/><BR/><BR/>Me: During recent ‘dialogues’ concerning justification, I asked the same of our separated brethren (you and others), and yet, the responses in ALL of the justification threads clearly indicate to me that none of the sources I recommended were read.<BR/><BR/>With this now in mind, is it really fair to ask something of someone else that you are unwilling to comply with?<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-50622317104287934482007-11-21T18:26:00.000-05:002007-11-21T18:26:00.000-05:00"Second, your understanding of Reformed teachings ..."Second, your understanding of Reformed teachings is way off." (Carrie)<BR/><BR/>First, that's what Calvislamics always say when you perfectly understand their doctrine. When you understand the implications of their errors, which they blind themselves to, then you need to read more of their propaganda because you are seeing through their brainwashing campaign. Why should I read the tripe the Manichean fatalists put out when I have God's word? Only a lune would go rub up on a leper in an attempt to cure leprosy. If therefore you seek salvation, you turn to God, not Manicheans.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, You said on your blog that you are "not quite" a Calvinist, so maybe you're the one who is confused on what Calvinism teaches. Maybe you need to go read Calvin's Institutes and the WCF, etc. and get yourself fully brainwashed into the Manichean system before you go about wasting your life and damning your soul spreading it on this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-84072191048118519022007-11-21T18:21:00.000-05:002007-11-21T18:21:00.000-05:00Where is the Scripture (1) that says prior to the ...<I>Where is the Scripture (1) that says prior to the fall God chose who would be damned and who would be saved<BR/><BR/>Eph. 1:4<BR/>Rev. 13:8</I><BR/><BR/>Eph 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"<BR/><BR/>It doesn't say that he chose individuals, but "he hath chosen us in him" which certainly means that he chose Christ, and through him all who will beleive in him.<BR/><BR/>Rev 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."<BR/><BR/>Your NASB or whatever is a corrupt mistranslation. This passage is teaching that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world (that God prior to creation knew he would send Jesus as a sacrifice) not that individuals had their names written in the book of life prior to the foundation of the world.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, as a bonus since you brought up the book of life, in Revelation 3:5 Jesus says "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." This shows that some Christians will fall and have their names blotted out although they were once written in the book of life, which certainly disproves Calvislam from the tail end, by showing the P is not true.<BR/><BR/><I>(2) that he made this choice without basing it on anything foreseen in the person?<BR/><BR/>God's Choice had nothing to do with forseen works, faith or will.<BR/><BR/>2 Tim. 1:9<BR/>Rom. 3:11<BR/>John 6:44 & 65<BR/>Phil. 1:29<BR/>Acts 13:48</I><BR/><BR/>2 Tim 1:9 "not of works" does not mean "not of faith" -- duh.<BR/><BR/>Neither Romans 3:11 nor John 6:44&65 speak of the <I>basis</I> of election. And furthermore, Romans 3:11 relates only to the wicked in the context of the Psalm being quoted, see Psalm 14 where the "there is not one who seeks God" is specifically related only to the wicked "who eat up my people as they eat bread" where it is obviously implied that "my people" do seek "me."<BR/><BR/>Phil 1:29 is not at all related to the <I>basis</I> of election either.<BR/><BR/>Acts 13:48 also does not say anything about the <I>basis</I> of election.<BR/><BR/>None of these verses asserts in any wise that the basis of election is not foreseen faith.<BR/><BR/>You have failed miserably.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7407690083170501162007-11-21T17:03:00.000-05:002007-11-21T17:03:00.000-05:00Ego, Now, when Carrie says the Catholics do not wo...Ego, <BR/><BR/><I>Now, when Carrie says the Catholics do not worship the same god as the Muslims, she is right for it is the Calvislamics that worship the same god as the Muslims, a vindictive god of hatred who rolled a dice before time to determine who to hate.</I><BR/><BR/>First, that isn't what I said.<BR/><BR/>Second, your understanding of Reformed teachings is way off. Why don't you do some reading AND THEN come back and make your critiques. I can't think of a good, concise, online resource right now, but maybe someone else can make a recommendation (or I'll think of one later). <BR/><BR/>I'm still not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. You seem to be just lashing out at everyone. Try to focus and give a biblical defense for your viewpoints (or counter viewpoints) instead of just making mocking characterizations. What purpose is that serving?<BR/><BR/>Fair enough?Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87903318468036035532007-11-21T16:48:00.000-05:002007-11-21T16:48:00.000-05:00Show me a Scripture then, Machaira , that shows th...<I>Show me a Scripture then, Machaira , that shows the counsel of His will or His good pleasure to be random as the Calvislamics present it.</I> <BR/><BR/><BR/>How can the "counsel" of God's will and His "purpose" be random? Each indicates <I>planned direction and goal.</I> Your view is simply an oxymoron by definition. No Calvinist presents God's absolute sovereign will as "random." <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Where is the Scripture (1) that says prior to the fall God chose who would be damned and who would be saved</I> <BR/><BR/><BR/>Eph. 1:4<BR/>Rev. 13:8<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>(2) that he made this choice without basing it on anything foreseen in the person?</I><BR/><BR/>God's Choice had nothing to do with forseen works, faith or will. <BR/><BR/>2 Tim. 1:9<BR/>Rom. 3:11<BR/>John 6:44 & 65<BR/>Phil. 1:29 <BR/>Acts 13:48James R. Polkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06398668552575076809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38553369144169321602007-11-21T16:15:00.000-05:002007-11-21T16:15:00.000-05:00"Is Scripture Alone your rule of faith?"Yes."Is Scripture Alone your rule of faith?"<BR/><BR/>Yes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78233559712754844702007-11-21T16:01:00.000-05:002007-11-21T16:01:00.000-05:00What you label "chance" and "random" the Scripture...<I>What you label "chance" and "random" the Scriptures describe as God's "purpose," "counsel of His will" and His "good pleasure."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Actually what Scriptures describe as God's "purpose," "counsel of His will" and His "good pleasure," Calvinism misconstructs into a doctrine that amounts to salvation by pure dumb luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61656155871695259552007-11-21T15:56:00.000-05:002007-11-21T15:56:00.000-05:00"EgoMak,It's a simple question.Is Scripture Alone ...<I>"EgoMak,<BR/><BR/>It's a simple question.<BR/>Is Scripture Alone your rule of faith? Forget the WCF, the creeds...what is your rule of faith? I would like to know."</I><BR/><BR/>(William Tell Oveture continues)<BR/>...Starring:<BR/><BR/>Rhology ...........as the one person who truly follows Sola Scriptura and knows the truth because Scripture is clear.<BR/><BR/>EgoM ..............as the one person who truly follows Sola Scriptura and knows the truth because Scripture is clear.<BR/><BR/>Carrie .............as the one person who truly follows Sola Scriptura and knows the truth because Scripture is clear.<BR/><BR/>Jason l ............as the one person who truly follows Sola Scriptura and knows the truth because Scripture is clear.<BR/><BR/>"Dancin" Gene B ....as the one person who truly follows Sola Scriptura and knows the truth because Scripture is clear.<BR/><BR/>Machaira ..........as the one person who truly follows Sola Scriptura and knows the truth because Scripture is clear.<BR/><BR/>Never Vulgar Swan ..as the one person who truly follows Sola Scriptura and knows the truth because Scripture is clear (not appearing in this act).<BR/><BR/>(Music builds to a climax of epic movie proportions)<BR/><BR/>....and a cast of <B>millions</B> more, all in the SAME ROLE and all on one stage!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54681216835538872322007-11-21T15:39:00.000-05:002007-11-21T15:39:00.000-05:00EgoMak,It's a simple question.Is Scripture Alone y...EgoMak,<BR/><BR/>It's a simple question.<BR/>Is Scripture Alone your rule of faith? Forget the WCF, the creeds...what is your rule of faith? I would like to know.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87824847423641628412007-11-21T15:38:00.000-05:002007-11-21T15:38:00.000-05:00Anonymous says "Sola Scriptura Rides Again!"Rholog...Anonymous says "Sola Scriptura Rides Again!"<BR/><BR/>Rhology says "EgoMak,...Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?"<BR/><BR/>Sola Scripture does not mean "Taking the WCF as your <I>real</I> standard and rejecting everything in Scripture that proves it false." That is not Sola Scriptura. I know you want to make Sol<B>a</B> Scripture mean that, and then make Scripture Alone as the sole authority out to be called Sol<B>o</B> Scriptura. But this is a late invention of mixing Spanish and Latin to change history.<BR/><BR/>Machaira says: <I>"This all depends on the logical order of God's decrees. Generally speaking, there are 'infralapsarians' and 'supralapsarians.' You have the elements of both views twisted together. I'll leave that for you to discover. My answer is still the same however. What you label 'chance' and 'random' the Scriptures describe as God's 'purpose,' 'counsel of His will' and His 'good pleasure.'"</I><BR/><BR/>Show me a Scripture then, Machaira , that shows the counsel of His will or His good pleasure to be random as the Calvislamics present it. Where is the Scripture (1) that says prior to the fall God chose who would be damned and who would be saved (2) that he made this choice without basing it on anything foreseen in the person? You have none. So this <I>"What you label 'chance' and 'random' the Scriptures describe as God's 'purpose,' 'counsel of His will' and His 'good pleasure'"</I> is merely a lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83904703748196903502007-11-21T15:15:00.000-05:002007-11-21T15:15:00.000-05:00Calvinism asserts that election/reprobation took p...<I>Calvinism asserts that election/reprobation took place before the fall, doesn't it? And further that the choice has no respect to anything foreseen in the object. Therefore, reprobation is not based on the fall in Calvinism. The fall, rather is a result of reprobation in Calvinism. In Calvinism, their god, allah, preordained/decreed for Adam to fall in order to give himself an excuse to damn people whom he had already decreed to be damned.</I><BR/><BR/>This all depends on the <I>logical</I> order of God's decrees. Generally speaking, there are "infralapsarians" and "supralapsarians." You have the elements of both views twisted together. I'll leave that for you to discover. My answer is still the same however. What you label "chance" and "random" the Scriptures describe as God's "purpose," "counsel of His will" and His "good pleasure."James R. Polkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06398668552575076809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26274474151362092142007-11-21T14:39:00.000-05:002007-11-21T14:39:00.000-05:00EgoMak,this is just a question of curiosity, no ot...EgoMak,<BR/><BR/>this is just a question of curiosity, no other motivation, nor follow-up.<BR/><BR/>Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54592870209123538082007-11-21T14:34:00.000-05:002007-11-21T14:34:00.000-05:00"If your God has a character different from that f..."If your God has a character different from that found in the bible, it is an idol produced in your own imagination..."<BR/><BR/>And once again we return to another exiting epesode of.....<BR/><BR/>(Say it with me)<BR/><BR/><B>Sola Scriptura Rides Again!</B> <BR/><BR/>(DUH DUH DAHHHHHHH!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23147756855100538852007-11-21T14:26:00.000-05:002007-11-21T14:26:00.000-05:00"What God did Job worship (Job Job 1:1, 8; 2:3)?Wh...<I>"What God did Job worship (Job Job 1:1, 8; 2:3)?<BR/><BR/>What God did the Jews of Jesus day worship?<BR/><BR/>What God did Jesus worship?<BR/><BR/>I certainly sense yet another false dichotomy…"</I><BR/><BR/>Think of it this way, Waltz. Christians, Jews, Catholics, Moslems, and Calvislamics (i.e. Calvinists) all claim to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But some (Christians, and ancient Jews) present God as loving all mankind, willing that all should be saved, working through Abraham to bring a Messiah into the world to provide salvation for as many as will receive it. Others, Moslems and Calvislamics present their god as determining before creation exactly who will be saved and dammed, and setting up a fate that each man will slavishly follow, then saving or damning each man based on things he fated them to do. The rest (Catholics) are in between, believing that their god has men being born guilty of another's sin, yet not that their god really hates them or damned them beforehand by divine decree. Do these three worship the same God? They may use similar names and titles, but there is a clear distinction between these three beings--one exists, and the other two do not. These three are so different, that they could not possibly be the same. Now, when Carrie says the Catholics do not worship the same god as the Muslims, she is right for it is the Calvislamics that worship the same god as the Muslims, a vindictive god of hatred who rolled a dice before time to determine who to hate. Catholics, for all their faults and their false doctrines, do not present their god as being quite as horrible as that of Islam and Calvislam. Yet, neither the Catholics nor the Calvislamics worship the God of the Bible who would not damn a man for another's sin (Ezekiel 18). So, the issue has nothing to do with what you call your god, but with the character of your god. If your God has a character different from that found in the bible, it is an idol produced in your own imagination.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-885267490269850932007-11-21T14:18:00.000-05:002007-11-21T14:18:00.000-05:00Oops, sorry David.Guess I was thinking of someone ...Oops, sorry David.<BR/>Guess I was thinking of someone else. OTOH, you're saying exactly what was said there... <BR/><BR/><I>what God was Paul referring in his reference to “those among you who fear God”, etc?</I><BR/><BR/>The Trinitarian God of the Bible, YHWH.<BR/>The Muslim Allah is explicitly NOT Trinitarian. Explicitly NOT Jesus.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3198002796117438982007-11-21T13:56:00.000-05:002007-11-21T13:56:00.000-05:00Hey Rhology,Uhhhh…I do not have a single post in e...Hey Rhology,<BR/><BR/>Uhhhh…I do not have a single post in either of the two threads you linked to…David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69087834448940863162007-11-21T11:28:00.000-05:002007-11-21T11:28:00.000-05:00Hates men randomly? Reprobates them based on chanc...<I>Hates men randomly? Reprobates them based on chance alone with no reference to the object? How absurd. Ever heard of the "Fall?"</I> (Machaira)<BR/><BR/>Calvinism asserts that election/reprobation took place before the fall, doesn't it? And further that the choice has no respect to anything foreseen in the object. Therefore, reprobation is not based on the fall in Calvinism. The fall, rather is a result of reprobation in Calvinism. In Calvinism, their god, allah, preordained/decreed for Adam to fall in order to give himself an excuse to damn people whom he had already decreed to be damned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83381763503127830152007-11-21T11:11:00.000-05:002007-11-21T11:11:00.000-05:00For anyone curious about the history of this discu...For anyone curious about the history of this discussion, see <A HREF="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/catholic-gospel-for-muslim.html" REL="nofollow">these</A> <A HREF="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/when-catholics-represent-christianity.html" REL="nofollow">two articles</A>. You can see how David W and other Roman Catholics have defended the Catechism's comments concerning Muslims.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67779631662150341082007-11-21T11:03:00.000-05:002007-11-21T11:03:00.000-05:00Hi Carrie,You posted>>God-fearing Muslims.David, C...Hi Carrie,<BR/><BR/>You posted<BR/><BR/>>>God-fearing Muslims.<BR/><BR/>David, <BR/><BR/>Can you define this for me? Which "God" are you talking about?>><BR/><BR/>Me: The God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael and Jacob.David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com