However, it seems to me that to deny that non-Christians are capable of some knowledge (however faint and admixed with error) of God, and some religious devotion to the same (however imperfect and admixed with superstition), is to assert something which the Orthodox fiercely reject: namely, that human nature is altogether corrupted by sin. For we are made in the image of God, which entails a certain intrinsic orientation toward and correspondence with our Creator. This orientation and correspondence must remain, unless the image is altogether ruined -- which you do not believe, of course.
Also, I've always puzzled over Isaac's assertion that God is not just, or at least that his justice is not evident in things usward. Taken at face value, this position seems very idiosyncratic and even at odds with the broader teaching of the fathers and doctors. And certainly it seems inconsistent with Scripture. Blessed David plainly says, "You will repay each man according to his deeds" (Ps. 62:12). This sounds akin to the classical definition of justice: i.e., rendering that which is due. And none other than St. Paul, the Apostle of Grace, in the Epistle to the Romans of all places (!), cites this verse approvingly (Rom. 2:6). One could multiply verses from the Old and New Testaments to this effect (e.g., Jer. 17:10, Prov. 24:12, 2 Cor. 5:10, 1 Pt. 1:17, Rev. 22:12).
You reference the parable of the vineyard workers, but in the very same gospel, our Lord says, "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done" (Mt. 16:27). In any event, St. John Chrysostom, in exegeting this parable, wisely warns us against signifying every detail, which would abuse the form. There is a gist to be grasped, which St. John summarizes thusly: "Wherefore then was this parable thus composed? What is its object to effect? To render more earnest them that are converted and become better men in extreme old age, and not to allow them to suppose they have a less portion...From everything then it is manifest to us, that the parable is spoken with reference to them who from earliest youth, and those who in old age and more tardily, lay hold on virtue; to the former, that they may not be proud, neither reproach those called at the eleventh hour; to the latter, that they may learn that it is possible even in a short time to recover all." St. John also notes that our Lord is speaking obliquely about the Jews, and especially the Pharisees, vis-a-vis the sinners among their own ranks, and beyond that, the Gentiles. He mentions in the same homily that the parable of the prodigal son communicates a similar doctrine.
Hence, it would be most inappropriate to overturn on the basis of a parable or two a constant teaching of Scripture -- viz., that God is just, even if his mercy greatly exceeds his justice, in a manner that is not contradictory, but is yet somewhat obscure to our minds.
Absolutely right. Non-Christians are definitely capable of some knowledge of God. No doubt about that. I should have said: The idea that Muslims have some *special* knowledge of God, beyond what other non-Christians are capable of, is problematic. As Saint Gregory Palamas said, "For God is not only beyond knowledge, but also beyond unknowing." Thank you!
Love and agree with lots of what you say here. I would quibble that the kind of relationship God wishes to have with humankind is beyond 'friendship', or at least it's far deeper than how that term is used today. It's totally consuming, passionate, love. Closer to a father-child / husband-wife than two pals.
Great point! I think—again, per Dionyius—we can only use the terms that have been revealed to us. Of course, father/son is in there! But Christ also calls us friends (John 15:15).
I opted for "friend" in that instance because I wanted to emphasize that God's association with us is purely voluntary. God loves us; what's equally incredible is that He *likes* us. He made us because He wants to spend time with us. Because He enjoys our company.
But yes! All the different ways of describing our dynamic with God (father/son, friend/friend, lover/beloved, elder brother/younger brother, king/servant, master/slave) are equally valid and reveal a new aspect of our relationship.
Michael, well done. You have communicated within the limits of our humanity that which we can comprehend. Note: In the study of Christian demonology, the angelic order was created by a Good and Loving God and had free will; hence the rebellion led by Lucifer/Satan was permitted and defeated. In Islamic demonology, Allah is the creator of the good AND evil angels. Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. Our GOD cannot, by definition, create evil. There is no nuance, metaphysical or otherwise.
This entails the belief that Protestants and some Catholics worship a different Being than do Orthodox, Evangelicals, and most Catholics.
While I don't think theistic determinism is true, I also don't think that thinking it is true is capable of changing the identities of the (P)ersons it describes.
This is probably one of your most beautiful writings my brother. Your passionate love of the Lord and his Truth shines forth greatly. God bless and protect you Michael Warren Davis.
Bishop Barron rightly said that the core of Christ's message is not merely ethical (although undeniably he leaves us with a rather severe ethical life to follow) but is predicated on the very question he asks his Apostles "Who do you say that I am?" This is precisely what the Symbol of Faith is addressing, because Christ wants us to understand that his message and his Evangelion are not merely a set of ethical propositions but rather about having a radical, living, personal, true, and beautiful encounter with the living God. If we do not answer who Christ is then we have missed the mark. The Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tau, all wise and subtle teachers who we have much to learn from are all clear that they as teachers are not the message but rather that it is their teaching. With Christ it's totally the opposite. Christ is himself the teaching. His parables and riddles are all aimed at directing us to a proper understanding of who he is, because it is in understanding him that we then understand God and also our relationship with all of creation.
To the point of Muslims worshipping the same God, I simply take the route of St. John Damascene who viewed Muslims as simply heretics who had an erroneous idea about who God and who Christ is. I think in this view, we don't have to reject this highly personalist vision of the fact that knowing God is coming to know Jesus as he is, but it also doesn't lead us to the other dangerous place where knowing God becomes merely a rational activity of our intellection in which if we say or believe the wrong things we're totally off base. God is mystery, we all believe wrong things about it, that's just his nature. He's not tame, he's not a safe lion, but he is good. I think Muslims probably do worship the same God, but they do so in a misguided way
Michael, your article reminded me of a saying that goes something like this - 'if there is water in the air, why do you drink from a stream?'. Been following your work recently, thank you.
very eloquent defense of christianity till you try to disprove islam. no bull's eye. as a convert from presbyterian to muslim, i agree with everything you profess except the 3-in-1. i have an intimate relation to god. He helps me get through life and i thank Him dozens of times a day. i'm glad to be rid of the 'holy roman' and pagan baggage. i see orthodoxy as the only version of christianity that holds up. islam remains as the great rival of christianity.
Have a Moslem theologian describe Allah and then have an Orthodox theologian describe the Trinity as Kallistos Ware does in his book The Orthodox Way. While there may be some overlap in a kind of Venn diagram way it is obvious the two theologians are talking about different gods that are not the same. The usual way people attempt to overcome this conundrum is to do blah blah about how in the mystical experience it’s really the same. Kallistos Ware says the doctrine of the Trinity is a “ a cross for human ways of thought” but we can verify and know the Trinity “through our encounter with God in prayer” At best we can say the Muslim (and Jewish) knowing of the God of Abraham is incomplete. Our Jesus is the “skandalon” the stumbling block.
All religion is aboout one's inner relationship with God, a self-creating entity of which we are all a part of and which our indiginous ancestors understood viscerally. God is all that is and isn't, the oneness of God. We are here to love and care for all creation, incuding one another, set none apart. To answer the question, of course Muslims worship the same God, the one that is all. The separatons between religion are the times in which they emerged, a progression to unify the world in love.
The fact that you can write an essay about this topic in a way that any reader can understand - including unbelievers or Muslims as well as Christians - undermines your radical skepticism of metaphysics. You seem to be denying any analogy between Creator and creation, such that (as both Romans and Wisdom teach) we can rise from a knowledge of the creature to *some* knowledge of the Creator. Deny this and, ironically, you are denying a divinely revealed teaching.
What is better to say is that there is *some* grasp of the divine essence that can be common to many religions, or if you don't like that term, many attempts at worshiping God, and that this is what we would expect from a universe created in and by the Logos. Moreover, it's not surprising there would be *some* overlap between the Muslim conception of the one God and the Christian conception of the one God (who, after all, is really, substantially, essentially ONE: we are not polytheists).
The place to locate the key difference is in the meaning and nature of the act of adoration. Christian adore God in spirit and in truth, by His grace, and they adore Him as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by His gracious revelation. This is something the Muslim can never do.
Thank you, Peter! I offer the following correction, per the pinned comment:
Non-Christians are definitely capable of some knowledge of God. No doubt about that. I should have said: The idea that Muslims have some *special* knowledge of God, beyond what other non-Christians are capable of, is problematic. As Saint Gregory Palamas said, "For God is not only beyond knowledge, but also beyond unknowing."
Yes, I agree. But the tenor of this post (and others you have written in recent months) seems quite anti-philosophical, even going to the length of throwing Plato and Aristotle under the bus. Yes, they cannot bring us *saving* knowledge, baptismal enlightenment; but thanks to their good use of intellect (which is a gift from God!), they saw many profound things about the nature of man, the cosmos, even the first principle(s), indeed they saw them more than many nominal Christians do - nay, nominal Christians often repudiate the wisdom that the pagans (including Muslim thinkers) had. The interplay of faith and reason isn't just a cute Thomistic mantra, it's the structure of reality as created/re-created, as natural/supernatural.
I appreciate your insights, Peter. I don't know what it would mean to be pro- or anti-philosophy. I don't cite Plato or Aristotle much but I studied them both extensively for my B.A. in Philosophy. They're right about some things and wrong about others. As we might expect!
This is a very lovely reflection, Michael.
However, it seems to me that to deny that non-Christians are capable of some knowledge (however faint and admixed with error) of God, and some religious devotion to the same (however imperfect and admixed with superstition), is to assert something which the Orthodox fiercely reject: namely, that human nature is altogether corrupted by sin. For we are made in the image of God, which entails a certain intrinsic orientation toward and correspondence with our Creator. This orientation and correspondence must remain, unless the image is altogether ruined -- which you do not believe, of course.
Also, I've always puzzled over Isaac's assertion that God is not just, or at least that his justice is not evident in things usward. Taken at face value, this position seems very idiosyncratic and even at odds with the broader teaching of the fathers and doctors. And certainly it seems inconsistent with Scripture. Blessed David plainly says, "You will repay each man according to his deeds" (Ps. 62:12). This sounds akin to the classical definition of justice: i.e., rendering that which is due. And none other than St. Paul, the Apostle of Grace, in the Epistle to the Romans of all places (!), cites this verse approvingly (Rom. 2:6). One could multiply verses from the Old and New Testaments to this effect (e.g., Jer. 17:10, Prov. 24:12, 2 Cor. 5:10, 1 Pt. 1:17, Rev. 22:12).
You reference the parable of the vineyard workers, but in the very same gospel, our Lord says, "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done" (Mt. 16:27). In any event, St. John Chrysostom, in exegeting this parable, wisely warns us against signifying every detail, which would abuse the form. There is a gist to be grasped, which St. John summarizes thusly: "Wherefore then was this parable thus composed? What is its object to effect? To render more earnest them that are converted and become better men in extreme old age, and not to allow them to suppose they have a less portion...From everything then it is manifest to us, that the parable is spoken with reference to them who from earliest youth, and those who in old age and more tardily, lay hold on virtue; to the former, that they may not be proud, neither reproach those called at the eleventh hour; to the latter, that they may learn that it is possible even in a short time to recover all." St. John also notes that our Lord is speaking obliquely about the Jews, and especially the Pharisees, vis-a-vis the sinners among their own ranks, and beyond that, the Gentiles. He mentions in the same homily that the parable of the prodigal son communicates a similar doctrine.
Hence, it would be most inappropriate to overturn on the basis of a parable or two a constant teaching of Scripture -- viz., that God is just, even if his mercy greatly exceeds his justice, in a manner that is not contradictory, but is yet somewhat obscure to our minds.
Absolutely right. Non-Christians are definitely capable of some knowledge of God. No doubt about that. I should have said: The idea that Muslims have some *special* knowledge of God, beyond what other non-Christians are capable of, is problematic. As Saint Gregory Palamas said, "For God is not only beyond knowledge, but also beyond unknowing." Thank you!
Love and agree with lots of what you say here. I would quibble that the kind of relationship God wishes to have with humankind is beyond 'friendship', or at least it's far deeper than how that term is used today. It's totally consuming, passionate, love. Closer to a father-child / husband-wife than two pals.
What do you think?
Great point! I think—again, per Dionyius—we can only use the terms that have been revealed to us. Of course, father/son is in there! But Christ also calls us friends (John 15:15).
I opted for "friend" in that instance because I wanted to emphasize that God's association with us is purely voluntary. God loves us; what's equally incredible is that He *likes* us. He made us because He wants to spend time with us. Because He enjoys our company.
But yes! All the different ways of describing our dynamic with God (father/son, friend/friend, lover/beloved, elder brother/younger brother, king/servant, master/slave) are equally valid and reveal a new aspect of our relationship.
Michael, well done. You have communicated within the limits of our humanity that which we can comprehend. Note: In the study of Christian demonology, the angelic order was created by a Good and Loving God and had free will; hence the rebellion led by Lucifer/Satan was permitted and defeated. In Islamic demonology, Allah is the creator of the good AND evil angels. Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. Our GOD cannot, by definition, create evil. There is no nuance, metaphysical or otherwise.
This entails the belief that Protestants and some Catholics worship a different Being than do Orthodox, Evangelicals, and most Catholics.
While I don't think theistic determinism is true, I also don't think that thinking it is true is capable of changing the identities of the (P)ersons it describes.
This is probably one of your most beautiful writings my brother. Your passionate love of the Lord and his Truth shines forth greatly. God bless and protect you Michael Warren Davis.
Bishop Barron rightly said that the core of Christ's message is not merely ethical (although undeniably he leaves us with a rather severe ethical life to follow) but is predicated on the very question he asks his Apostles "Who do you say that I am?" This is precisely what the Symbol of Faith is addressing, because Christ wants us to understand that his message and his Evangelion are not merely a set of ethical propositions but rather about having a radical, living, personal, true, and beautiful encounter with the living God. If we do not answer who Christ is then we have missed the mark. The Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tau, all wise and subtle teachers who we have much to learn from are all clear that they as teachers are not the message but rather that it is their teaching. With Christ it's totally the opposite. Christ is himself the teaching. His parables and riddles are all aimed at directing us to a proper understanding of who he is, because it is in understanding him that we then understand God and also our relationship with all of creation.
To the point of Muslims worshipping the same God, I simply take the route of St. John Damascene who viewed Muslims as simply heretics who had an erroneous idea about who God and who Christ is. I think in this view, we don't have to reject this highly personalist vision of the fact that knowing God is coming to know Jesus as he is, but it also doesn't lead us to the other dangerous place where knowing God becomes merely a rational activity of our intellection in which if we say or believe the wrong things we're totally off base. God is mystery, we all believe wrong things about it, that's just his nature. He's not tame, he's not a safe lion, but he is good. I think Muslims probably do worship the same God, but they do so in a misguided way
Michael, your article reminded me of a saying that goes something like this - 'if there is water in the air, why do you drink from a stream?'. Been following your work recently, thank you.
very eloquent defense of christianity till you try to disprove islam. no bull's eye. as a convert from presbyterian to muslim, i agree with everything you profess except the 3-in-1. i have an intimate relation to god. He helps me get through life and i thank Him dozens of times a day. i'm glad to be rid of the 'holy roman' and pagan baggage. i see orthodoxy as the only version of christianity that holds up. islam remains as the great rival of christianity.
Have a Moslem theologian describe Allah and then have an Orthodox theologian describe the Trinity as Kallistos Ware does in his book The Orthodox Way. While there may be some overlap in a kind of Venn diagram way it is obvious the two theologians are talking about different gods that are not the same. The usual way people attempt to overcome this conundrum is to do blah blah about how in the mystical experience it’s really the same. Kallistos Ware says the doctrine of the Trinity is a “ a cross for human ways of thought” but we can verify and know the Trinity “through our encounter with God in prayer” At best we can say the Muslim (and Jewish) knowing of the God of Abraham is incomplete. Our Jesus is the “skandalon” the stumbling block.
Nicely laid down.
Coulda used a few reference footnotes....
All religion is aboout one's inner relationship with God, a self-creating entity of which we are all a part of and which our indiginous ancestors understood viscerally. God is all that is and isn't, the oneness of God. We are here to love and care for all creation, incuding one another, set none apart. To answer the question, of course Muslims worship the same God, the one that is all. The separatons between religion are the times in which they emerged, a progression to unify the world in love.
The fact that you can write an essay about this topic in a way that any reader can understand - including unbelievers or Muslims as well as Christians - undermines your radical skepticism of metaphysics. You seem to be denying any analogy between Creator and creation, such that (as both Romans and Wisdom teach) we can rise from a knowledge of the creature to *some* knowledge of the Creator. Deny this and, ironically, you are denying a divinely revealed teaching.
What is better to say is that there is *some* grasp of the divine essence that can be common to many religions, or if you don't like that term, many attempts at worshiping God, and that this is what we would expect from a universe created in and by the Logos. Moreover, it's not surprising there would be *some* overlap between the Muslim conception of the one God and the Christian conception of the one God (who, after all, is really, substantially, essentially ONE: we are not polytheists).
The place to locate the key difference is in the meaning and nature of the act of adoration. Christian adore God in spirit and in truth, by His grace, and they adore Him as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by His gracious revelation. This is something the Muslim can never do.
I go into all this here:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/do-christians-and-muslims-worship
Thank you, Peter! I offer the following correction, per the pinned comment:
Non-Christians are definitely capable of some knowledge of God. No doubt about that. I should have said: The idea that Muslims have some *special* knowledge of God, beyond what other non-Christians are capable of, is problematic. As Saint Gregory Palamas said, "For God is not only beyond knowledge, but also beyond unknowing."
Does that square things?
Yes, I agree. But the tenor of this post (and others you have written in recent months) seems quite anti-philosophical, even going to the length of throwing Plato and Aristotle under the bus. Yes, they cannot bring us *saving* knowledge, baptismal enlightenment; but thanks to their good use of intellect (which is a gift from God!), they saw many profound things about the nature of man, the cosmos, even the first principle(s), indeed they saw them more than many nominal Christians do - nay, nominal Christians often repudiate the wisdom that the pagans (including Muslim thinkers) had. The interplay of faith and reason isn't just a cute Thomistic mantra, it's the structure of reality as created/re-created, as natural/supernatural.
I appreciate your insights, Peter. I don't know what it would mean to be pro- or anti-philosophy. I don't cite Plato or Aristotle much but I studied them both extensively for my B.A. in Philosophy. They're right about some things and wrong about others. As we might expect!