Saudi Mideast expert: If Pope wants churches in the Kingdom, he only has to do one thing

posted at 6:30 pm on March 20, 2008 by Allahpundit

How ’bout it, Catholics?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Eye roll. Not to be confused with a Rick Roll.

Vizzini on March 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM

That’s not compromise, it’s suicide.

Since when is the ball in the Pope’s court, anyway?

Lee on March 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Well Mohammed did exist as a historical person did he not? I am not an expert…but I am pretty sure the Catholic Church does not actively deny his existance.

HawaiiLwyr on March 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM

What’s the issue?…. recognize MOMO as he is revered today?…. never….. no churches in Saudi Arabia.. Why have more people in dhimmmitude? As far as his existence? You can’t draw images and the Koran changes as we speak…. who knows.

MNDavenotPC on March 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM

dhimmitude, I mean

MNDavenotPC on March 20, 2008 at 6:43 PM

If Pope wants churches in the Kingdom, he only has to do one thing

Let me guess, convert to Islam and bow to Allah (piss be upon him) or it’s off with his head?

Saudi Prince: “No Churches for you…back of the line!”

Liberty or Death on March 20, 2008 at 6:43 PM

oh gee is that all? bunch of racist catholics probably won’t even accept it (sarcasm)

Defector01 on March 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Recognizing him as a prophet (i.e., a divinely inspired communicator with God) is a tad more than, “Yeah, sure, there was this guy named Mohammed.” It would be a contravention of doctrine and belief in exchange for, at best, second-class status in that primitive country.

This whole thing is just stupid. Even if the Saudis allow a church, they’re not going to allow converts or any efforts to convert locals. Apostasy in SA is punishable by death, IIRC.

Muswell Hillbilly on March 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM

No.

Connie on March 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM

We need more dialogue, so Muslims can keep telling us to convert to Islam.

GermanAtheist on March 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM

[HawaiiLwyr on March 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM]

LOL. And I’m sure that the Church already recognizes that fact that Muslims believe he is a prophet and no doubt would be happy to do so again.

Dusty on March 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM

HawaiiLwyr on March 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM

It’s a matter of recognizing him as a divine figure who communicated with God — not the mere fact he existed.

amerpundit on March 20, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

“It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed.”

That’s exactly what I thought before reading it.

Remember what I told you before?

The essence, the core beliefs of Islam are two things:

1 – Conversion.

2 – Domination.

You know what “recognize the prophet Mohamed” means?

It means number 1.

Indy Conservative on March 20, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Connie on March 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM

The best response.

emailnuevo on March 20, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Do they know that if the Church recognizes him as a prophet, Catholics around the world will start carrying around drawings of Mohammed on prayer cards?

daryl_herbert on March 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM

So that would mean saying the Christian God is the Muslim God and Mohammed is superior to Jesus who did not die on the cross. And that Islam is Christianity and Judaism perfected.

Weigh that against the Peters pence rolling in to the Vatican accounts from the Saudi parishes. Worth it?

BL@KBIRD on March 20, 2008 at 6:49 PM

I think he’s recognized already. They just object to lumping him in with all the other pagans, I guess.

Asher on March 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM

On behalf of all Catholics, the Saudi regime can collectively DIAF if they think we’re doing that.

doubleplusundead on March 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM

He denied there were four million Christians in the kingdom and said the issue of human rights should not be used to call for the construction of a Christian church

That’s convenient.

I don’t know the nuance behind a possible mention of Muhammad in the Bible, let alone him being described a prophet… But I would say it’d be a dramatic change from Catholic, and most other Christian teachings. It’d be similarly convenient for the Catholic Church to concede this one.

Free Constitution on March 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM

“If they don’t recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?”

Recognize Mohammad for what he is, the prophet of death, and the Catholic church is there to save his soul.

Kini on March 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Hey, the Episcopalians would do it, probably.

exlibris on March 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Ummmmmmmmm……. what about this little inconvenient truth?

Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2008 at 6:54 PM

As Connie said above, NO.

Zorro on March 20, 2008 at 6:55 PM

In other words, Catholics can have any beliefs they want, as long as they’re the same as the Moslems’. Guess the Moslems are Progressives.

obladioblada on March 20, 2008 at 6:55 PM

I can’t believe so many people here don’t see this: They are asking for the second part of the Shahadah.

GermanAtheist on March 20, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Hey, the Episcopalians would do it, probably.

exlibris on March 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM

You mean the Anglicans, especially Dr. Geoffrey Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury who wants Britain to adopt the ‘Shari Law’ (Islamic barbaric laws).

I will not be surprised if the Episcopalians appoint the first openly-Muslim Bishop, since they already have the first openly-Gay one.

Indy Conservative on March 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM

*clears throat*

nunquam

gabriel sutherland on March 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM

There’s something flattering about the offer. They want recognition from the Christians. Kind of like the conservative sites still liking mention in the NY Times.

JiangxiDad on March 20, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Maybe the Rev. Wright’s church would fit in.

Kini on March 20, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Name of the clown brilliant strategist asshat who came up with this idea: Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies.

RushBaby on March 20, 2008 at 7:03 PM

On the brighter side, there is good news (if it can be believed) in the headlines:
http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=8400

RushBaby on March 20, 2008 at 7:07 PM

To my Catholic HA friends:

I am an Evangelical for reasons expressed here.

But I do have one question:

does the Catholic adherence to Inclusivism of Vatican II thereby entail a relatively easy acceptance of the Prophet Mohammed?

I am not intending to be contentious or mean-spirited.

This is just a question.

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM

“I testify that there is no god worthy of worship but God (Allah), and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

I can’t believe so many people here don’t see this: They are asking for the second part of the Shahadah.

GermanAtheist on March 20, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Exactly!

aquaviva on March 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Sure, no problem. The catholic church always will come up with “new” revelations to accomodate the “separated brethren”. Remember Fatima?

maynila on March 20, 2008 at 7:10 PM

This is not a debate on theology. Saudis don’t have freedom of religion on the government level. If their mosques somehow officially didn’t recognize churches, it’d be one thing. Nobody’s asking for that kind of recognition. People are demanding fundamental freedoms from the oppressive government.

freevillage on March 20, 2008 at 7:10 PM

This is just to make sure that it’s the Pope that rejects the notion. Not the Saudis. Very useful within Islam.

shaken on March 20, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Some of my friends who work there converted to islam just to gain good standing. They instantly have 100 percent pay increase just by reciting “there is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet”

maynila on March 20, 2008 at 7:15 PM

He denied there were four million Christians in the kingdom and said the issue of human rights should not be used to call for the construction of a Christian church.

Rick on March 20, 2008 at 7:15 PM

He denied there were four million Christians in the kingdom and said the issue of human rights should not be used to call for the construction of a Christian church.

Oops, my comment was deleted before for some reason.

Human rights do not apply in the Kingdom – unless you are male and Muslim.

Rick on March 20, 2008 at 7:17 PM

…only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed.

ALL Christian churches??? ALL?? What are the odds?

Maybe we should ban the Saudi-funded Wahabbi crapola from our shores. Sort of like balanced and fair religious trade – mimic their laws for our exports as our laws for their exports.

Dream on.

And don’t think this trailer is science fiction. Don’t forget to zoom to full screen for full effect.

fred5678 on March 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM

Why do we even pay attention to these backward clowns? Fourteen hundred years ago Mohammed tells everyone he’s had a visitation from the Angel Gabriel. Initial reaction seemed to have been :”yeah right, Mo. Have you been drinking again?” To which Mo replies “If you don’t believe me I’ll have your head cut off”- “well, now you put it like that, why wouldn’t we believe you?” Fourteen hundred years later and we’re still afraid to call bullshit on this. Can’t we just ask the Canadians to ramp up production from those tar sands so we can just ignore these asshats?

schiehallion on March 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Not a problem…The Christian churches will recognizes Mohammed as a prophet, and they can recognize Jesus as the part of the Trinity, Son of God, Creator of all things…and as a bonus, we get to hang a cheap plastic model of Mohommed from our rear view mirrors, or a Mohommed bobble head on the dash.

right2bright on March 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM

I don’t know the nuance behind a possible mention of Muhammad in the Bible, let alone him being described a prophet… But I would say it’d be a dramatic change from Catholic, and most other Christian teachings. It’d be similarly convenient for the Catholic Church to concede this one.

Free Constitution on March 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM

There is no nuance. There’s no mention of Mohammed in the Bible, period, not even in the deuterocanon (the 7 books Catholics have that non-Catholic Christians don’t). Catholics don’t believe he’s a prophet. End of story.

Anyway, the German Shepherd wouldn’t concede doctrine in this way. He useta be basically “VP In Charge of Keeping Catholic Faith and Doctrine Pure,” remember?

inviolet on March 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM

While Saudi mediators are working with the Vatican on negotiations to allow places of religious worship, some experts believe it will not occur without this recognition.

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

The elusive “some experts” becomes just this one guy’s wishful thinking in the space of a paragraph. Unless this Anwar Ashiqi cat has any actual pull on Saudi policy, this sounds to me like another case of the media trying to make an issue out of nothing.

SteakRules on March 20, 2008 at 7:32 PM

Will they accept the divinity of Christ?

Will they accept that he died on a cross?

dentalque on March 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM

If they won’t let pictures of him be published how am I supposed to recognize him?

What’s with the rule about not showing his picture anyway? Is it so he couldn’t be picked out of a lineup?

imshocked on March 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM

hmm I’ll vote no on recognising Mohammad as a prophet.

I really wonder if all of these “negotiations” by the Vatican with the Saudis about building Churches in Islams Holy Land was a clever ploy to demonstrate Benedict’s thesis at Regensburg that dialogue with Islam was extremely difficult because Islam is not based on reason.

irish_infidel on March 20, 2008 at 7:47 PM

Oh, PLEASE can I write the Church’s response?

We, the Holy and Apostolic Church, do hereby acknowledge Mohammad as an illiterate, pedophile warlord. And did we mention our boss is infallible?

darkpixel on March 20, 2008 at 7:51 PM

fred5678 on March 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM

UAC Documentary “An Inconvenient Religion”

Connie on March 20, 2008 at 7:55 PM

As a Catholic who is personally and entirely in charge of the faith of all the Catholics currently in the room with me, I hereby recognize the so-called-Prophet Mohammed as a pedophile warmonger.

Nessuno on March 20, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Churches in Saudi Arabia,I’m only joking
but maybe the Pope could strike a compromise
and have Mohammand put on the new sin list
and then see what their reaction might be!

Make sure your wheels up and afterburners
lit well when they read it thou! (snark!)

canopfor on March 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM

LMAO.

NFW.

NUTS.

desertdweller on March 20, 2008 at 8:04 PM

I recognize Muhammad and I would encourage the Church to recognize him as a false prophet and witting or unwitting tool of the devil, a child molester and war criminal. We should all recognize Muhammad. He is the crazy SOB with a bomb in his turban.

tommylotto on March 20, 2008 at 8:06 PM

….or a Mohommed bobble head on the dash.

right2bright on March 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM

We should do this anyway. I could put right next to my Derek Jeter bobble head.

dentalque on March 20, 2008 at 8:09 PM

Saudi’s try to look open to the idea if they could have “itsy bitsy concession”. Too funny.

Hog Wild on March 20, 2008 at 8:13 PM

I’m not down with this pope. John Paul seemed a little more
“chill” than this guy. I can promise him this though. If he will stop telling the US how to conduct it’s foreign policy, I won’t the Catholic church to better molest children.

THE CHOSEN ONE on March 20, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Recognizing Mohammad as a prophet of God would be one of the biggest ever slaps in Jesus’ face, and He has had many.

Hey, the Episcopalians would do it, probably.

exlibris on March 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM

I bet you are right, as many compromised denominations would.

Grafted on March 20, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Wow, I butchered my attempt at quoting exlibris!

Grafted on March 20, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Hmmm… change one of the fundamental teachings of our religion that Christ is the Messiah and therefore that Prophets, whose essential job was to fortell of his coming, categorically cannot appear after he has risen from the dead?

I’m going with no, Saudi King.

Oh, btw. How about that love your neighbor as I have loved you commandment. Any comment King? Any Wahhabbis gonna take that to heart? Yeah, didn’t think so.

BKennedy on March 20, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Coltsfan:

Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone

James 2:14-26.

14
6 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

According to Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia is impossible.

Just thought I’d like to mention that.

Oh, and the most sobering verse, which I’ve posted innumerable times as it regards specifically Mike Huckabee:

Matthew 7: 21-27:

21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’
24
“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”

“Does the will of my Father” is quite a bit stronger than “By Faith Alone.”

Don’t get me started on the whole “This is my body, this is my blood deal.” It’s written is scripture but gets suprisingly ignored in some denominations.

BKennedy on March 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM

BKennedy on March 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM

I have read your comments.

May I inquire as to your views concerning my earlier question:

But I do have one question:

does the Catholic adherence to Inclusivism of Vatican II thereby entail a relatively easy acceptance of the Prophet Mohammed?
ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Always remember, the Saudis are our good friends.

MB4 on March 20, 2008 at 9:05 PM

How ’bout it, Catholics?

How about NO!!!!!!!!

One of the saddest cliches of recent times is that if the Saudis will accept churches then we can accept mosques in the Western. I don’t care if the Saudis cede part of their territory to the Vatican no mosques should be tolerated in the West. I have no interest in spreading religious pluralism to the Gulf

Oh and don’t any commenter try to say this is hateful or whatever the current term is. Here on HA the colonisation of Britain and other Western countries is discussed openly, winked at and occasionally openly celebrated (by commenters, not HA staff). Knowing what we know about Islam’s intentions in the West the next mental step is to discriminate (yes, I actually used that word) against Islam. Oh the humanity!

aengus on March 20, 2008 at 9:05 PM

If the Catholic Church acknowledged Mohammad as a prophet, it would basically clapse the whole religion. Game over kids, go home.

AbaddonsReign on March 20, 2008 at 9:06 PM

Mosques are plenty, graveyards are plenty, but morals and whiskey are scarce. The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to drink. Their natural instinct does not permit them to be moral.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on March 20, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Mohammad is considered a minor gnostic heretic by Christianity, at best.

An anti-Christ, at worst.

A “Prophet” of doom, in modern terms.

Dante consigned Mo to “The Inferno” for his schismic message.

The sooner his blood-soaked name is forgotten from the Earth, forever, the better the world will be.

profitsbeard on March 20, 2008 at 9:08 PM

How about NO!!!!!!!!

One of the saddest cliches of recent times is that if the Saudis will accept churches then we can accept mosques in the Western. I don’t care if the Saudis cede part of their territory to the Vatican no mosques should be tolerated in the West. I have no interest in spreading religious pluralism to the Gulf

Oh and don’t any commenter try to say this is hateful or whatever the current term is. Here on HA the colonisation of Britain and other Western countries is discussed openly, winked at and occasionally openly celebrated (by commenters, not HA staff). Knowing what we know about Islam’s intentions in the West the next mental step is to discriminate (yes, I actually used that word) against Islam. Oh the humanity!

aengus on March 20, 2008 at 9:05 PM

aengus you make a great point about the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam. The motivation of the Vatican is to give Catholics living in Saudi Arabia a place to openly practice their faith, whereas the motivation of Muslims opening Mosques in the West is to conquer us!

irish_infidel on March 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Mohammad declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mohammad is the prophet of God. The faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat, but the command to propagate the Muslim creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
- John Adams

MB4 on March 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM

I’m not down with this pope. John Paul seemed a little more “chill” than this guy. I can promise him this though. If he will stop telling the US how to conduct it’s foreign policy, I won’t the Catholic church to better molest children.

THE CHOSEN ONE on March 20, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Bush requested an audience with the Pope asking for approval for his foreign policy and got his answer. If he didn’t care about the Pope’s opinion he shouldn’t have asked for it. If you don’t like your President seeking the Catholic Church’s advice then vote for a candidate who won’t. The Pope didn’t insert himself into the debate like a Code Pink nutjob he gave his considered (and requested) opinion.

aengus on March 20, 2008 at 9:21 PM

The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
- John Adams

MB4 on March 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM

And Islam becomes even more scarier, when the universal laws of logic are openly denied by the Islamic doctrine of abrogation.

If the laws of logic are not universal and invariate, then they are conventional. If the laws of logic are
conventional in nature, then they can be broken at a moment’s notice and we are left with arbitrary human opinion.

If the laws of logic are conventional in nature, and can be broken even by the Islamic conception of God, then we are left with the real possibility of an arbitrary, capricious evil deity.

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 9:28 PM

OK OK Already!! I recognize Mohammad as a profit! What’s the big deal! Let’s just tax him and get it over with.

Bootleghooch on March 20, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Well, recognize him as an illiterate, pedophilic prophet, ok.

Little Boomer on March 20, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
- Matthew

MB4 on March 20, 2008 at 9:47 PM

This is a non-starter.

Iblis on March 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM

This is just to make sure that it’s the Pope that rejects the notion. Not the Saudis. Very useful within Islam.
shaken on March 20, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Yep, Islam- Mo (pissbeuponhim) followers do sometimes try to follow a couple of rules. ( barbaric as they are)
i.e. Offer islam to infidels. If they refuse either charge the tax (jizya?) or kill them.
This ‘offer’ or “acceptance of mo” was the “offer of islam” to Catholics, the infidels, the ‘offer’ is a muslims first step to mohamed’s command, the order to then kill Catholics.
Thats why osama used to release warnings and AQ will occasionally do the same.

shooter on March 20, 2008 at 10:10 PM

p.s.
I saw somewhere today a story about a million plus Christians in IRAN.
SOOOO, the Iranians were upping the death penalty for muslims converting to Christianity.

shooter on March 20, 2008 at 10:21 PM

does the Catholic adherence to Inclusivism of Vatican II thereby entail a relatively easy acceptance of the Prophet Mohammed?
ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM

To answer your question,
No.
Ecumenism does not equal inclusivism.
Mohammed is not a prophet.

As Catholic as the Pope,
inviolet

inviolet on March 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM

inviolet on March 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Thank you.

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Let the Church recognize Mo; no necessarily as a prophet, but as a child molester, a murderer, a thief, a goat and camel “lover” a …

BowHuntingTexas on March 20, 2008 at 10:32 PM

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Very welcome. :) Happy Easter, BTW.

inviolet on March 20, 2008 at 10:41 PM

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Hmmmm. Perhaps I spoke too soon. I think I didn’t understand what you meant by “inclusivism.” Sorry, should’ve asked.

I thought you meant that “all religions are basically the same.” Catholics don’t believe that. But maybe you meant this:

2. “Inclusivism” is the position that one religion is uniquely true but salvation is accessible to those outside of that faith…[it could be possible that] People of other faiths can be saved by Jesus even if they do not explicitly believe in Him…The Roman Catholic “Vatican II Council” of the 1960s explicitly declared that people of other religions could be saved.

Is that what you meant by “inclusivist?”

inviolet on March 20, 2008 at 10:51 PM

I can’t believe this is true!! If it is i’m glad i’m a pius the Tenth member since 1984…. I never felt good with the new mass… Remember the last secret of Fatima……

beachkatie on March 20, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Hmmmm. Perhaps I spoke too soon. I think I didn’t understand what you meant by “inclusivism.” Sorry, should’ve asked.

Thanks for your response. I was perplexed by your initial response, but I didn’t want to point it out due to my concern of possible misunderstanding of my motive, given that I am one of the better-known Protestant commentators here at HA.

I thought you meant that “all religions are basically the same.” Catholics don’t believe that. But maybe you meant this:

2. “Inclusivism” is the position that one religion is uniquely true but salvation is accessible to those outside of that faith…[it could be possible that] People of other faiths can be saved by Jesus even if they do not explicitly believe in Him…The Roman Catholic “Vatican II Council” of the 1960s explicitly declared that people of other religions could be saved.

Is that what you meant by “inclusivist?”

inviolet on March 20, 2008 at 10:51 PM

You are correct.

I knew Rome disagreed with Religious Pluralism. I also knew Vatican II affirmed Inclusivism. That led to my earlier question.

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 11:07 PM

JUST SAY NO.

CP on March 20, 2008 at 11:21 PM

How can we possibly recognize him, no one knows what he looks like because we can’t print his picture?

Thank you, I’ll be here all week, try the veal.

Alden Pyle on March 20, 2008 at 11:23 PM

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 11:07 PM

OK. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for my haste. :) BTW, did know you were a non-Catholic Christian, as a lot of times I’m at work when the religious threads are going on but I catch up later.

So I guess my more corrected answer is: we believe the Islamic religion is false and that Mohammed is not a prophet. Inclusivism, as that site’s defined it, doesn’t mean you think other religions are true.

Just BTW, one quick caveat – am keepin’ it really short since this thread isn’t about inclusivism per se but I’ve found that some non-Catholic Christians aren’t familiar with how Catholics mean that term – Catholics’ understanding of inclusivism does not mean that “Catholics think you can be saved without Jesus.” ONLY Jesus saves, but sometimes He can save people through unexpected ways. A too-short way to say it, but that’s basically how the Catholic Church understands it.

Hope you have a blessed and happy Easter.

inviolet on March 20, 2008 at 11:35 PM

inviolet on March 20, 2008 at 11:35 PM

Thank you for your comments.

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 11:42 PM

“We recognize that you think he’s a prophet. All set?

So, our architectural plans for the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Mecca have it looking like Hagia Sophia on steroids…”

DRPrice on March 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM

I have a pretty firm conviction that there are NO church denominations in the US that will accept old Mo as a prophet.

By the way, coltsfan, Martin Luther got his solo gratia in the Book of Romans. It is by faith we are saved and that by grace alone. The book of James shows us how to live once we have appropriated that faith.

There are six little words that sum up all the laws and the prophets: LOVE GOD, LOVE MAN, BE GOOD.

TimothyJ on March 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM

By the way, coltsfan, Martin Luther got his solo gratia in the Book of Romans. It is by faith we are saved and that by grace alone. The book of James shows us how to live once we have appropriated that faith.

There are six little words that sum up all the laws and the prophets: LOVE GOD, LOVE MAN, BE GOOD.

TimothyJ on March 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM

Hi TimothyJ:

Yes, I am already familiar with that.

Are you confusing me with BKennedy?

Bkennedy was the one disagreeing with the historic Martin Luther position. He represents the Catholic position, not me.

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 11:52 PM

You are right, he was addressing you, where I got your name. My most humble apologies for the mistake.

TimothyJ on March 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM

My most humble apologies for the mistake.
TimothyJ on March 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM

There is no problem, my friend.

ColtsFan on March 20, 2008 at 11:57 PM

solo gratia in the Book of Romans. It is by faith we are saved and that by grace alone.
TimothyJ on March 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM

The quote of course is (Eph 2:9):

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.

BY grace, THROUGH faith (which is of course itself the gift of God – otherwise the sinner’s prayer would be just another “work.”). Catholics believe the distinction is crucial to understanding the rest of the Bible. His free grace inspires both the faith and the works, by which we will be in part judged (See Romans 2:5-10, for example, where the text and context makes clear that our good or bad deeds will lead to either our immortality [Heaven] or wrath and fury [Hell].) OUR righteousness is as filthy rags, but HIS righteousness leads to the reward of Heaven. What a wonderful Lord we serve Who rewards us for accepting the faith and the works, His gifts!

So you’re absolutely right to say “sola gratia” and not “sola fide.”

Just to clarify: Luther, however, held to “sola fide” not “sola gratia.” Luther also wanted to toss out the book of James from the canon, calling it “an epistle of straw” for James’ “justified by works [also] and not by faith alone” comments, but his followers talked him out of it.

ColtsFan has been extremely polite tonight, and you too. I welcome further discussion from either of you, if either of you is interested, on these or other matters. Unfortunately have to turn in now for work tomorrow but will check in early tomorrow. Hope you both have a good evening.

inviolet on March 21, 2008 at 12:27 AM

I might recognize him if you showed me a picture. It seems we’re at an impasse.

Mark Jaquith on March 21, 2008 at 12:41 AM

“Does the will of my Father” is quite a bit stronger than “By Faith Alone.”

Don’t get me started on the whole “This is my body, this is my blood deal.” It’s written is scripture but gets suprisingly ignored in some denominations.

BKennedy on March 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM

I’ll see your “faith plus works” argument and raise you a “This is the work of God, to believe on him whom he hath sent.”

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Note that to “believe on” implies not just a belief in something as a fact, but an act of putting trust in someone or something. Much like getting on an elevator shows a certain faith in the elevator to perform its function. You can believe an elevator will take you to the next floor, but that belief does you no good until you trust to the elevator by, you know, actually getting on it.

Along this same line is John 5:38:

John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

See also John 11:42 and 17:21, among many others.

The point of James’ statement that faith without works is dead is exactly this: It means nothing to say you believe, you must act on that belief. The devils believe there is one God, but they don’t come to God, so their belief goes no further than their own minds.

Note also that there is absolutely no problem with mixing faith and works. As James puts it, show me your faith without your works, and I’ll show you my faith by my works.

However, it is not possible to mix grace and works. If you’re saved by grace, then you’re not saved by works. If you’re saved by works, then you’re not saved by grace.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Misunderstanding the passage in James has led to all sorts of confusion and silly theories over the years, such as believing there was some massive struggle in the early church between the “James” camp and the “Paul” camp.

Paul rejected any such dissensions and rebuked the Corinthians for practicing them, asking, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”

1 Corinthians 1:12-15
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas [Peter]; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

This is the single biggest problem with the Catholic emphasis on works. While we should have both faith and works, the actual work of salvation is God’s alone. If you trust at all in your own works, then you’re not trusting in God.

God does not accept partial credit for salvation.

theregoestheneighborhood on March 21, 2008 at 12:59 AM

“If they don’t recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?”

The same way there are mosques in every western nation.

It’s called tolerance.

labrat on March 21, 2008 at 1:41 AM

theregoestheneighborhood on March 21, 2008 at 12:59 AM

Excellent.

labrat on March 21, 2008 at 1:48 AM

It means number 1.

Indy Conservative on March 20, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Exactly. To accept Muhammad, is to declare shahada.

labrat on March 21, 2008 at 2:04 AM

BY grace, THROUGH faith (which is of course itself the gift of God – otherwise the sinner’s prayer would be just another “work.”). Catholics believe the distinction is crucial to understanding the rest of the Bible. His free grace inspires both the faith and the works, by which we will be in part judged

So very, very close to a statement I can support, but that last part, by which we will be in part judged, implies our eternal salvation is judged in part by our works, thereby mixing grace and works.

Yes, faith is of God, and therefore can rightly be called a gift. And you could certainly argue that that faith inspires us to good works, so those good works could also be called a gift. Except that now you’re declaring works to be a gift, which confuses the fact that works are something you earn by doing, and a gift is something unearned. In other words, a gift is something given, not earned.

But the gift in the passages quoted is actually the gift of salvation itself. Faith is the means of appropriating the gift of salvation, as the wording of Eph 2:8 makes clear.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Through faith means that we obtain this salvation by means of faith.

(See Romans 2:5-10, for example, where the text and context makes clear that our good or bad deeds will lead to either our immortality [Heaven] or wrath and fury [Hell].)

Yes, our good or bad deeds will certainly lead to either immortality or wrath and fury. But guess what? Paul says that absolutely no one will attain to immortality by good works. In fact, he proceeds to say that those who sinned knowing the law will be judged by the law (Rom 2:12), that the Jews who pride themselves in knowing the law dishonor God by breaking the law (Rom 2:23), that “we have before [i.e., in the preceding text] proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin” (Rom 3:9), that no one is righteous (Rom 3:10), that there is none that doeth good (Rom 3:12), that all have sinned (Rom 3:23), and that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). If you want to argue that our works have something to do with salvation, it’s foolish to turn to the book of Romans for support.

The key to understanding all scripture is to read it in context. The epistle to the Romans is the most theological, structured, and closely argued of all Paul’s epistles. In chapter 1, Paul discusses why the Gentiles are sinners. In chapter 2, Paul discusses why the Jews are also sinners. In chapter 3, Paul wraps up why both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, and why absolutely no one will be saved by their good works. It is at the end of chapter 3 that Paul turns to the subject of being justified by grace through faith, and not by works.

So Paul’s statement here about good works earning immortality are in the context of his assertion that no one has earned this immortality by works. Jews and Gentiles alike are saved only by grace, never by works. And that grace is obtained through faith, which itself is given us by God.

theregoestheneighborhood on March 21, 2008 at 2:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2