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?

Tags:

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

I’m sure they’ll go for it.

Virus-X on March 21, 2008 at 4:10 AM

Benedict has balls, he would never go for it. We could recognize him as a child raping murderous prick though… and we’d only being historically accurate.

libertytexan on March 21, 2008 at 4:41 AM

theregoestheneighborhood on March 21, 2008 at 2:14 AM

First of all, let’s clarify exactly what Catholics believe, since you misstated it somewhat (sorry, but true).

Catholics believe: we are saved by grace through faith, as Ephesians says. God does it all. Just because we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” as James put it, does not mean Catholics believe that our own efforts save us. NUN UH. GOD DOES IT ALL; WE CAN DO NOTHING TO SAVE OURSELVES; ALL WE CAN DO ON OUR OWN IS REFUSE THE GRACE WHICH WILL LEAD US TO ETERNAL LIFE.

I grant you that sometimes Christians, including Catholics, don’t use the longhand I just used above.

But just as some weathermen use the shorthand “sunset occurs at 7:30″ instead of being more accurate and saying “the earth will orbit the sun at such a point that the sun will appear to go beyond the horizon, at 7:30 pm”), Christians, and not only Catholics mind you, will use the shorthand, as a non-Catholic did above in the thread, “you need to do good” in addition to having faith.

Believe me, we understand, as the vast majority of Christians do, that we don’t earn ourselves into Heaven, as no one could ever earn that.

But God does expect us to cooperate with His grace and do good works.

More in the next post [continued...]

inviolet on March 21, 2008 at 7:43 AM

OK. Now that we understand that Catholics don’t believe we do (or even can) earn our way into Heaven.

You said,

The key to understanding all scripture is to read it in context.

Catholics believe this too. We know that we need to look not only at the context surrounding a text, but also other texts and the context surrounding THOSE texts, to understand any Scripture properly.

With that in mind, let’s look at one simple example first. You mentioned righteousness.

Isaiah 64:4:5 says:

“Would that you might meet us doing right, that we were mindful of you in our ways! Behold, you are angry, and we are sinful; all of us have become like unclean men, all our righteousness is like polluted rags…”

He’s talking, in context, about an unrepentant Israel.

Now here’s Hebrews 12:

“At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it. So strengthen your drooping hands and your weak knees

.”

This is just one of many examples which talk about righteousness in a positive way.

In context, we see that OUR righteousness (good acts done without repentance and faith, or unaided by grace) is as filthy rags. But God’s righteousness (His grace which leads us to faith and good acts) will get us to Heaven.

So you can’t just say “no one is righteous” (Romans 3:10). No one is righteous ON THEIR OWN. In context, Romans 3:9-18 is talking about those who are “under the domination of sin” and have “no fear of God before their eyes” and do all kinds of wicked things.

We are OTOH expected to be righteous “with the righteousness of God”. See, among other places, Philippians 3:8-11:

More than that, I even consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things and I consider them so much rubbish, that I may gain Christ
and be found in him, not having any righteousness of my own based on the law but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God, depending on faith
to know him and the power of his resurrection and (the) sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death,
if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

I meant to get to a bigger example here, the one about faith and works which you addressed, but am off to a prayer service (yes, really: it’s Good Friday).

so, briefly, [continued in next post]

inviolet on March 21, 2008 at 8:16 AM

(continued)

So, very briefly, wanted to use context to address your point about justification by faith:

Here’s Galatians 2:

We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles,
16
(yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 16
17
But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? 17 Of course not!

Here’s James 2:

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.

IN the individual texts, justification is said to be not by works of the law in Galatians 2, and by works [in addition to faith] in James 2.

These two do not contradict each other because of the context, as you so aptly pointed out.

Galatians 2 is talking, in context, about CIRCUMCISION and works of the JEWISH LAW. James 2 is talking about (both) good works of charity (see first part) and the work of faith (see last part).

BOttom line: I don’t expect you to necessarily agree with the Catholic position (it’d be nice tho since I believe it’s true :) ).

BUt I hope you can see that the Catholic position does have considerable scriptural merit. I also think you can already see, as you alluded to in your post, that our positions (the Catholic Christian and the non-Catholic Christian ones–sorry I don’t use the word “Protestants” since I’ve found some other Christians see it as insulting) are perhaps closer than some Christians think.

Really gotta go now. I hope to have time to check in later but am not sure. If not, hope you have a nice Easter.

inviolet on March 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM

One more thing: works ARE a gift of God. We don’t earn Heaven. He works in us “both to desire and to work” (Phil 2:12-13)

So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. 12
13
For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.

inviolet on March 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM

You’ve got to be careful to parse exactly what Muslims say. He said all the Christian churches recognize Mohammed. That means that if even one protestant denomination doesn’t, the deal’s off. Personally, I’d prefer to shame the Muslim countries into dumping their apostasy laws and watch Islam crash and burn on its own.

Kafir on March 21, 2008 at 8:58 AM

I think this could work with the correct nuance.

The Catholics could recognise Momo as the Prophet of Islam, as a deranged psychotic and murderous pedophile and as founder of the world’s most violent and intolerant ‘religion’.

Sheikh it baby.

Ares on March 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Given the commitment demonstrated by most Catholics of my generation, I think this is a very workable request.

Enrique on March 21, 2008 at 10:03 AM

“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.”

(Butthead)Huh-huh, huh-huh. There he is. Huh-huh, huh-huh.(/Butthead)

JohnW on March 21, 2008 at 10:06 AM

He said all the Christian churches recognize Mohammed. That means that if even one protestant denomination doesn’t, the deal’s off.

Kafir on March 21, 2008 at 8:58 AM

That’s exactly right. This is all a bunch of hooka smoke and mirrors. And you gotta love this bit as well:

A member of Saudi Arabia’s Consultative Council, Abdelaziz al-Thinani, rejected the prelate’s claims saying that there were no Christians among the Saudis who were all Muslims.

“Those few Christians do not reside in the country permanently, they come and go,” he said.

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.

Yep…Freedom of religious expression has nothing to do with human rights. Apparently in Saudi Arabia neither does life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

scatbug on March 21, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Imitation is flattering, intimidation is hideous.

The west (civilized world) allows the establishment of various houses of worship to exist to allow its citizens to worship the one supreme being of their choice.

When people want to pay their respect to another deity to service the inner needs requiring/demanding them to also pay the same level of devotion to another creates an internal conflict that leads to increased tension. That said, demanding that Islamic beliefs also be taught by other religious entity is hypocritical.

Let a western culture demand that Buddhism be taught in an Muslim House of Worship and you end up with an explosive situation (Remember what al Quada did to the Buddhist Shrines in Afghanistan months before 9/11)

MSGTAS on March 21, 2008 at 10:17 AM

There should be no preconditions on building churches in Saudi Arabia. After all, the Italians did not demand the Muslims change their religious doctrine when they allowed mosques to be built in Italy, including the biggest mosque in Europe a couple miles from Vatican City. If such a demand is made to incorporate Islamic doctrine into Catholic doctrine, it should be properly seen as yet another attempt by supremacist Muslim bastards to make other religions bow to Mecca. It is a soft jihad campaign.

Allowing other religions to build houses of worship in Saudi Arabia would reciprocate the religious tolerance generously extended by the civilized Western world to the barbarous Saudis and their Wahhabi death cult. Choosing a path of religious tolerance would also indicate a change of vector by the Saudis from their current covert foreign policy of a worldwide campaign of terror to promote their religion which will ultimately lead to the invasion of their country, destruction of their government, and annihilation of their bloodthirsty Wahhabi clergy.

Tantor on March 21, 2008 at 10:29 AM

I recognize that Mohammad existed.

I also recognize that he was a prophet…A messenger of Satan.

I recognized that he was also a mass murderer and a child rapist.

I hope the Pope acknowledges and recognizes the same thing…publicly.

Tim Burton on March 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Nope.

As to some other commentators mentioning Episcopals, there was an Episcopalian priest a few months ago (I think female African-American in Washington State, but I don’t have the link handy) who declared she is also Muslim. If my memory is correct, some colleagues approved but it did not go very far in official channels.

At least, that’s my memory of the situation.

As to Catholics, as noted above Benedict is a tolerant but doctrinally conservative leader. Recognize Mohammed, in a manner that contradicts basic Catholic Christology? Not gonna happen.

cs89 on March 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM

We have recognized Muhammed for millenniums but we call him Satan.

BL@KBIRD on March 21, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Well any prophet who lived after Christ should also be a saint, yes? Patron saint of what I’ll leave to someone with a security detail.

Now, Catholics make icons of their saints, yes? So let’s produce a statue of Saint Muhammad. That will get both Christians and Muslims rioting. Viola, unity!

raybury on March 21, 2008 at 7:18 PM

theregoestheneighborhood on March 21, 2008 at 2:14 AM

First of all, let’s clarify exactly what Catholics believe, since you misstated it somewhat (sorry, but true).

Catholics believe: we are saved by grace through faith, as Ephesians says. God does it all. Just because we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” as James put it, does not mean Catholics believe that our own efforts save us. NUN UH. GOD DOES IT ALL; WE CAN DO NOTHING TO SAVE OURSELVES; ALL WE CAN DO ON OUR OWN IS REFUSE THE GRACE WHICH WILL LEAD US TO ETERNAL LIFE.

I grant you that sometimes Christians, including Catholics, don’t use the longhand I just used above.

But just as some weathermen use the shorthand “sunset occurs at 7:30″ instead of being more accurate and saying “the earth will orbit the sun at such a point that the sun will appear to go beyond the horizon, at 7:30 pm”), Christians, and not only Catholics mind you, will use the shorthand, as a non-Catholic did above in the thread, “you need to do good” in addition to having faith.

Believe me, we understand, as the vast majority of Christians do, that we don’t earn ourselves into Heaven, as no one could ever earn that.

But God does expect us to cooperate with His grace and do good works.

More in the next post [continued…]

inviolet on March 21, 2008 at 7:43 AM

Appreciate the careful post, and sorry I haven’t had a chance to check back and respond before now.

First, I should note that I was not trying to state Catholic doctrine per se. The point of my post is that some people confuse what James says about having works with your faith to mixing works with grace. But salvation is not part grace and part work. Again,

Rom 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.

There is simply not some middle ground where your works mingle with God’s grace to attain salvation.

Maybe saying that you can’t earn your way to Heaven is not quite clear enough. Let’s put it another way: what else do you think you have to do to have God’s grace?

I would suspect your answer would be a list like the following:

Baptism
Mass
Confirmation
Confession
Marriage
Holy orders
Extreme unction (now renamed “anointing the sick”)

And the reason I suspect a list like this, is because these are what the Catholic church considers “sacraments”. Which means, quite literally — if somewhat oversimplified — things you do that help you obtain God’s grace.

Of course, if these things are necessary for salvation, then grace is not sufficient. Especially for someone like myself, who never has — and never will — confessed to a Catholic priest, attended a Catholic mass, been through confirmation, or pursued Catholic “holy orders.” Although I have been baptized, partaken of the Lord’s supper, and married, none of them were in a Catholic church.

If grace requires these things, then grace is not sufficient for salvation. Historically, this was exactly the position of the Catholic church: that you had to be in the Catholic church and receive the sacraments to have eternal life.

Again, regardless of whether you’re Catholic or Church of Christ, salvation is by grace. It’s a gift. James’ statement about having faith and works does not teach that you need grace and works.

theregoestheneighborhood on March 22, 2008 at 2:40 AM

BTW, have to love the “offer” from the Saudi cleric. We can put a church in Saudi Arabia just as soon as we change the entire Christian religion to accept Mohammed as a prophet.

Sad to say, I’m sure there are those who already do…

theregoestheneighborhood on March 22, 2008 at 2:44 AM

OK. Now that we understand that Catholics don’t believe we do (or even can) earn our way into Heaven.

You said,

The key to understanding all scripture is to read it in context.

Catholics believe this too. We know that we need to look not only at the context surrounding a text, but also other texts and the context surrounding THOSE texts, to understand any Scripture properly.

With that in mind, let’s look at one simple example first. You mentioned righteousness.

Isaiah 64:4:5 says:

“Would that you might meet us doing right, that we were mindful of you in our ways! Behold, you are angry, and we are sinful; all of us have become like unclean men, all our righteousness is like polluted rags…”

He’s talking, in context, about an unrepentant Israel.

Now here’s Hebrews 12:

“At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it. So strengthen your drooping hands and your weak knees

.”

This is just one of many examples which talk about righteousness in a positive way.

In context, we see that OUR righteousness (good acts done without repentance and faith, or unaided by grace) is as filthy rags. But God’s righteousness (His grace which leads us to faith and good acts) will get us to Heaven.

The parallel between “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” and “there is none righteous, no, not one,” are pretty clear. Both speak of the people who depend on their own righteousness, rather than relying on God’s righteousness. This is made quite clear in the parable of the pharisee and the publican.

Luke 18:9-14
9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Unfortunately, your next example doesn’t fit at all. The context in this passage is not about lost people who can’t see their own sin and need of salvation, but people who are saved, and yet not living as they should. Hebrews 12 tells us that a child of God who is not living right is subject to chastening — NOT punishment in hell — and that this chastening, while unpleasant, is in fact a sign of being a child of God.

Heb 12:5-13
5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

Obviously, this text establishes both that it is possible for the saved to do wrong, and that they do not then lose their salvation. Otherwise, the whole “God chastening His children” thing would make no sense.

So you can’t just say “no one is righteous” (Romans 3:10).

Ok, I’ll just let God say it, then ;->

No one is righteous ON THEIR OWN. In context, Romans 3:9-18 is talking about those who are “under the domination of sin” and have “no fear of God before their eyes” and do all kinds of wicked things.

Which is everyone in the world, according to God, until they are saved. “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” as Rom 3:19 puts it.

We are OTOH expected to be righteous “with the righteousness of God”. See, among other places, Philippians 3:8-11:
….
so, briefly, [continued in next post]

inviolet on March 21, 2008 at 8:16 AM

The saved are in a different category, having received eternal life and the righteousness of God. We then have the responsibility to live rightly, but have already escaped the condemnation of the wrath of God.

Chastening is still a possibility, though!

theregoestheneighborhood on March 22, 2008 at 3:19 AM

So, very briefly, wanted to use context to address your point about justification by faith:

Here’s Galatians 2:

We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles,
16
(yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 16
17
But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? 17 Of course not!

Here’s James 2:

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.

IN the individual texts, justification is said to be not by works of the law in Galatians 2, and by works [in addition to faith] in James 2.

These two do not contradict each other because of the context, as you so aptly pointed out.

Galatians 2 is talking, in context, about CIRCUMCISION and works of the JEWISH LAW. James 2 is talking about (both) good works of charity (see first part) and the work of faith (see last part).

The significance of the Jewish law was this: you had to keep the whole law, in contrast to the gospel, as Romans 10 makes clear.

Romans 10:3-9
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

James is very clearly talking about something else entirely, since he never suggests that the works that go along with faith have something to do with being born again.

BOttom line: I don’t expect you to necessarily agree with the Catholic position (it’d be nice tho since I believe it’s true :) ).

BUt I hope you can see that the Catholic position does have considerable scriptural merit. I also think you can already see, as you alluded to in your post, that our positions (the Catholic Christian and the non-Catholic Christian ones–sorry I don’t use the word “Protestants” since I’ve found some other Christians see it as insulting) are perhaps closer than some Christians think.

Sometimes very close, and sometimes very, very far away. As in when we both say we’re saved by grace, but Catholic grace includes the sacraments and good works.

BTW, “Protestant” is not insulting. It’s simply inaccurate. Many people use the work “protestant” to apply to all non-Catholic Christian denominations, but it really only applies to those who “protested” and came out of the Catholic church, such as the Reformed/Presbyterian, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran/Evangelical, and such second-generation Protestants as the Methodists (by way of the Anglicans).

Of course, Catholic doctrine clings firmly to the belief that ALL Christian churches derive from Catholicism, so they see nothing wrong with applying the word Protestant to Baptists, “Plymouth” brethren, Church of Christ, etc., even though these groups never “protested” and left the Catholic church.

Really gotta go now. I hope to have time to check in later but am not sure. If not, hope you have a nice Easter.

inviolet on March 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM

Have a good weekend.

theregoestheneighborhood on March 22, 2008 at 3:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2