For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast.--Ephesians 2:8-9 RSVThe Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly teach that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that works do not save from sin, but it is faith that saves, faith is not strictly from us, but from God (therefore an unmerited gift); that salvation by faith is a gift of God; that we are not saved by our freewill (though we do have a freewill and it must comply with the divine will), but by the Will of God. This does not deny the Church's teaching on justification by works, since Ephesians 2 is about being saved, justification by works only occurs AFTER salvation has taken place, so therefore works are irrelevant to Ephesians 2:8-9 which is why they are only mentioned in verse 10. Nor was it ever seen as denying baptism saves, since it was taught by the fathers, and was never seen as a "work" that we do, but also from God.St John Chrysostom (4th century Greek Patriarch of Constantinople):
Ver. 8. "For by grace," says he "have you been saved."
In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise you too high, observe how he brings you down: "by grace you have been saved," says he,
"Through faith;"
Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds,
"And that not of ourselves."
Neither is faith, he means, "of ourselves." Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? For "how," says he, "shall they believe, unless they hear?" Romans 10:14 So that the work of faith itself is not our own.
"It is the gift," said he, "of God," it is "not of works."
Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, says he, has required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saves, but it is because God so wills, that faith saves. Since, how, tell me, does faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God.
Ver. 9. "That no man should glory."
That he may excite in us proper feeling touching this gift of grace. "What then?" says a man, "Hath He Himself hindered our being justified by works?" By no means. But no one, he says, is justified by works, in order that the grace and loving-kindness of God may be shown. He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He has saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast. And then, lest when you hear that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, you should become idle, observe how he continues....--St John Chysostom, Homily 4 on Ephesians
We see that St John Chrysostom says we do no merit salvation by our deeds, or by our will. Not that those to have no role, but they are not what saves us, God's grace does, He wills that we be saved by faith. St John comments on 1 Corinthians 1:1,
"Called to be Saints." For even this, to be saved by faith, is not says he, of yourselves; for you did not first draw near, but were called; so that not even this small matter is yours altogether. However, though you had drawn near, accountable as you are for innumerable wickednesses, not even so would the grace be yours, but God's. Hence also, writing to the Ephesians, he said, [Ephesians 2:8] "By grace have you been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves;" not even the faith is yours altogether; for you were not first with your belief, but obeyed a call. --St John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on 1 Corinthians
Pope Leo the Great (5th century Pope of Rome):
And when they pretend to disapprove of and give up all their definitions to facilitate evasion through their complete art of deception, unless their meaning is detected, they make exception of the dogma that the grace of God is given according to the merits of the recipient. And yet surely, unless it is given freely, it is not a gift , but a price and compensation for merits: for the blessed Apostle says, "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves but it is the gift of God; not of works lest any should perchance be exalted. For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God prepared that we should walk in them [Ephesians 2:8-10] ." Thus every bestowal of good works is of God's preparing: because a man is justified by grace rather than by his own excellence: for grace is to every one the source of righteousness, the source of good and the fountain of merit. But these heretics say it is anticipated by men's natural goodness for this reason, that that nature which (in their view) is before grace conspicuous for good desires of its own, may not seem marred by any stain of original sin, and that what the Truth says may be falsified: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. "--Pope Leo the Great, Letter 1, to the Bishop of Aquileia
St Leo says Ephesians 2:8-10 teaches "grace" is the "source of righteousness."St Polycarp (2nd century Greek bishop of Smyrna in Asian minor):
I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, because you have followed the example of true love [as displayed by God], and have accompanied, as became you, those who were bound in chains, the fitting ornaments of saints, and which are indeed the diadems of the true elect of God and our Lord; and because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days Philippians 1:5 long gone by, endures even until now, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] "whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave." "In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;" 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that "by grace you are saved, not of works," [Ephesians 2:8-9] but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.--St Polycarp, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 1
St Augustine of Hippo (4th/5th century Latin bishop of Hippo in North Africa):
His last clause runs thus: "I have kept the faith." But he who says this is the same who declares in another passage, "I have obtained mercy that I might be faithful." [1 Corinthians 7:25] He does not say, "I obtained mercy because I was faithful," but "in order that I might be faithful," thus showing that even faith itself cannot be had without God's mercy, and that it is the gift of God. This he very expressly teaches us when he says, "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." [Ephesians 2:8] They might possibly say, "We received grace because we believed;" as if they would attribute the faith to themselves, and the grace to God. Therefore, the apostle having said, "You are saved through faith," added, And that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God. And again, lest they should say they deserved so great a gift by their works, he immediately added, "Not of works, lest any man should boast." [Ephesians 2:9] Not that he denied good works, or emptied them of their value, when he says that God renders to every man according to his works; [Romans 2:6] but because works proceed from faith, and not faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself, concerning which it is written, "The just shall live by faith." [Habakkuk 2:4]--St Augustine, On Grace and Freewill, Chapter 17, AD 426/427
Council of Orange II (AD 529, local council of bishop in what is modern day southern France):
Canon5. If anyone says that not
only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very
desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the
ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says
that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that
is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and
turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to
godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the
Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a
good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus
Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved
through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God"
(Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in
God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of
Christ by definition in some measure believers.
Conclusion. And thus according to the passages of
holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient
Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as
follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free
will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe
in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy
has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith
which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle
Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given
through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed
by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after
the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free
will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness
of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle
Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake
of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for
his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you
will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6).
And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it
is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as
the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful"
(1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was
faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you
did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment
and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of
lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except
what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable
passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case
for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity,
because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed
sufficient. --Council of Orange II, AD 529
Here is how the Jehovah Witnesses interpreted the book of Revelation in 1917/1918 under their founder Charles Taze Russell in the book, The Finished Mystery. Here are some excerpts:
12:1.
And
there appeared a great wonder.—Sign, Greek.—Rev.
1:1.
A
Woman.—The early Church, Nominal Zion, (D. 591),
originally a chaste Virgin.—2 Cor. 11:2; Matt. 9:15; 22:2; John
3:29; Eph. 5:25, 32.
12:2.
And
[she] being with child.—As a result of the Mystery of
Iniquity which was working within her.—2 Thes. 2:7.
And pained to be
delivered.—Desired to get rid of the loathsome thing
from which, by the machinations of Satan, she was at the time
suffering. In a sense the birth of the Antichrist from the early
Church was a counterfeit of the birth of Christ from the virgin
Mary, the one a manifestation of the power of God, the other of
Satan.—John 16:21, 22.
So far we see that the woman=church, who is unchaste, and the child in here the "mystery of iniquity," and a 'counterfeit' of the Virgin birth. In verse 5 of the commentary, we learn exactly who he think the "child" is:
12:5.
And
she brought forth a man child.—The papacy.—Z.
'79-12-2.
Yet, despite bearing this "mystery of iniquity" Russell says
12:6.
And
the woman.—The true Church of God.
This is strange, since if the woman is the Church, and the woman is no longer a virgin, and the child is the "mystery of iniquity" who is the father? Is it Christ? Or did she commit adultery or was raped? If the father is Christ, then why is the child the "mystery of iniquity"? If the woman committed adultery, then why is she still called the "true church of God"? If rape, why no mention? When he said the birth in this chapter was a "manifestation of the power....of Satan" was he called Satan the father of the child? Perhaps, we are expecting to much from Chaz Russell!
Continuing on, with the same verse
Fled Into the
wilderness.—“Error, always
more popular than truth, when exalted to influence and power,
hunted down, proscribed and made disreputable the truth, and all
who held it. This was the time when the true Church (woman) fled
into the wilderness—into solitude—an outcast because of her
fidelity to the truth, and to the true Lord and Head of the
Church.”—B. 329.
Where she hath a
place prepared of God.—“The
secret place of the Most High.”—Psa. 91:1.
That
they.—The antitypical ravens that fed the Elijah
class, the unknown, “faithful men”
who, in secret, broke the bread of life to those that hungered for
righteousness.
Should feed her
there.—As Elijah was fed in the wilderness.—Rev.
2:20.
A thousand two
hundred and threescore days.—1260 years, from A. D.
539 to 1799.—Rev. 11:2, 3.
So the "true Church" is the woman (despite not being called a virgin and bearing the wicked child), and she is safe til 1799 in the wilderness--1799 being date the JW's have now discarded.
This next section is by far the most interesting and absurd interpretation of Russell:
12:7.
And
there was war in heaven.—Between the two
ecclesiastical powers, Pagan Rome and Papal Rome.
Michael.—“Who as God,” the Pope.—B. 275; C. 62.
And his
angels.—The Bishops. The following is the reply given
in the Catholic catechism to the question, “Who are the successors of the Apostles?” Ans.
“The bishops who are rightly consecrated,
and are in communion with the head of the Church, the
Pope.”
[Fought against]
TO WAR WITH the dragon.—Attempted to get the temporal
power away from the civil rulers.—Rev. 2:12.
And the
dragon.—Imperial Rome.—B. 288; Rev. 12:3;
20:2.
Fought and his
angels.—Did everything possible to circumscribe the
growing power of the papacy, but all in vain.—Rev. 2:12.
Hilariously, the Jehovah Witnesses claimed "Michael" is the Pope, and the angel are Bishops! So far Ruselle said that the "child" is the Papacy, then says Michael is the Papacy! This is strange considering how the Watchtower today uses this verse to "prove" Jesus and Michael are the same person.
Some more ludicrous interpretations:
12:10.
And
I heard a loud voice saying in heaven.—In the Roman
Catholic Church.
So far the child, Michael, angels, and now heaven are all the Catholic Church! Interesting also how "heaven" changes within this chapter from one thing to another!
Interestingly, Charles Russell seems to think there can be Christians in the Catholic Church!
And went to make
war with the remnant of her seed.—The true saints in
the Roman Catholic communion or wherever otherwise found,—always
objects of hatred and oppression by ecclesiasticism.—Rev. 13:7.
This shouldn't be too big of a surprise since many groups, despite being anti-Catholic need to show how they've always been around, I've see Adventists, Baptists and other obscure groups tie themselves to hiding in the Catholic church in the old days.
If we continue on to the next chapter, he says the papacy/Catholic Church is not only the "child," "Michael," the "angels," "heaven," but also the "beast" of Revelation 13:1.
To "prove" the Pope is the antichrist, Russell repeats the "vicarius Filii Dei" lie, a term never used by the Popes, and only can be found in the "donation of Constantine"--and then just of Peter himself. There is no evidence it was ever written on the Papal tiara.
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society,Jehovah Witnesses, believe that the Prophet Enoch mentioned in Genesis 5 died. This is an attempt to defend the idea no human went to heaven before Christ ascended (almost always quoting John 3:13). Here is what the Watchtower said September 15, 2001:
“God Took Him”
Enoch was apparently in mortal danger when “God took him.” (Genesis 5:24) Jehovah did not allow his faithful prophet to suffer at the hands of rabid enemies. According to the apostle Paul, “Enoch was transferred so as not to see death.” (Hebrews 11:5) Many say that Enoch did not die—that God took him to heaven, where he kept on living. However, Jesus plainly stated: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” Jesus was the “forerunner” of all who ascend to heaven.—John 3:13; Hebrews 6:19, 20.
So, what happened to Enoch? His being “transferred so as not to see death” may mean that God put him in a prophetic trance and then terminated his life while he was in that state. Under such circumstances, Enoch would not experience the pangs of death. Then “he was nowhere to be found,” apparently because Jehovah disposed of his body, even as he disposed of Moses’ body.—Deuteronomy 34:5, 6.
Enoch lived 365 years—not nearly as long as most of his contemporaries. But the important thing for lovers of Jehovah is that they serve him faithfully to the end of their days. We know that Enoch did that because “before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well.” The Scriptures do not disclose how Jehovah communicated this to Enoch. Nevertheless, before Enoch died, he was given assurance of God’s approval, and we can be certain that Jehovah will remember him in the resurrection. --Enoch Walked With God in an Ungodly World, w01 9/15 pp. 29-31
Here the Watchtower contradicts the Bible out right. It quotes Hebrews 11:5 which says Enoch was "transferred so as not to see death" then claims it means God "put him in a prophetic trance then terminated his life while he was in that state." Which does not make sense at all, how is God killing you "not seeing death"? Then it goes on say he did not "experience the pangs of death." Seemingly, equating "transferred so as not to see death" as meaning "he died painlessly." Again, how this is even remotely suggested by the text of Hebrews? What makes this interpretation even more absurd is the little background story the Watchtower concocted in the prior paragraph, which says Enoch was in "mortal danger" (i.e. people wanted to kill him) from his "rabid enemies", which they say is why "God took him."
To simplify the Jehovah Witness explanation, it is, Enoch was about to be killed by his enemies, so God gave him some sort of Divine lethal injection, so God rather than Enoch's enemies would kill him! Apparently, 'God' thought, "Hey, they can't kill him, he's my friend, if anyone kills him, it's should be me!"
The Jehovah Witness explanation would be reasonable if we did not have Hebrews 11:5, or if Hebrews 11:5 said instead, "Enoch was transferred so as not to see death AT THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES." But, even it does not explain "transferred."
Let's go to the book of Genesis to see why its not reasonable to think Enoch died when it says "he was taken."
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enosh: 7and Seth lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8and all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9And Enosh lived ninety years, and begat Kenan. 10and Enosh lived after he begat Kenan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11and all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12And Kenan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalalel: 13and Kenan lived after he begat Mahalalel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: 14and all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15And Mahalalel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: 16And Mahalalel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: 17and all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and begat Enoch: 19and Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 20And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: 22and Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 23and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: 26and Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. 27And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 29and he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh because of the ground which Jehovah hath cursed. 30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: 31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32And Noah was five hundred years old: And Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Genesis 5:32 is where Noah's story starts, and Noah death is mentioned in Genesis 9:29. What we see is Genesis 5 is a genealogy where each patriarch DIES (in case you missed the subtle "and he died" at the end of their section), with the exception of Enoch who "was not; for God TOOK HIM." If Enoch died, it would have said so, just as the text said so with his fathers and sons. We also have testimony that the Jews at the 2nd temple believed Enoch was bodily take to heaven (he did not ascend, but was taken) in this piece of Scripture that the Catholic Church and early Christians accepted:
Few have ever been created on earth like Enoch, for he was taken up from the earth. --Sirach 49:14
Going, back to Hebrews 11:5 the phrase "not see death" is used elsewhere in the Bible, including Luke 2:26 which reads in the Jehovah Witness "New World Translation":
Furthermore,
it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would
not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah--NWT, Luke 2:26
The meaning here is he would not die, not one would suspect "not see death" would mean "be killed in a trance." That would render the verse into nonsense.
The Watchtower insists John 3:13 teach Christ is the first to go to heaven. The NWT of John 3:13 reads:
Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man.--John 3:13 NWT
The explanation of the Christian church was that it is saying no one "ASCENDED," and not "no one entered" or "was carried" etc. Ascend suggests having the power to achieve it by your own power, which no one but God has. Enoch was "transferred" and "taken," not "ascended." Elijah was also "taken" according to 2 Kings 2:1, "When the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind..." The only time it appears that humans might have "ascended" is in Revelation 11:12 where the two witnesses, after being resurrected (again?) are told to "ascend" and they are provided a cloud which they hop on that takes them to heaven.
After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them: “Come up here.” And they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies saw them--Revelation 11:11-12 NWT
Of course, the Watchtower said this has already happened as of a period between 1914 and 1919:
At the end of their preaching in sackcloth, these anointed ones were symbolically killed when they were thrown into prison for a comparatively shorter period of time, a symbolic three and a half days. In the eyes of the enemies of God’s people, their work had been killed, causing those opponents much joy.—Rev. 11:8-10.
However, true to the words of the prophecy, at the end of the three and a half days, the two witnesses were brought back to life. Not only were these anointed ones released from prison but those who remained faithful received a special appointment from God through their Lord, Jesus Christ. In 1919 they were among those who were appointed to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” to care for the spiritual needs of God’s people during the last days.—Matt. 24:45-47; Rev. 11:11, 12. -- Watchtower, November 2014, Questions from Readers
But this is another absurd interpretation all together that exaggerates what happened in the early 20th century. The Bible does not call people being taken to heaven as "ascension" unless this cloud that lifts them up is to be counted. Going on, part of the reason the Watchtower does not say this is actually Moses or Elijah (or any other OT figure) is because they deny anyone from the times before Christ will be in heaven, despite Hebrews 11:16 saying about the Old Testament patriarch that:
But now they are reaching out for a better place, that is, one belonging to heaven. Therefore, God is not ashamed of them, to be called on as their God, for he has prepared a city for them--Hebrews 11:16 NWT
Of course the NWT translates it as goofy as a possible to give the impression that its only a place that heaven controls, not heaven itself! Despite the fact the NWT translates the same exact Greek word as "heavenly" in Hebrews 3:1 and 6:4, not including the only other time it appears in the NT--1 Corinthians 15:49.
Conclusion: The Watchtower has to jump through hoops to support its doctrine that Enoch died (creating a fictional story of God putting him in a trance to kill him)!
The LDS runs a website called familysearch.org where you can go to find information about deceased people. Unfortunately, depending where you live, you may very well find yourself listed as "deceased." Furthermore, the website takes public records from the State of California (which ordinarily are not EASY to access), and makes them publicly available to all around the world on the internet. You provide people with personal information like birthdays, addresses, phone numbers, mother's maiden names, previous residences, etc. Occasionally, the information will be mistyped. Yet, why does the one true Church need to make people's personal information publicly available on a website? Perhaps, its easier to baptize dead people if they are actually alive!
In an anti-Catholic chat group, several Calvinist apologists were going after the Catholic Church for stating that Catholics have the same God as Muslims. To do this, the Calvinist resorted to mechanically repeating claims against Islam from the internet like Aramaic Broadcasting Network's Jesus or Muhammad, from people like Sam Samoun, and then using things they've just heard.
Part of their argument against Muslims having a different God is that Muslims are Unitarian--meaning they believe there is only one Person in the Godhead, that is no Trinity, and deny the Divine Nature of Christ completely, regulating Him to a mere prophet. This is true about Islam, but does that mean they have a different God because they deny the Trinity and Deity of Christ? Protestants will rarely state Jews have a different God, since they tend to have less animosity towards them than Muslims (and understandably!). Here is roughly how the conversation went before I was kicked out of the room, it will be a paraphrase, since the text was lost when I was kicked:
Matt Slick: The Catholic Church is wrong in saying Muslims and Christians have the same God.
Me: Jews have the same God as Christians, and Jews say their God is the same as Allah.
Reformer*: Maimonides said Muhammad was a 'mad man!"
Me: Calling their prophet mad doesn't mean he was an idolater! He said Muslims were NOT idolaters even.
Since I was kicked out before I could provide evidence for the claim. Let's take "Reformer*" usage of Maimonides, despite him calling Muhammad 'al mashugah' he said Mulims were not idolaters (a term he had no problem applying to Christians).
...When your teacher called you a fool for denying that Muslims are
idolaters he sinned grievously, and it is fitting that he ask your
pardon, though he be your master. Then let him fast and weep and pray;
perhaps he will find forgiveness. Was he intoxicated that he forgot the
thirty-three passages in which the Law admonishes concerning
"strangers"? For even if he had been in the right and you in error, it
was his duty to be gentle; how much more, when the truth is with you and
he was in error! And when he was discussing whether a Muslim is an idolater, he should have been cautious not to lose his temper with a proselyte of righteousness and put him to shame...--Maimonides Letter to an Inquirer (found in A Maimonides Reader, p. 477)
P2: Jews believe Muslims have the same God as Jews.
Conclusion: Christians have the same God as Muslims.
Of course, some more refined Protestants will bizarrely insist Judaism is idolatrous because they deny the Trinity, and therefore worship a false god. But this is rare.
Matt Slick responded to my claim that Jews deny the Trinity like Muslims, he answered that Jews do not deny the trinity, they are just ignorant of it, whereas Muslims explicitly reject it. This is dishonest, if anything, Jews have lived in Christian lands for almost 2000 years, why should we think they are merely IGNORANT of it? Maimonides knew Christians were Trinitarian and insisted that makes them idolaters. This appeal to ignorance is awful.
Many of the Protestants insisted John's epistles state that if you do not have the Son, you do not have the Father. This is not a statement about believing in the true God, its about being IN God, and God in you. No one claims Muslims (or any group) are saved simply because they have the same basic concept of God (One Almighty, omnipresent God) and certainly rejection of Christ is a condition for damnation, a person cannot have the Father without also having the Son. They have to mangle St John's intent make this argument work!
Furthermore, the Apostles never accused the Jews of becoming idolaters for denying Christ, but simply "cut off from them people" and even "playing the harlot" by no embracing Christ.
During the Arian and modalist controversies the Catholic party never accused them of being idolaters or worshipping a false god because of their heretical understanding of the persons of God. Islam is a form of Arianism. The Church Fathers at the rise of Islam and after, as well as Muslim sources, despite Muhammad as being instructed by a Christian monk named Bahira (Buhaira in Arabic) who the fathers believed filled Muhammad's mind with Arian heresy. The church father did not accuse Allah of being a "moon-god," though they did accuse Muslims of inadvertently venerating the pagan goddesses image at Mecca.
Also, it should be mention Martin Luther, seemed to possibly accept the idea that Muslims worship "one true God."
